COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Education and Training Monitor 2012 Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission Rethinking education: investing in skills for better socio-economic outcomes /* SWD/2012/0373 final */
Table
of contents Executive summary. 3 1. Introduction
to the New Education and Training Monitor 5 2. Investment
in education in a context of demographic change and economic crisis 7 2.1. Efficiency
and effectiveness of education and training. 7 2.2. Demographic
change and education spending. 9 2.3. The
crisis and education spending. 10 3. Early
leavers from education and training. 14 3.1. The
problem of early school leaving. 14 3.2. Progress
towards headline target and national targets 16 3.3. An
EU trajectory towards 2020. 18 3.4. The
road ahead for Member States 19 4. Encouraging
participation in Higher Education. 21 4.1. The
issue of attaining increased levels of higher education completion. 21 4.2. The
current status and trajectories towards 2020. 24 4.3. The
road ahead for Member States 26 5. The
case for high-quality Early Childhood Education and Care. 27 5.1. The
quality of ECEC provision. 28 5.2. Targeted
support for disadvantaged groups 29 6. Acquiring
the skills needed for the future. 30 6.1. Basic
skills: reading, maths and science. 30 6.2. Language
skills 32 6.3. ICT
skills 37 6.4. Entrepreneurial
skills 39 6.5. Civic
skills 40 7. Student
mobility in vocational training and Higher Education. 42 7.1. Promoting
learning mobility of young people. 42 7.2. Mobility
in vocational education and training. 42 7.3. Mobility
in higher education. 43 8. Adult
participation in lifelong learning. 47 8.1. Participation
of adults in learning activities 47 8.2. The
relevance of informal learning. 49 8.3. What
levels of competences have adults acquired? 49 9. Matching
educational outcomes and labour market needs. 51 9.1. The
employment rate of graduates 51 9.2. The
educational attainment of adults 54 9.3. Future
skills needs 56 Annexes. 59 Annex 1. Further tables and figures 59 Annex 2. List of abbreviations 67 2.1. Country
abbreviations 67 2.2. General
abbreviations 68
Executive
summary
Education and training play a key role for Europe's strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Europe 2020. To unlock the
full potential of education as a driver for growth and jobs, Member States must
pursue reforms to boost both the performance and efficiency of their education
systems. This Education and Training Monitor is a new analytical
tool that provides the empirical evidence to underpin this reform agenda. It is
a succinct yet comprehensive overview of the core indicators on education and
training systems in Europe, enabling the reader to compare and contrast recent
progress as well as identify the immediate challenges for Member States[1]. It supports the Commission Communication
"Rethinking Education", and is part of a package of Staff Working
Documents that elaborate on the education dimension of Europe 2020. It is also
integral to a larger initiative bringing existing EU-level cooperation in
education and training ("ET 2020") in line with Europe 2020
objectives[2].
Key findings of the Education and Training Monitor 2012
are: 1.
Education is part of the solution to tackle the impact of the crisis,
but only if investment is efficient. The returns on
investment in education and training are undeniable, both monetary and
non-monetary, for the individual as well as for society at large. Education
spending up until 2009 did not decrease despite the challenges of the economic
crisis, but cutbacks have been apparent since. Further demographic changes and
budgetary constraints are likely to increase the need to improve efficiency of
education expenditures. 2.
Efforts to combat early school leaving must be increased as a
matter of urgency. The early school leaving headline target is
unlikely to be reached unless Member States step up their efforts. The
prospects for early school leavers are getting worse, with their unemployment at
an alarming rate and forecasted to increase. The problem is further aggravated
by disparities according to gender and country of birth. 3.
Action to widen participation in tertiary education now needs to
be more targeted. In the last five years there has been
significant progress in the share of 30-34 year olds who have successfully
qualified from higher education. This trend means that it is possible to reach
the headline target by 2020 at EU level, if present efforts are sustained.
However, some Member States still have considerable progress to make to reach
their national targets. Moreover the tertiary attainment rate for men is
significantly lower than that for women – a cause for concern. 4.
Improving early childhood education and care must continue to be
a priority. The increasing level of participation in early childhood
education and care is encouraging. But to provide a solid start for individuals
and to be a potential equaliser for European societies, the provision must be
of sufficient quality. Quality indicators, such as the child/staff ratio and
total expenditure, show strong discrepancies between Member States and only slight improvements over the last few years. 5.
Inequalities in achievement of basic skills must be tackled. A worrying
number of 15-year-olds fail to reach basic ability levels in reading, maths and
science. In addition, the EU average masks serious gender inequalities – with
the share of low-achieving boys now close to twice the share of low-achieving
girls, and significant low performance for foreign-born pupils even when taking
socio-economic status into account. 6.
Providing relevant skills: a new EU benchmark for language
competences. Foreign language provision is still far off the EU
objective of learning 'mother tongue plus two' from a very early age, despite
progress in primary, lower secondary and vocational education. In addition, first
evidence of young people's language competences highlights low levels
indicating that language teaching must become more effective. Against this
background, the Commission will propose a new EU benchmark on language
competences. 7.
Embedding ICT and open educational resources (OER) in teaching
and learning can combat the digital divide. The percentage of the
adult population with some computer skills has significantly increased over the
last five years, but there remain large differences between countries and gaps
according to age and educational attainment. Action to increase ICT skill
levels is needed, and education and training systems can contribute to this by
embedding ICT and OER (open educational resources). 8.
Entrepreneurship education should be prioritised. Most
Member States have strategies or on-going initiatives addressing the
implementation of entrepreneurship education into general education at primary
and/or secondary level, yet only in a quarter of member states did a majority
of adults believe they had the right skills and knowledge to start a business.
Consequently, entrepreneurship needs to be introduced early, and included at
all levels and in all disciplines of education and training. 9.
A recent trend is that the learning mobility of young people is
increasing across Europe. It is more developed in tertiary level
education where close to 650000 EU students study outside their country of
origin most in another EU country, with more than one third supported by
Erasmus grants. Even with little available data, evidence suggests that
mobility levels in initial VET are significantly lower. 10.
Participation in adult learning is stagnating and must be
urgently addressed. Adult lifelong learning is still far from a
reality. Participation in learning activities is stagnating, with considerable
variation between countries. New developments, such as open educational resources,
could help to unlock the potential of informal learning amongst the adult
population, allowing for self-guided and occasional learning from a variety of
sources. 11.
Significant effort is required to reach the employability
benchmark by 2020. The employment rate of those with tertiary
attainment is more than ten percentage points higher than those with only
secondary education, while in the current crisis the population with lower
attainment is most at risk of unemployment. However, the employment rate of
young graduates has fallen since 2008 and strong efforts and additional
measures are needed to reach the employability target set for 2020.
Education and
training Monitor 2012
1.
Introduction to the New Education and Training
Monitor
The Education and Training Monitor contains a wealth of
quantitative information and comparative analysis that will back up the
country-specific assessment during the European Semester and the drafting of
country-specific Recommendations. The insight it provides will also help to
inform work under ET 2020, such as peer-learning, the identification of good
practice or the debate with and among stakeholders. It is a tool to foster and encourage evidence-based
policy making, and draws on the working methods established through Europe
2020, in particular the Joint Assessment Framework (JAF), to help ensure
consistent assessment of progress across Member States. Under ET 2020, four strategic objectives have been
agreed (table 1.1) and a number of EU benchmarks have been set (table 1.2), of
which two – concerning early school leaving and tertiary educational attainment
– have been taken up by Europe 2020 as headline targets. These benchmarks offer
insight and help to gauge Member States' progress. They have been addressed systematically
throughout the Monitor. Table
1.1. Four ET 2020
Strategic Objectives 1. Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality; 2. Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training; 3. Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship; 4. Enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship, at all levels of education and training. In 2012, an additional benchmark on employability was
agreed and evidence is presented here for the first time. A further benchmark
on language competences - that has been prepared upon request of the Council -
is set out in a separate document[3],
and once adopted will be addressed in future editions of the Monitor. Table 1.2. Seven ET 2020 Benchmarks 1. At least 95% of children between the age of four and the age for starting compulsory primary education should participate in early childhood education; 2. The share of 15 year-olds with insufficient abilities in reading, mathematics and science should be less than 15%; 3. The share of early leavers from education and training should be less than 10%; 4. The share of 30-34 year-olds with tertiary educational attainment should be at least 40%; 5. An average of at least 15 % of adults (age group 25-64) should participate in lifelong Learning; 6. At least 20 % of higher education graduates and 6% of 18-34 year-olds with an initial VET qualification should have had a period of study or training abroad; 7. The share of employed graduates (20-34 year-olds) having left education and training no more than three years before the reference year should be at least 82%. Note: benchmarks (3)
and (4) together form a headline target of the Europe 2020 strategy. An
eighth benchmark, covering foreign language skills and based on the European
Language Competence Survey, is currently being developed, with a view of an
adoption by the Council in the first semester 2013. This first Education and Training Monitor provides an
EU-wide overview of where Member States stand in relation to the ET 2020
benchmarks, looking at different subgroups where the data allows for such
differentiation. To support the Communication on Rethinking Education,
particular attention is given to indicators that describe the situation and
trends in terms of skills. Chapter two addresses education in relation to the
crisis and to demographic changes. Chapters three and four examine the Europe
2020 education headline targets on early school leaving and tertiary educational
attainment respectively. Chapters five through nine deal with the further ET
2020 benchmarks and related indicators, with a focus on various skills and
competences in chapter six. Table 1.3. Summary of Education & Training Indicators Source: Eurostat (UOE, LFS), OECD (PISA), Cedefop, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, European Survey on Language Competences
ESLC. 07 =2007, 08 =2008, 09 =2009, 10 =2010,
11 =2011, e= estimate, b= break, p= provisional. Number of countries
included in EU average: PISA=25, Entrepreneurship=18, Language skills=13,
ICT/Computers at school=13. 1= having carried out 5-6 specific
computer related activities, 2= average of skills tested in reading,
listening, writing.
2.
Investment in education in a context of
demographic change and economic crisis
Two important developments are changing the context in
which education and training systems operate. The first one is the impact of
the economic, financial and sovereign debt crisis on our labour markets,
economies and societies. The second one is the process of demographic ageing
and in particular its impact on the labour market. Education and training are part of the solution to face
up to both of these challenges, as they help to boost productivity, innovation
and competitiveness. However, to reap the benefits of investing in education
and training presupposes the ability to mobilise the necessary funding first.
In times of tight public finance, it would be contra-productive to cut down
investment in growth-enhancing policies, such as education. At the same time,
Member States are scrutinising their education and training systems to make
them more efficient and effective so that they contribute to an exit from the
crisis and help by compensating the effects of demographic ageing.
2.1. Efficiency and effectiveness of
education and training
The effectiveness of education and training
systems refers to the output they generate, be it the number of
graduates or the level of skills they master when leaving the education and
training system. Effectiveness can also be defined as the longer term benefits
of education and training, both for the individual (e.g. increased earnings)
and for society at large (e.g. labour productivity, increased tax payments, GDP
growth)[4]. The efficiency of education and training systems
is established when looking at their effectiveness (learning outcomes and long
term benefits) and comparing this to the monetary input made to generate
these outcomes. In other words, what is the output per unit spent? Funding can
come from different sources, such as government expenditure, private sector
contributions or individual payments and fees. Figure 2.1. Public cost and benefits for a man obtaining ISCED 3/4 (2008) Source: OECD (2012),
Education at a Glance 2012, Chart A9.5. Note: countries are ranked in ascending
order of the net present value. Deviating source years for Portugal (2006) and Slovenia (2007). Figures 2.1 and 2.2 illustrate the efficiency of
European education and training systems in terms of their public monetary costs
(direct costs and foregone taxes on earnings) and public monetary benefits over
an individual's working life (income taxes, increased social insurance payments
and lower social transfers). The public returns of upper secondary or
post-secondary non-tertiary education are positive in all European countries
except Estonia (figure 2.1). Although the figure only illustrates the net gains
for male students, both men and women yield public benefits that, on average,
are about twice as large as the overall public costs at this level.[5] The
public returns of tertiary education are much higher still, partly because
individuals bear some of the cost of the education provided in some countries
(figure 2.2). Public benefits outweigh the costs by a factor of three
for men and a factor of two for women, on average. In Hungary, the benefits are 14 times larger than the public sector’s initial investment in a man’s
tertiary education. Figure 2.2. Public cost and benefits for a man obtaining ISCED 5/6 (2008) Source: OECD (2012),
Education at a Glance 2012, Chart A9.5. Note: countries are ranked in ascending
order of the net present value. Deviating source years for Portugal (2006) and Slovenia (2007). In 2009, an independent study on the efficiency and
effectiveness of public spending on tertiary education in the EU[6]
identified a slightly different distribution of efficiency across Member
States. The study consistently found the UK and to a lesser extent the Netherlands to generate the highest levels of efficiency, whereas the Czech Republic, Greece, Portugal and Slovakia were repeatedly placed at the bottom of the league in this respect.
Factors positively related to efficiency were output-based funding rules,
independent evaluation of institutions and autonomy in staffing policy. Another
crucial factor was found to be a good quality secondary education system. Recent work on the efficiency and effectiveness of
public spending on education, led by the Directorate-General for Economic and
Financial Affairs[7] [8], confirms
that the efficiency of tertiary education expenditure is strongly linked
to the quality and equity of primary and secondary education. Nurturing earlier
levels of education lays the foundations needed by students to advance to, and
progress in, tertiary education. Indeed, evidence relating to the efficiency and
effectiveness of education spending illustrates how progress at one level of
education can be conditional upon the measures taken at the preceding levels.
This is true, for example, when it comes to broadening access to tertiary
education to those from less favourable family backgrounds[9]. Limited
access to tertiary education among such groups is unlikely to be fully remedied
by action at the level of tertiary education alone (access programmes,
financial support) because the individuals concerned tend to lack the
pre-requisite skill-sets to access and succeed in tertiary education. As a
result, there is a clear need to intervene within the compulsory strand of
education. This confirms the earlier findings from the European Expert Network
on Economics of Education (EENEE), which emphasised the strong
complementarities between efficiency and equality of opportunity, and advocated
early measures to improve the educational outcomes of disadvantaged students[10]. The focus of this chapter is on government expenditure
and its various components. Simply investing more in education and training
does not guarantee higher effectiveness (outcomes), while greater efficiency is
unlikely to be achieved by simple cut-backs. What counts is quality enhancing
reform. Another possibility to seek efficiency gains is to transfer some of the
risks, incentives and responsibilities to the private sector, to schools and
education institutions, or to individual learners. However, more evidence is
needed before concluding on the effects of such measures[11].
2.2. Demographic change and education
spending
Demographic trends have strong implications for the
financing of education across all levels of education and training. The number
of young people in the European Union has declined steadily since 1990 (see
figure 2.3). Figure 2.3. Population and population projection (in millions) by age group (EU
27) Source: Eurostat, population
statistics (2015-2020 from the Europop 2010 forecast, convergence scenario). These overall trends conceal contrasting situations
across the Member States. Countries in the west and north of Europe tend to
have higher birth rates than countries in the south and east of Europe. Around 1990 Central and Eastern European countries experienced a decline in the
birth rates, while starting with the year 2004 they have stabilised or are
increasing again. In many central and eastern European Member States the
population 0-10 years-old has continued to decrease each year up to 2005,
although for these countries and EU27 as a whole since 2005 figures are
slightly increasing. At the same time, Ireland and Spain have recorded
significant growth rates between 2004 and 2008, partly a result of strong net
migration. Against the background of the declining youth
population, the period 2000-2010 saw an overall decrease in intake to primary
education and to lower secondary school. According to the Europop2010
population forecast, this decline is expected to be reversed. For EU27 the
population in the age-group 5-14 years is expected to increase by around 4%
until 2020. These demographic changes have strong implications for
the efficiency of education spending. When it comes to compulsory education (primary
and lower secondary education), which is currently seeing a lower intake of
pupils due to smaller cohorts, there might be possibilities for efficiency
gains, e.g. by seeking synergies in terms of structural changes. It is also
important to bear in mind that early investment in education (see also 2.1),
including early childhood education and care give important long term returns. Future
costs of upper secondary and tertiary education will increase in line with the
expected upturn in enrolment due to higher participation rates, counteracting
the demographic decline. Other reasons why population ageing may
bring additional pressure to bear on education financing are, firstly, the
growing need for periodic education and retraining as working lives gradually
lengthen and, secondly, the increasing importance of education and training in
achieving the productivity growth needed to ensure strong economic growth[12].
2.3. The crisis and education
spending
The crisis brings a message for education and training
that is no less important than the message that education holds for Europe since the crisis started. Budget constraints threaten to compromise the input or
investments made in the field of education, and therefore efficiency is
prioritised, as not to sacrifice the effectiveness of our education and
training systems. In other words, ensuring a higher output per unit invested
becomes increasingly important, and investments are preferably made where
benefits are most promising[13]. At the
same time, however, education and training are a key part of the solution to
the challenge posed by the crisis. As seen in section 2.1, the returns to
investment in education are extraordinary and have therefore an unparalleled
potential for growth.
The
first phase of the crisis: 2009-2010
Europe is suffering a period of economic crisis
and thus it is too early to judge to what extent the crisis has affected
spending on education; it will only become possible to determine the true
impact given a wider time frame. Moreover, the crisis started out initially as
a crisis of the financial sector, with a relatively limited impact on public
finance. Consequently, in the short run, the average education expenditure did
not show any sizeable change, as illustrated in figure 2.4. General government
expenditure (GGE) on education – the total public expenditure from all levels
of government – can be seen as the commitment that a country makes to the
development of skills and competences. Figure 2.4. General Government Expenditure on education and GDP real growth in
EU27 Source: Eurostat. Government
finance statistics (general government expenditure by function) In fact, between 2004 and 2010, GGE on education
measured both as a share of GDP and as a share of total GGE was stable –
reaching 5.5% and 10.8% respectively. The average values in figure 2.2 are
the result of different developments across Member States. As shown in the
annex (tables 2.A and 2.B), the level of GGE on education varies sizeably
between Member States. Whereas in Greece, Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia
and Italy GGE on education is around 4% of GDP or less for all the
years analysed, the spending in other Member States (such as Denmark, Sweden or
Cyprus) is around double that figure (between 7 and 8%). In 2009, nearly all European countries were in recession
(i.e. their GDP decreased) and nearly all maintained or increased their public
spending in education except Portugal and Romania. Not surprisingly, public
expenditure on education as a share of GDP increased in countries which
suffered for consecutive years of recession. This shows that either public
expenditure on education continued to increase or that it decreased at a slower
pace than the GDP. For instance, in Ireland and Latvia, such a share stood at
level above 5% and 6% respectively. In Greece, public expenditure on education
remained close to 4% of GDP from 2008 onwards. Such a pattern is observed in
nearly all the other countries that recorded two consecutive years of
recession. This might also be explained by the time lag that exists in the
orientation of public expenditure on education but also the will of
policy-makers to go on investing in education systems as they are a key for
recovery and future economic growth. When considering national account data, the EU-27
continued to invest in education despite the economic crisis. One third of
European countries followed this trend and did not register any decrease in
real public expenditure in education from 2007 onwards. However, several
countries registered a drop in real public expenditure in education for one or
several consecutive years. This occurred over three consecutive years in Italy (2008 - 2010) and Hungary (2007 – 2009) and during two consecutive years (2009 and 2010) in Bulgaria, Greece, Latvia, Romania and Iceland. However, the level of public expenditure remained
higher in 2010 than that of 2000 in all these countries except Italy. Table 2.1. Total public expenditure on education
as % of GDP, by level of education || All levels of education combined || Primary level of education (ISCED 1) || Secondary level of education (ISCED 2-4) || Tertiary level of education (ISCED 5-6) || pre-primary level of education (ISCED 0) and not allocated 2004 || 2009 || 2004 || 2009 || 2004 || 2009 || 2004 || 2009 || 2004 || 2009 EU 27 countries || 5.06 || 5.41 || 1.16 || 1.24 || 2.29 || 2.41 || 1.13 || 1.22 || 0.49 || 0.55 Belgium || 5.95 || 6.57 || 1.41 || 1.50 || 2.56 || 2.85 || 1.29 || 1.47 || 0.69 || 0.75 Bulgaria || 4.40 || 4.58 || 0.84 || 0.85 || 2.02 || 1.87 || 0.78 || 0.95 || 0.76 || 0.91 Czech Republic || 4.20 || 4.38 || 0.64 || 0.70 || 2.17 || 2.07 || 0.90 || 1.02 || 0.48 || 0.60 Denmark || 8.43 || 8.72 || 1.93 || 2.12 || 2.94 || 2.94 || 2.51 || 2.41 || 1.04 || 1.25 Germany || 4.62 || 5.06 || 0.66 || 0.69 || 2.33 || 2.48 || 1.17 || 1.34 || 0.47 || 0.55 Estonia || 4.92 || 6.09 || 1.27 || 1.53 || 2.45 || 2.70 || 0.86 || 1.34 || 0.35 || 0.51 Ireland || 4.65 || 6.50 || 1.56 || 2.32 || 2.00 || 2.58 || 1.09 || 1.54 || 0.00 || 0.05 Greece || 3.83 || : || 1.06 || : || 1.34 || : || 1.33 || : || 0.11 || : Spain || 4.25 || 5.01 || 1.10 || 1.27 || 1.69 || 1.88 || 0.97 || 1.14 || 0.48 || 0.72 France || 5.80 || 5.89 || 1.17 || 1.18 || 2.76 || 2.69 || 1.21 || 1.34 || 0.67 || 0.68 Italy || 4.56 || 4.70 || 1.18 || 1.18 || 2.16 || 2.18 || 0.77 || 0.86 || 0.45 || 0.48 Cyprus || 6.77 || 7.98 || 1.86 || 2.21 || 3.08 || 3.30 || 1.49 || 2.06 || 0.34 || 0.41 Latvia || 5.08 || 5.64 || 0.83 || 1.59 || 2.91 || 2.29 || 0.68 || 0.79 || 0.66 || 0.98 Lithuania || 5.17 || 5.64 || 0.74 || 0.73 || 2.71 || 3.04 || 1.06 || 1.14 || 0.66 || 0.74 Luxembourg || 3.87 || : || 2.12 || 1.36 || 1.75 || 1.84 || : || : || : || 0.59 Hungary || 5.44 || 5.12 || 1.03 || 0.86 || 2.46 || 2.22 || 1.02 || 1.13 || 0.93 || 0.91 Malta || 4.79 || 5.46 || 1.01 || 1.20 || 1.91 || 2.69 || 0.53 || 1.19 || 1.34 || 0.38 Netherlands || 5.46 || 5.94 || 1.44 || 1.48 || 2.15 || 2.42 || 1.45 || 1.63 || 0.42 || 0.41 Austria || 5.48 || 6.01 || 1.04 || 1.05 || 2.61 || 2.83 || 1.43 || 1.57 || 0.40 || 0.55 Poland || 5.41 || 5.10 || 1.70 || 1.58 || 2.01 || 1.92 || 1.15 || 1.07 || 0.55 || 0.52 Portugal || 5.10 || 5.79 || 1.61 || 1.56 || 2.12 || 2.60 || 0.80 || 1.07 || 0.57 || 0.55 Romania || 3.28 || 4.24 || 1.20 || 0.78 || 0.73 || 1.53 || 0.70 || 1.20 || 0.66 || 0.73 Slovenia || 5.74 || 5.70 || 2.63 || 2.49 || 1.34 || 1.26 || 1.30 || 1.38 || 0.48 || 0.57 Slovakia || 4.19 || 4.09 || 0.56 || 0.75 || 2.11 || 1.93 || 0.98 || 0.81 || 0.54 || 0.60 Finland || 6.42 || 6.81 || 1.37 || 1.35 || 2.63 || 2.89 || 2.07 || 2.16 || 0.35 || 0.40 Sweden || 7.09 || 7.26 || 1.91 || 1.75 || 2.66 || 2.75 || 2.02 || 2.04 || 0.50 || 0.73 United Kingdom || 5.16 || 5.67 || 1.35 || 1.76 || 2.47 || 2.78 || 1.00 || 0.81 || 0.34 || 0.31 Source: Eurostat. UOE data
collection. Indicators on education finance.
See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/Annexes/educ_esms_an18.pdf for
additional country notes The allocation of resources between different levels of
education seems to explain some of the cross-country variation. Indeed, the
small growth of total public expenditure on education[14] between
2004 and 2009 was not shared evenly by the level of education (see table 2.1).
At the EU level, about a third of this growth was assigned to secondary
education, while a sixth at pre-primary and not allocated level; and primary
and tertiary education levels consumed each about a quarter. Most of the education spending consists of current
expenditure; mainly salaries and other contributions to teachers (see table 2.C
in the annex). In 2009, current expenditure was more than 90% of total
expenditure in public education institutions across the EU, and not below 80%
in any of the Member States. Because of the importance of personnel
expenditure, the expenditure on public education institutions per pupil/student
(table 2.D in the annex) is highly influenced by the level of the wages in the
economy considered, with richer economies tending to spend more. However, a
breakdown of this indicator by level of education shows a common pattern:
throughout Europe, the spending on primary education per pupil tends to be
lower than the spending on secondary education, which on turn is lower than the
spending on tertiary education.
The second phase of the crisis: 2011-2012
From a recent Eurydice report that analyses the recent
trends in national policies and budgets for education it can be seen that when
looking only at 2011 central budgets for education compared to 2010, there was
more than a 5% decrease in the education budget in six countries. However the
reasons for these reductions are partially explained by the demographic
evolution and only in some countries by anti-crisis measures[15]. One area that has been more affected is the financing of
human resources. In fact, one third of the European countries or regions report
that the economic and financial crisis has had a direct impact on their
teaching workforce. Twelve European countries mention that demographic
developments are among the main reasons for changes in the funding of human
resources. In most cases, a decrease in the number of students, particularly at
upper secondary level has led to the need to rationalise the available
resources. However, in several countries, there were positive changes in
budgets triggered by an increase in the number of students, especially at
pre-primary and primary levels of education. Six countries or regions report that changes in the
financing of human resources reflect educational reforms and new policy
priorities, which are sometimes also made against the background of austerity
and attempts to reduce state deficits. In the last two years teachers' salaries
were not directly affected by the economic downturn in more than half of
countries and teachers received the same adjustment as the staff working in the
public sector. In a group of ten countries, as an intermediate solution, no
cuts were applied in the statutory teachers' salaries but they were not indexed
in accordance with the inflation levels. Indeed their absolute values were
maintained, but in practice the overall purchasing power declined. Starting from the school year 2009/10 and especially
after mid-2010, the effect of the economic downturn and the pressure on the
public finances was much more pronounced and more countries were obliged to
apply salary cuts for teachers and other public employees. This was reported by
Ireland, Greece, Spain (reduction mainly in 2010/11), Portugal, Slovenia (mainly in the allowances) and some others. In Italy a salary freeze was applied. In 2012, the majority of countries maintained their
arrangements regarding the funding of support mechanisms for pupils and
students and/or their families. From the countries with available data only Spain (central budget), Cyprus and Portugal reported a decrease in the funding of available schemes
for support of people in education. Eight other countries reported partial reduction
in the funding of one or more different available support mechanisms for pupils
and students. Some of these reductions in the overall budget were due to the
relative reduction of the number of potential beneficiaries (in the case of
child allowances), or restructuring of the criteria for grant allocation for
example. In some other cases, the reduction is due to the budget reallocation
or restrictions.
3.
Early leavers from education and training
3.1. The
problem of early school leaving
With growing demands for high skills and qualifications,
upper secondary education is now firmly entrenched as a minimum attainment
level for all European citizens leaving the education and training system.
Young people who leave education and training prematurely[16]
lack crucial skills and run the risk of facing serious, persistent problems on
the labour market. Indeed, the problem of early school leaving (ESL) is
best defined by its consequences. Across the EU, 54.8% of early school leavers
are either unemployed or inactive (figure 3.1). Of these not-employed early
school leavers, about 70% would like to work. Overall youth unemployment,
comparatively, is 21.3% across the EU[17]. And the unemployment risk for early school leavers is
likely to become worse. According to the latest skills forecast from Cedefop[18],
the number of jobs available across the EU for individuals with lower secondary
education at most – which has already decreased 20.4% between 2000 and 2010 –
is likely to decrease a further 18.9% between 2010 and 2020. Figure 3.1. Early leavers from education and training by employment status
(2011) Source: Eurostat (LFS). For Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Iceland and Malta: DG EAC, estimation based on Eurostat data. For Croatia and Slovenia: Data lack reliability due to small sample size. *MK: The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Individual early school leavers who do manage to enter
the labour market are more likely to be in precarious and low-paid jobs and to
draw on welfare and other social programmes throughout their lives. Moreover,
they are less likely to be 'active citizens' or to engage in lifelong learning[19].
For society at large, ESL is an obstacle to economic growth and employment[20].
It hampers productivity and competitiveness, and fuels poverty and social
exclusion. With its shrinking workforce, Europe has to make full use of its
human resources. Tackling ESL is a stepping stone towards improving
opportunities for young people as well as achieving smart, sustainable and
inclusive growth. In 2011, ESL across the EU amounted on average to 13.5%.
This means that 5.6 million individuals aged 18 to 24 left education and
training early, with lower secondary education at most. As can be seen in table
3.1, foreign-born students are at much higher risk of dropping out of school.
School systems often fail to adequately include foreign-born students,
sometimes dramatically so (Greece, Italy, Spain)[21].
The risk of early school leaving is closely linked to the lower socioeconomic
status of students born abroad. At the same time, in all Member States except Bulgaria education systems prove less capable of leading boys to upper secondary graduation
than girls. On average, early school leaving is more than 30% higher amongst
boys than amongst girls, with peaks for Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland[22]. Table 3.1. Early leavers from education and training by sex and country of
birth (%) || 2006 || 2011 || Target Total || Total || Males || Females || Foreign-born (i) || EU 27 countries || 15.5 || 13.5 || 15.3 || 11.6 || 24.9 || < 10.0 Belgium || 12.6 || 12.3 || 14.9 || 9.7 || 23.3 || 9.5 Bulgaria || 17.3 || 12.8 || 12.0 || 13.7 || : || 11.0 Czech Republic || 5.1 || 4.9 || 5.4 || 4.4 || (10.3) || 5.5 Denmark || 9.1 || 9.6 || 12.1 || 7.0 || (13.0) || < 10.0 Germany || 13.7 || 11.5 || 12.4 || 10.6 || 21.9 || < 10.0 Estonia || 13.5 || 10.9 || (13.1) || (8.6) || : || 9.5 Ireland || 12.1 || 10.6 || 12.5 || 8.7 || 15.4 || 8.0 Greece || 15.5 || 13.1 || 16.1 || 10.1 || 44.9 || 9.7 Spain || 30.5 || 26.5 || 31.0 || 21.9 || 41.2 || 15.0 France || 12.4 || 12.0 || 13.9 || 10.2 || 21.9 || 9.5 Italy || 20.6 || 18.2 || 21.0 || 15.2 || 40.2 || 15.0-16.0 Cyprus || 14.9 || 11.2 || 15.1 || 8.1 || 21.7 || 10.0 Latvia || 14.8 || 11.8 || 15.9 || 7.7 || : || 13.4 Lithuania || 8.2 || 7.9 || 10.6 || (5.0) || : || < 9.0 Luxembourg || 14.0 || (6.2) || (7.6) || : || : || < 10.0 Hungary || 12.6 || 11.2 || 12.1 || 10.3 || : || 10.0 Malta [23] || 39.9 p || 33.5 p || 38.9 p || 27.6 p || : || 29.0 Netherlands || 12.6 || 9.1 || 10.8 || 7.2 || 8.7 || < 8.0 Austria || 9.8 || 8.3 || 8.8 || 7.8 || 19.8 || 9.5 Poland || 5.4 || 5.6 || 7.4 || 3.8 || : || 4.5 Portugal || 39.1 || 23.2 || 28.2 || 18.1 || 21.0 || 10.0 Romania || 17.9 || 17.5 || 18.5 || 16.6 || : || 11.3 Slovenia || 5.6 || (4.2) || (5.7) || (2.5) || (17.3) || 5.0 Slovakia || 6.6 || 5.0 || 5.4 || 4.6 || : || 6.0 Finland || 9.7 || 9.8 || 11.2 || 8.4 || 21.1 || 8.0 Sweden || 8,6 p || 6.7 p || 7.8 p || 5.3 p || 11.1 p || < 10.0 United Kingdom || 11.3 || 15.0 || 16.2 || 13.8 || 11.4 || : Croatia || (4.7) || (4.1) || (4.8) || (3.4) || : || : Montenegro || : || : || : || : || : || : Iceland || 25.6 || 19.7 || 22.2 || 17.1 || : || : MK* || 22.8 || 13.5 || 11.9 || 15.2 || (27.1) || : Serbia || : || : || : || : || : || : Turkey || 48.8 || 41.9 || 37.7 || 45.7 || 25.0 || : Liechtenstein || : || : || : || : || : || : Norway || 17.8 b || 16.6 || 19.9 || 13.1 || 16.7 || : Source: Eurostat (LFS).
Intermediate breaks in time series for Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Notes: "b" = break in time series;
"p" = provisional; "()" = Data lack reliability due to
small sample size; ":" = data either not available or not reliable
due to very small sample size; *MK: The former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia; see Annex 2.1; (i) The sub-group foreign-born refers to first
generation immigrants, and hence does not capture second or third generation
immigrants or populations who are not naturalized. The average ESL rate for the EU27 has decreased by 12.9%
between 2006 and 2011 (table 3.1), out of which 9.4% between 2008 and 2011
(figure 3.2). Figure 3.2 shows how, on average, the ESL rate has decreased more
for native-born than for foreign-born individuals and more for women than for
men; indicating that the gaps between these subgroups have increased. Closing
the gender gap and the difference between native-born and foreign-born students
is likely to have a strong impact on the overall EU performance on this
headline target. Figure 3.2. 2008-2011 change in ESL rate of subgroups (EU27) Source: JRC-CRELL
calculations based on Eurostat data.
3.2. Progress
towards headline target and national targets
The Europe 2020 Strategy headline target aims to bring
down the rate of ESL to below 10% or less by 2020[24].
The current situation varies significantly across Member States. A number of
countries have reached the benchmark, primarily in Northern and Eastern Europe. Some countries were already below 10% at the beginning of the monitoring
period and have further improved their performance since 2000. In various
southern Member States the situation is still problematic. Currently, 11 Member States are over the 10% benchmark. Malta (33.5%), Spain (26.5%) and Portugal (23.2%) have the highest rates of ESL, but have made a lot
of progress in recent years. Other Member States that have reduced ESL include Cyprus (11.2%), Latvia (11.8%) and Bulgaria (12.8%). Only a small minority of countries have
experienced an increasing rate from 2006 to 2011. Figure 3.3 provides a more comprehensive picture of
Member States on the basis of their current share of early school leavers and
their average annual progress over the more recent period 2008-2011. The
dashed horizontal line in figure 3.3 represents the Europe 2020 headline target
(an ESL rate below 10%). The dashed vertical line represents the minimum annual
progress for the EU27 as a whole that is required to go down from 14.9%
in 2008 to 9.9% in 2020. As can be seen in the figure, the EU27, on average,
fell short of the minimum progress required and is still 3.6 percentage points
away from the "below 10%" target. Another observation is that none of
the larger Member States have reached their national targets yet, as listed in
the final column of table 3.1. In the lower left corner countries are characterised by
an ESL rate better than the EU27 headline target (although not necessarily
better than their national targets), as well as by a recent decrease in the ESL
rate that goes beyond the minimum required progress for the EU27 average to
reach the headline target by 2020. The Netherlands owes its position to a very
developed and successful policy approach and a consistent reduction in ESL
rates. Countries in the lower right corner are characterised by
ESL rates in 2011 that were already below 10%, yet a slower annual decrease
during the period 2008-2011 than required for the EU27 as a whole to reach the
target by 2020. In fact, Lithuania and Poland have seen an average annual increase
in the ESL rate between 2008 and 2011. Lithuania has already gone beyond its
national target, whereas Poland has yet to reach its national target. Figure 3.3 shows that most countries have higher ESL
rates than the Europe 2020 headline target, with a couple of countries
nevertheless featuring a decrease of ESL rates beyond the minimum required
progress. It has to be kept in mind, however, that some of the countries in the
upper left corner of figure 3.3 do show a very high ESL rate. Their current
performance in reducing ESL is commendable, but will not necessarily help the
EU27 reach its overall target by 2020. This illustrates the relevance of
national targets, with some countries having to aim higher in order for the
EU27 average of "below 10%" to be reached. Figure 3.3. Grouping of countries according to ESL rate and progress[25] Source: JRC-CRELL and DG EAC
calculations based on Eurostat data. Stronger efforts are needed in countries that feature
both ESL rates above 10% in 2011 and a slower decrease of ESL rates than
minimally required for the EU27 to reach the headline target by 2020. Romania has a high and increasing ESL rate and France and Belgium also show an average annual
increase in their ESL rates. Germany and Hungary are not making sufficient
progress either, lagging behind the minimum progress required for the EU27 to
reach the headline target by 2020. When comparing table 3.1 and figure 3.3, some stagnation
can be observed in the more recent progress across the EU. While most countries
were able to reduce their ESL rates during the last five years, some Member
States (e.g. Germany, France and Hungary) show no significant improvement
towards the ESL headline target in the last three years (2008-2011). Even more
recently, the UK has also seen stagnation in progress (2010-2011). Figure 3.A
in the annex shows the long-term development of ESL rates in all countries.
Moreover, a separate Staff Working Document with country-specific summaries
provides a closer look at the progress in each Member State[26].
3.3. An
EU trajectory towards 2020
Since 2000, the decrease in ESL has, on average, been
slow. There has been an annual reduction of less than 0.4 percentage points,
adding up to a total of 4.1 percentage points in the last 11 years. In terms of
the number of individuals, the progress appears more significant, amounting to
2.2 million fewer individuals leaving education and training early at the age
of 18-24 in 2011 compared to 2000, which represents a decline of more than 27%.
As illustrated in figure 3.4, extrapolating this trend would mean that the EU
would be missing its target for 2020; a scenario that is all the more likely as
the effort required increases while the target group shrinks. Figure 3.4. Projection for the rate of early leavers from education and
training (%) || Source: JRC-CRELL
calculations based on Eurostat data. Reaching the 10% target for the benchmark indicator by
2020 would therefore require at least as much effort as in the past, if not
more. This is also because the size of younger cohorts will shrink by 2020 in
most Member States and across the EU, changing the relative weight of each
country as measured by its population share in the total EU population[27].
Some high performing countries will count less towards the EU average, while
some low performing countries will count more – resulting in a less favourable
situation for the EU as a whole. When simply extrapolating the current trend, an
additional 1.5 million individuals will have to remain in the education and
training systems in order to reach the headline target by 2020, amounting to an
average of about 170,000 individuals per year. However, when taking into
account the latest projections of demographic changes, an even bigger effort is
needed. As compared to 2011, an additional 2 million individuals will have to
be kept in education and training, translating into an annual average of about
220,000 individuals. As can be seen in table 3.2, this is an extra 20,000 fewer
early school leavers per year on top of the annual change that was
achieved between 2000 and 2011. Table 3.2. Change needed to reach the ESL headline target by 2020 (in
millions) Change between 2000-2011 || Change needed to reach the target by 2020 || || Based solely on current trend || Accounting for changing cohort sizes Cumulated 2000-2011 || per year || Cumulated 2011-2020 || per year || Cumulated 2011-2020 || per year -2.20 || -0.20 || -1.50 || -0.17 || -2.00 || -0.22 Source: JRC-CRELL
calculations based on Eurostat data and EUROPOP projections.
3.4. The
road ahead for Member States
Member States' national targets, as set out in their
National Reform Programmes, are by and large very cautious (see table 3.1) and
would also suggest that Europe may fall short of the 10% target for 2020. On 30
May 2012, the European Commission presented a set of country-specific
recommendations to Member States on reforms to increase stability, growth and
employment across the EU. Six countries (Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Malta and Spain) received recommendations to address ESL. While the factors leading to ESL vary from country to
country, the causes of ineffective policies can be boiled down to three typical
issues[28]: §
Lack of a comprehensive strategy: many countries
adopt a patchwork of different measures to tackle various aspects of ESL, but
these do not necessarily add up to a comprehensive strategy. Systemic change
will be more feasible if Member States move from projects to policies, ideally
connecting cross-sectoral initiatives in a more "holistic" approach. §
Lack of evidence-based policy-making: with some notable
exceptions, Member States lack detailed information on the background of early
school leavers and an analysis of the causes and incidence of ESL as well as a
systematic collection, analysis and dissemination of evidence about effective
practices for tackling ESL. Particular blind spots are ESL from initial
vocational education and training (VET), and breakdowns by socioeconomic
status. §
Insufficient prevention and early intervention: some
Member States devote too little attention to prevention. A stronger focus on
preventive and early intervention measures is needed both at system level and
at the level of individual education and training institutions. Partial, compensatory
measures (such as second-chance education), albeit important, are not enough to
address the root causes of the problem. Another challenge that is of prime importance is to
ensure that VET is a realistic, high-quality opportunity for young learners,
offering a more hands-on solution so that less academically oriented learners
have an attractive alternative to general education and training. However, this
approach can only work if the status and relevance of VET is increased, and if
dropout from VET is brought down. Following the Council Recommendation on policies to
reduce early school leaving, adopted in June 2011, the European Commission set
up a Thematic Working Group of Member State experts to exchange experience and
good practice and to develop policy guidelines for implementing evidence-based
and comprehensive strategies to reduce early school leaving. Moreover, European funding – both European Structural
Funds and European education and research programmes – will be targeted to
better support the development of comprehensive policies against early school
leaving.
4.
Encouraging participation in Higher Education
Higher education, with its links to research and
innovation, plays a crucial role in individual and societal advancement, and in
providing the highly skilled human capital that Europe needs to create jobs,
economic growth and prosperity. The European Commission’s agenda for the
modernisation of Europe’s higher education systems[29]
lies at the heart of the Europe 2020 Strategy for investment in human resources
and creating sustainable growth towards and beyond 2020.
4.1. The issue of attaining increased levels of higher education
completion
In 2011 nearly half of the EU Member States have reached
the EU target of 40% tertiary level education attainment or equivalent for the
age group 30 to 34 years old (see figure 4.1), whereas 10 Member States have
accomplished their national target. All EU Member States except the United Kingdom have set national targets for the EU headline indicator. Figure 4.1. Tertiary attainment level or equivalent, ages 30-34 (%), 2011 Source:
Eurostat (LFS). Note: The lighter blue parts for Austria and Germany denotes inclusion of postsecondary attainment (ISCED 4 for DE and ISCED 4/4a for
AT, both national data); this is the equivalent identified in the headline
indicator definition. The increasing level of tertiary attainment in the
European Union reflects to some extent investment by European governments in
higher education with a view to meeting demand for a higher skilled labour
force. In some Member States, increased attainment rates also reflect the shift
to shorter degree programmes following implementation of Bologna process
reforms[30].
Since 2000, the
tertiary attainment level in the EU has increased by more than 12 percentage
points – from 22.4% to 34.6% in 2011
(see table 4.1) – corresponding to an
annual average progress of more than 1 percentage point. Disaggregating
data by gender shows an impressive progress for women, who have
outperformed men in overall attainment rates since
2000. In terms of absolute numbers, the progress has
been significant, amounting to about 3.7 million graduates or nearly a 50%
increase compared to 2000 numbers. Table 4.1. Tertiary attainment level or equivalent, ages 30-34 (%), 2011 || 2000 || 2010 || 2011 Benchmark indicator, (%) || 22.4 || 33.5 || 34.6[31] Benchmark indicator - men, (%) || 22.2 || 30.0 || 30.8 Benchmark indicator - women, (%) || 22.7 || 37.2 || 38.5 Total population of 30-34 year-olds (millions) || 37.2 || 34.7 || 34.7[32] Number of 30-34 years-olds with completed tertiary education (millions) || 8.3 || 11.6 || 12.0 Source: Eurostat
(LFS). The gender difference is further documented in table 4.2
which shows that women outnumber men significantly in terms of tertiary
attainment in all but one Member State[33]. In fact, there
is more than 10 percentage points difference between the attainment levels of
women and men in half of the EU Member States. Table 4.2. Tertiary educational attainment, ages 30-34 by sex and migrant
status (%) || 2006 || 2011 || Target Total || Total || Males || Females || Born abroad || EU 27 countries || 28.9 || 34.6 || 30.8 || 38.5 || 30.9 || 40 Belgium || 41.4 || 42.6 || 37.1 || 48.1 || 34.8 || 47 Bulgaria || 25.3 || 27.3 || 21.3 || 34 || : || 36 Czech Republic || 13.1 || 23.8 || 21.6 || 26.1 || 33.8 || 32 Denmark || 43 || 41.2 || 34.7 || 48 || 31.5 || 40 Germany || 25.8 || 30.7 || 29.9 || 31.6 || 25.4 || 42 Estonia || 32.5 || 40.3 || 30.5 || 50.2 || : || 40 Ireland || 41.3 || 49.4 || 42.8 || 55.8 || 53.2 || 60 Greece || 26.7 || 28.9 || 26.2 || 31.7 || 9.5 || 32 Spain || 38.1 || 40.6 || 36.3 || 45 || 24.4 || 44 France || 39.7 || 43.4 || 39.1 || 47.6 || 33.7 || 50 Italy || 17.7 || 20.3 || 15.9 || 24.7 || 12.3 || 26 Cyprus || 46.1 || 45.8 || 39.7 || 52 || 35.3 || 46 Latvia || 19.2 || 35.7 || 24.8 || 46.9 || : || 34 Lithuania || 39.4 || 45.4 || 37.6 || 53.3 || : || 40 Luxembourg || 35.5 || 48.2 || 49.1 || 47.4 || 52.9 || 40 Hungary || 19 || 28.1 || 23.2 || 33.4 || 32.5 || 30.3 Malta || 21.6 || 21.1 || 20.1 || 22.1 || : || 33 Netherlands || 35.8 || 41.1 || 37.3 || 44.8 || 30.1 || 40 Austria || 21.2 || 23.8 || 23.1 || 24.5 || 24.2 || 38 Poland || 24.7 || 36.9 || 30.3 || 43.5 || : || 45 Portugal || 18.4 || 26.1 || 21.7 || 30.5 || 24.2 || 40 Romania || 12.4 || 20.4 || 19.7 || 21 || : || 26.7 Slovenia || 28.1 || 37.9 || 29.4(i) || 47.3(i) || (16.9) || 40 Slovakia || 14.4 || 23.4 || 19.6 || 27.4 || : || 40 Finland || 46.2 || 46.0 || 37.1 || 55 || 28.2 || 42 Sweden || 39.5 || 47.5 || 40.6 || 54.6 || 45.0 || 40 United Kingdom || 36.5 || 45.8 || 43 || 48.6 || 55.1 || : Switzerland || 35 || 44.0 || 19.4 || 41.2 || 41.5 || : Croatia || 16.7 || 24.5 || 36.1(p) || 30 || : || : Iceland || 36.4 || 44.6 || 46.8 || 53.1(p) || 34.0 || : Montenegro || : || 20.4 || : || : || : || : Norway || 41.9b || 48.8 || 41.5 || 56.4 || 39.0 || : Turkey || 11.9 || 16.3 || 18.3(u) || 14.3(u) || 36.0 || : Source:
Eurostat (LFS). Notes: Inclusion of postsecondary education for Germany (ISCED 4) and Austria (ISCED 4a and 4) give levels of respectively 42% and 37%/38% (national
data sources). There are great differences in the choice of study field
between women and men. A significantly higher proportion of men is graduating
in mathematics, science or engineering subjects, whereas women dominate
education, humanities, art and service-oriented educational fields (see table
4.A in annex). It is a key challenge for Member States and for higher
education institutions to attract a broader cross-section of society into
higher education[34] including disadvantaged and
vulnerable groups, and deploy the resources to meet this challenge. Reducing
higher education drop-out rates is also crucial in several Member States. The
success of these aspirations and achievements partly depends on policies to
improve earlier educational outcomes and to reduce school drop-out at lower
educational levels in line with the Europe 2020 target and the recent Council
Recommendation on early school leaving (see also chapter 3). The difference in tertiary attainment between the native-born
and foreign-born population is 3.7 percentage points at the EU level (see
table 4.2). The foreign-born population has significantly lower attainment
levels in Southern European countries such as Greece, Spain, Cyprus, Italy and
also in France, in the Nordic countries (but to a lesser degree in Sweden) and
in the Netherlands and Belgium[35]. However, the attainment level is
higher for the foreign-born population compared to the native-born in a number
of countries such as the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Luxembourg, Hungary and Austria; there is also a major discrepancy in Turkey. A number of Member States have set high national targets
for tertiary attainment levels in 2020. In terms of level these include Ireland (60%), France (50%), Belgium (47%), Cyprus (46%) and Poland (45%). It should, however, be
noted that the countries with the most ambitious national targets are those
with the furthest distance to travel in terms of attainment: Slovakia (23% to 40%), Portugal (26% to 40% target) and Malta (21% to 33%). Figure 4.2. Recent change in tertiary attainment rate of subgroups (EU27) Source: JRC-CRELL
calculations based on Eurostat data. Figure 4.2 further documents that the gender difference
has been increasing since 2008 at EU level reflecting developments in most
Member States, although both men and women attain higher levels in 2011 than in
2008 (positive change). On the other hand, the attainment level for
foreign-born persons increased more than for the native-born indicating that
migrant populations in the EU are catching up with the attainment level of
natives.
4.2. The current status and
trajectories towards 2020
In 2011, approximately 12 million individuals aged 30 to
34 had attained a tertiary education qualification or equivalent. Back in 2001,
there were about 8 million individuals already enrolled in tertiary education
by the age of 20-24. These individuals aged between 20 and 24 in 2001 are those
entering into the calculation of the benchmark in 2011. This shows that there
must be some additional factors explaining the gap (amounting to 4 million),
such as migration, or a significant share of individuals completing their
education after the age of 24. With this in mind, the latest data from 2011
looks encouraging because there are now more than 9.5 million individuals
already enrolled in a first or second stage of tertiary education between the
ages of 20-24, which would be counted in the benchmark indicator for 2020 – a
progress of nearly 1.5 million individuals in 9 years. Figure 4.3. Grouping of countries according to tertiary attainment rate and
progress[36] Source: JRC-CRELL and DG EAC
calculations based on Eurostat data. Figure 4.3 provides a more comprehensive picture of the
situation of Member States in terms of where they are now (vertical axis) and
the change they have experienced during the last four years (2008-2011). The
dashed horizontal line indicates the 40% target for 2020 whereas the dashed
vertical line marks the minimum annual progress required over the period 2008
to 2011 to reach the 2020 level. Countries marked with green are those which
have in 2011 reached their national target. In this way the four quadrants of the scatterplot
illustrate the four scenarios in which countries presently find themselves;
e.g. countries like BE, DK, CY, FR, FI and NL have all reached the 40% target
but have low positive to negative changes, i.e. their situation is stagnating.
This is unlike the situation for countries as EE, ES, IE, LT, LU, SE and the UK, which are also above the target but are still developing fast towards even higher
attainment levels. The countries in the lower part of the scatterplot are
divided into those with below target attainment levels and stagnating to very
little progress (BG, MT, IT) compared to those below target but with higher
changes such as SI, PL, LV, HU, PT, RO and particularly SK and CZ. The overall
EU level is still more than 5 percentage points below target but nevertheless
located in the group with higher annual changes. From a historical perspective, the 40% target set for
2020 looks within reach as, by 2020, the EU will only need less than half of
the progress observed in the previous decade (this is indicated by the solid
line in figure 4.4A). Therefore, if the dynamic registered in the past is to
continue and assuming no severe adverse shocks, Europe should easily outperform
the target (this is indicated by the dashed line in figure 4.4A). It can also be noted that the tertiary attainment level
of women would, with present trends, reach more than 50% in 2020 (i.e. more
than half of the female population aged 30 to 34 years old in 2020 would have
acquired a tertiary level qualification – see figure 4.4B). On the other hand,
the male population would, with current trends, only reach a level around 38%;
below the target level of 40%. This projected widening of the gender gap in
tertiary attainment levels could cause some concern in relation to the tendency
for men and women in choosing different study fields and thereby labour market
opportunities. Figures 4.4A
(left) and 4.4B (right). Tertiary attainment level
trajectories Source: JRC-CRELL
calculations based on Eurostat data. During the period 2000 to 2011, the EU experienced a
cumulated growth of 3.7 million individuals who had completed tertiary
education by the age of 30-34. Reaching the 40% target by 2020 will
nevertheless require an increase in the total number of individuals 30-34 years
old with completed tertiary education under either of the following two
assumptions: (i) the cohort size of the 30-34 years old will
remain at 2011 levels or (ii) it changes according
to the latest EUROPOP projection. This is presented in Table 4.3. In particular an additional 0.21 million individuals
with completed tertiary education are needed per year to ensure that the EU
target is reached in 2020 – meaning a total of 1.9 million over the 2011-2020
period. If we consider that the cohort size is shrinking, then only 0.16
million per year, or a total of 1.5 million individuals with completed tertiary
education is needed over the same period. Table 4.3. Change needed to reach the 2020 target (in millions) Change between 2000-2011 || Change needed to reach the target by 2020 || || Based solely on current trend || Accounting for changing cohort sizes Cumulated 2000-2011 || per year || Cumulated 2011-2020 || per year || Cumulated 2011-2020 || per year +3.70 || +0.34 || +1.90 || +0.21 || +1.50 || +0.16 Source: JRC-CRELL
calculations based on Eurostat data and EUROPOP projections.
4.3. The road ahead for Member States
The Member States' national targets, as set out in their
National Reform Programmes[37], are for
some very ambitious and for others more modest (see figure 4.1). A third of the
Member States share the EU target of reaching a 40% tertiary attainment or
equivalent level by 2020. In May 2012, during the second European Semester, the
Commission presented country specific recommendations for tertiary level
education for 9 Member States (Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Slovenia and Slovakia). Four types of main recommendations were identified for
these countries: §
To ensure effective access to higher education for disadvantaged
groups; §
To adopt the necessary legislation to establish a transparent
and clearly defined system for quality evaluation of higher education. Ensure
the funding is sustainable and linked to a quality assessment; §
To take measures to reduce drop-out rates from higher education;
and §
To improve the matching of skills with labour market demands. These recommendations are followed up in the national
reform programmes which outline the actions countries take or plan to take for
tackling the type of issues as identified above. The Commission also follows up
on the recommendations through different mechanisms from encouraging and
organising peer reviews of education systems to focussing funding on education
issues in for example the new 2014-2020 budget cycle for structural funds. These country specific recommendations also mirror the
general recommendations for both the EU modernisation agenda for higher
education and in the most recent Bologna process communiqué for the European
Higher Education area. Key priorities are to attract a broader cross section of
society into higher education, to improve the quality and relevance of higher
education, to improve governance and funding, to support reform through policy
evidence, analysis and transparency and to link to the labour market through
employability[38]. A key goal of the modernisation
agenda and for these key areas is to increase overall skill levels and satisfy
changing labour market demands.
5.
The case for high-quality Early Childhood
Education and Care
Early childhood education and care (ECEC) is a crucial
first step in a long process of lifelong learning. A successful early start
decreases socioeconomic and other background related disadvantages, and secures
equal chances for a successful school career and a fulfilling future[39].
As such, it is a primary element in preventing early school leaving (an EU2020
headline target) and low educational performance. In recognition of its importance, the Council decided to
include a benchmark on ECEC in the framework for European cooperation in
education and training, stating that participation in pre-school education – of
children between 4-years-old and the starting age of compulsory education –
should be at least 95% by 2020[40]. Table 5.1. Participation in ECEC, child/staff ratio and total expenditure per
pupil || Age range [41] || Participation in ECEC (%) || Child/staff ratio [42] || Expenditure per pupil [43] || 2006 || 2010 || 2006 || 2010 || 2006 || 2009 EU 27 countries || - || 89.3 || 92.3 || 14.1 || 13.4 || - || - Belgium || 4-5 || 99.9 || 99.1 || 16.0 || 15.9 || 15.5 || 16.0 Bulgaria || 4-6 || 80.5 || 79.2 || 11.5 || 12.0 || 30.1 || 34.7 Czech Republic || 4-5 || 92.6 || 88.7 || 12.5 || 13.9 || 16.1 || 18.4 Denmark || 4-6 || 92.0 || 91.1 || : || : || 17.6 || 24.4 Germany || 4-5 || 93.0 || 96.2 || 14.3 || 12.6 || 17.5 || 21.8 Estonia || 4-6 || 94.9 || 89.8 b || 8.3 || 6.0 || 10.5 || 13.2 Ireland || 4-5 || : || 85.4 || 14.1 || 19.8 || : || : Greece || 4-5 || 70.9 || 73.5 || 12.4 || : || : || : Spain || 4-5 || 98.5 || 99.4 || 14.0 || 13.0 || 18.5 || 24.0 France || 4-5 || 100.0 || 100.0 || 19.3 || 21.5 || 16.4 || 18.6 Italy || 4-5 || 100.0 || 97.1 || 11.6 || 11.8 || 19.4 || 19.4 Cyprus || 4-5 || 84.7 || 87.7 || 18.1 || 17.0 || 17.2 || 20.4 Latvia || 4-6 || 87.2 || 87.4 || 13.5 || 12.1 || 25.7 || 42.3 Lithuania || 4-6 || 75.8 || 78.3 || 8.9 || 7.8 || 22.9 || 31.4 Luxembourg || 4-5 || 95.0 || 94.6 || : || 12.0 || : || 19.9 Hungary || 4-5 || 94.5 || 94.3 || 10.7 || 11.0 || : || : Malta * || 4 || 95.5 || 89.0 || 12.7 || 15.2 || 22.6 || 24.5 Netherlands || 4 || 74,2 || 99.6 || : || : || 16.6 || 18.0 Austria || 4-5 || 88.1 || 92.1 || 16.8 || 14.7 || 22.6 || 26.2 Poland || 4-6 || 64.0 || 76.3 || 18.0 || 18.7 || 28.0 || 26.8 Portugal || 4-5 || 86.8 || 89.3 || 15.0 || 15.7 || 15.1 || 15.3 Romania || 4-5 || 81.2 || 82.1 || 18.2 || 17.5 || 12.9 || 13.5 Slovenia || 4-6 || 88.6 || 92.0 || 9.4 || 9.4 || 30.7 || 30.6 Slovak Republic || 4-5 || 79.4 || 77.5 || 13.5 || 12.5 || 18.3 || 20.1 Finland || 4-6 || 68.1 || 73.1 || 12.0 || 11.0 || 14.0 || 15.6 Sweden || 4-6 || 91.3 || 95.1 || 11.4 || 6.3 || 15.6 || 17.6 United Kingdom || 4 || 91.1 || 96.7 || 19.8 || 15.9 || 25.5 || 22.8 Croatia || 4-5 || 61.9 || 70.1 || 12.8 || 12.1 || 27.7 || 30.3 Montenegro || : || : || : || : || : || : || : Iceland || 4-6 || 95.7 || 95.8 || 7.2 || 6.9 || 23.2 || 26.3 MK ** || 4-6 || 24.6 || 29.6 || 10.8 || 7.4 || : || : Serbia || : || : || : || : || : || : || : Turkey || 4-5 || 23.2 || 38.7 || 26.3 || 23.0 || : || : Liechtenstein || 4-5 || 84.2 || 85.2 || 13.1 || 10.5 || : || : Norway || 4-5 || 92.4 || 97.1 || : || : || 10.7 || 12.3 Source: Eurostat (UOE). Note:
Intermediary break in series for Ireland and the Netherlands; ":"
= data either not available or not reliable due to very small sample size;
"b" = break in series; *Malta is currently
revising the figures due to new population estimates. **MK: The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; see Annex 2.1. In 2010, the average participation in ECEC was 92.3%,
and the 95%-benchmark appears to be in reach. The value for the EU average
increased by 3 percentage points between 2006 and 2010, however, some of this
change is a statistical effect due to the on-going harmonisation of the
measurement of ECEC. In several countries rates are already above 95%, giving
an indication of almost universal attendance of education from age 4.
Difference between boys and girls in ECEC attendance is negligible. Moreover,
in most countries with low participation rates, growth in recent years has been
notable. Denmark, Greece, Latvia and Poland have lowered the age for compulsory education, extending it to pre-primary. As such, the
12.3% increase in Poland might be partly due to the introduction of new
legislation, granting 5-year-olds a statutory right to complete one preparatory
school year[44]. In addition, Poland introduced targeted measures in rural areas[45]. The availability of alternative types of provision, such
as the family day care attended by a number of children in Finland, could contribute to a lower level of participation in ECEC. Other underlying reasons might
include funding decisions at the local or national level, or operational
constraints in increasing the supply of early childhood education in specific
areas of the country, or for specific groups of children[46].
5.1. The quality of ECEC provision
In order for ECEC to be a strong start for individuals
and a potential equaliser for European societies, provision must be of
sufficient quality. However, it is not easy to measure the quality of ECEC.
Amongst the quality indicators used in national and international assessments
are governance structures necessary for regular programme monitoring and
assessment, system accountability and quality assurance[47]. Table 5.1 shows two proxies for quality in ECEC, namely
the child/staff ratio and total expenditure, both relating to pre-primary
education. When comparing the data for 2006 and 2010, we can see that both
dimensions of ECEC quality are slowly improving in most Member States. Most Member States show a child/staff ratio around or
below the 15 to 1 recommendation from UNICEF[48],
with Estonia (6.0 to 1) and France (21.5 to 1) at opposite extremes. Secondly,
expenditure per child varies considerably across the EU. Of all the Member
States, Latvia, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovenia spend most per pupil in
pre-primary education (in relation to their GDP per capita). Eurydice is preparing a report on ECEC that will provide
comparable indicators on the various aspects of quality. For example, it has
gathered data on minimum qualification requirements for ECEC staff, which shows
that in many education systems tertiary degrees are not required for staff working
with children under 3 years old, even though research shows that higher level
staff qualifications are generally associated with higher ECEC quality[49]. Continued efforts are needed to improve and maintain the
quality of ECEC provision. Minimum requirements might be useful in this
respect. These might include structural requirements, such as health and safety
standards, infrastructure, child/staff ratios, staff qualifications, staff
salaries, curriculum standards, and requirements concerning the social environment,
governance issues, and child outcomes (cognitive, social, emotional and
physical).
5.2. Targeted support for
disadvantaged groups
All European countries implement measures intended to
prevent educational difficulties for children at risk. For example, in all
education and training systems where fees are required for ECEC, parental
contributions are adjusted in order to facilitate access for disadvantaged
groups[50].
The most successful systems are those that have more comprehensive services
helping these children, but also their families – proving e.g. job-related
training and parent education[51]. However, the measures (e.g.
language training programmes, appointment of extra staff, additional financing)
usually apply only to older children (from age 4)[52]. When it comes to ethnic minorities, pre-school
attendance of Roma children has been studied in a recent report published
jointly by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)[53]. There is a
considerable gap between Roma and non-Roma children attending pre-school and
kindergarten in nine of the 11 Member States surveyed. However, significant
differences exist between EU Member States: in Hungary and Spain, for instance, at least 70% of Roma children surveyed are reported to attend ECEC, whereas in Greece, less than 10 % of Roma children are reported to be in ECEC. The
Commission's first assessment of the National Roma Integration Strategies
emphasises the importance of quality ECEC provisions for Roma, and lists 14
Member States that have addressed the corresponding measures required by the EU
Framework[54].
6.
Acquiring the skills needed for the future
Improving the key competences of individuals is a major
objective of all education and training systems. These range from basic skills
such as reading and mathematics to transversal skills such as ICT and
entrepreneurship. For the European economy skills are a precondition for
competitiveness and innovation, and in an ever-changing society, young people
need to continually update their skills profile through lifelong learning.
6.1. Basic skills: reading, maths and
science
Basic skills – such as the ability to understand a
written text or to carry out simple calculations – form the basis for learning
and to acquire more specialised skills. Against the ever
higher demands of the knowledge society, there has been limited progress in
improving basic skills. The share of fifteen-year-olds that fail to acquire
basic skills amounts to about one fifth. Table 6.1. Percentage of low achievers in reading, maths and science, by sex || Reading || Maths || Science 2006 || 2009 || 2006 || 2009 || 2006 || 2009 Total || Total || Boys || Girls || Total || Total || Boys || Girls || Total || Total || Boys || Girls EU 25 countries || 23.1 || 19.6 || 25.9 || 13.3 || 24.0 || 22.2 || 21.0 || 23.5 || 20.3 || 17.7 || 18.6 || 16.8 Belgium || 19.4 || 17.7 || 21.5 || 13.8 || 17.3 || 19.1 || 16.8 || 21.4 || 17.0 || 18.0 || 17.9 || 18.2 Bulgaria || 51.1 || 41.0 || 52.0 || 29.1 || 53.3 || 47.1 || 48.2 || 45.9 || 42.6 || 38.8 || 43.3 || 34.0 Czech Republic || 24.8 || 23.1 || 30.8 || 14.3 || 19.2 || 22.3 || 21.7 || 23.1 || 15.5 || 17.3 || 17.9 || 16.5 Denmark || 16.0 || 15.2 || 19.0 || 11.5 || 13.6 || 17.1 || 14.7 || 19.4 || 18.4 || 16.6 || 15.2 || 17.9 Germany || 20.0 || 18.5 || 24.0 || 12.6 || 19.9 || 18.6 || 17.2 || 20.2 || 15.4 || 14.8 || 15.0 || 14.5 Estonia || 13.6 || 13.3 || 18.9 || 7.3 || 12.1 || 12.7 || 11.9 || 13.5 || 7.7 || 8.3 || 8.6 || 8.1 Ireland || 12.1 || 17.2 || 23.1 || 11.3 || 16.4 || 20.8 || 20.6 || 21.0 || 15.5 || 15.2 || 16.0 || 14.3 Greece || 27.7 || 21.3 || 29.7 || 13.2 || 32.3 || 30.3 || 28.4 || 32.1 || 24.0 || 25.3 || 28.2 || 22.4 Spain || 25.7 || 19.6 || 24.4 || 14.6 || 24.7 || 23.7 || 21.4 || 26.1 || 19.6 || 18.2 || 18.3 || 18.2 France || 21.7 || 19.8 || 25.7 || 14.2 || 22.3 || 22.5 || 21.6 || 23.4 || 21.2 || 19.3 || 20.5 || 18.0 Italy || 26.4 || 21.0 || 28.9 || 12.7 || 32.8 || 24.9 || 23.5 || 26.4 || 25.3 || 20.6 || 22.3 || 18.9 Cyprus || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : Latvia || 21.2 || 17.6 || 26.6 || 8.7 || 20.7 || 22.6 || 23.2 || 22.0 || 17.4 || 14.7 || 16.8 || 12.6 Lithuania || 25.7 || 24.3 || 35.5 || 13.0 || 23.0 || 26.2 || 28.1 || 24.4 || 20.3 || 17.0 || 20.0 || 14.0 Luxembourg || 22.9 || 26.0 || 32.9 || 19.1 || 22.8 || 23.9 || 22.2 || 25.7 || 22.1 || 23.7 || 24.0 || 23.4 Hungary || 19.4 || 17.7 || 23.6 || 11.4 || 21.2 || 22.3 || 21.7 || 22.9 || 15.0 || 14.1 || 15.3 || 12.9 Malta || : || 36.3 || 48.4 || 24.4 || : || 33.7 || 37.4 || 30.1 || : || 32.5 || 38.7 || 26.3 Netherlands || 15.1 || 14.3 || 17.9 || 10.7 || 11.5 || 13.4 || 11.2 || 15.6 || 13.0 || 13.2 || 12.3 || 14.0 Austria || 21.5 || 27.5 || 35.2 || 20.3 || 20.0 || 23.2 || 21.3 || 25.1 || 16.3 || 21.0 || 21.6 || 20.3 Poland || 16.2 || 15.0 || 22.6 || 7.5 || 19.8 || 20.5 || 21.2 || 19.9 || 17.0 || 13.1 || 15.5 || 10.8 Portugal || 24.9 || 17.6 || 24.7 || 10.8 || 30.7 || 23.7 || 22.6 || 24.7 || 24.5 || 16.5 || 18.4 || 14.7 Romania || 53.5 || 40.4 || 50.7 || 30.4 || 52.7 || 47.0 || 46.9 || 47.2 || 46.9 || 41.4 || 44.7 || 38.2 Slovenia || 16.5 || 21.2 || 31.3 || 10.7 || 17.7 || 20.3 || 20.9 || 19.7 || 13.9 || 14.8 || 17.8 || 11.6 Slovakia || 27.8 || 22.3 || 32.0 || 12.5 || 20.9 || 21.0 || 21.4 || 20.7 || 20.2 || 19.3 || 20.4 || 18.2 Finland || 4.8 || 8.1 || 13.0 || 3.2 || 6.0 || 7.8 || 8.1 || 7.5 || 4.1 || 6.0 || 7.5 || 4.5 Sweden || 15.3 || 17.4 || 24.2 || 10.5 || 18.3 || 21.1 || 21.4 || 20.8 || 16.4 || 19.1 || 20.3 || 17.9 United Kingdom || 19.0 || 18.4 || 23.1 || 14.0 || 19.8 || 20.2 || 17.5 || 22.8 || 16.7 || 15.0 || 14.6 || 15.5 Croatia || 21.5 || 22.5 || 31.2 || 12.6 || 28.6 || 33.2 || 31.8 || 34.6 || 17.0 || 18.5 || 20.5 || 16.3 Montenegro || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : Iceland || 20.5 || 16.8 || 23.8 || 9.9 || 16.8 || 17.0 || 17.9 || 16.1 || 20.6 || 17.9 || 19.3 || 16.6 MK* || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : Serbia || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : Turkey || 32.2 || 24.5 || 33.4 || 15.0 || 52.1 || 42.1 || 40.4 || 44.1 || 46.6 || 30.0 || 33.3 || 26.5 Liechtenstein || 14.3 || 15.6 || 21.2 || 9.4 || 13.2 || 9.5 || 7.7 || 11.5 || 12.9 || 11.3 || 9.2 || 13.7 Norway || 22.4 || 14.9 || 21.4 || 8.4 || 22.2 || 18.2 || 18.0 || 18.3 || 21.1 || 15.8 || 16.9 || 14.5 Source: OECD (PISA 2006
& PISA 2009) and ACER (2011). Notes: ":" = data not available *MK: The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; see Annex 2.1. To bring down the share of students with such a low
performance, in May 2009 the Council set a new benchmark for low performance in
basic skills. The aim is to reduce the proportion of low achievers in the areas
of reading, maths and science to less than 15% by 2020[55].
This benchmark helps to assess the progress of Member States in improving
educational outcomes, and is a pointer for structural problems within their
education systems. Longer-term objectives might require more ambition.
According to the final report from the EU high level group of experts on
literacy[56],
we should prepare all children to be able to read and use information in
multiple formats and from multiple sources, thereby providing a basis for
developing 21st-century competences in an information society. A
basic level of reading, but also maths and science skills, is a precondition
for personal fulfilment and development. Still, the percentage of low achievers varies widely
across the Member States (table 6.1). Finland, Estonia and the Netherlands are consistently good performers, whereas Romania, Bulgaria and Malta[57]
are far behind the EU average. While there was quick progress in science,
improvement has been the slowest in mathematics. This means the 2009 EU average
share of low achievers has to decrease by a third to reach the 2020
benchmark. Comparatively, the 2009 EU average of low achievers in science has
to decrease a further 15.3%. Taking into account all three basic skills, candidate
country Turkey has shown the strongest improvement between 2006 and 2009,
followed by Romania, Portugal, Bulgaria and Italy. At the other extreme, a
number of countries have deteriorated in their performance, most notably Ireland, Slovenia and Sweden. As such, the performance gap between EU countries narrowed by 2009,
with low performing countries catching up and some well-performing countries falling
back. A large gender gap in reading performance remains and
has even widened since 2006. The share of low achieving boys (25.9%) is about
twice the share of low achieving girls (13.3%). In Latvia and Lithuania the share of low performing boys is three times the share for girls, while in the leading
performer, Finland, the rate for girls is exceptionally low at 3.2% but four
times higher for boys. Across the EU as a whole, girls already meet the 15%
benchmark for reading skills; the challenge is improving performance among boys
to a similar rate. Figure 6.1. Percentage of low achievers in reading, by country of birth Source: OECD (PISA 2009).
Countries ordered by the performance of native-born students. "% 2nd"
and "% 1st" refer to the overall percentage of
second-generation and first-generation migrant students respectively. Gender gaps for maths and science are considerably
smaller than for reading. Across the EU, boys slightly outperform girls in
maths, and girls slightly outperform boys in science. However, both PISA (2003)[58]
and TIMSS (2007)[59] data show that girls had lower
self-confidence in their abilities in mathematics as well as more feelings of
stress and anxiety in maths classes than boys. In almost all Member States, the reading levels of
foreign-born students lag far behind those for native-born students, even when
taking socio-economic status into account[60]. Second
generation students – being born in the host country – generally perform better
than first generation students (see figure 6.1). Different migrant patterns and
immigration policies are, of course, of influence at the country level. At the individual level, both the age at arrival in the
host country (for first generation migrant students) and the language spoken at
home have strong effects on the reading performance of students with a migrant
background. At the systemic level, more inclusive systems alongside a range of support
measures going beyond linguistic support can help foreign-born students and
their parents narrow the gap in achievement[61].
6.2. Language skills
The Barcelona European Council of 2002 set the objective
for "teaching at least two foreign languages from a very early age"[62].
More recently, the ability “to enable citizens to communicate in two languages
in addition to their mother tongue, promote language teaching, where relevant,
in VET and for adult learners” has been established as a priority area in the
strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training, ET 2020[63].
At present, it is obligatory to learn at least one foreign language in
compulsory education in the majority of Member States (except Ireland and Scotland); a second foreign language is optional in nearly all of them[64]. Figure 6.2. Percentage of pupils learning at least two foreign languages in EU,
2000-2010 Source: Eurostat (UOE). The following analysis takes stock of the current state
of play and supports the initiative to establish a new European benchmark on
language competences, highlighted in the Communication on Rethinking Education
and outlined in detail in the Staff Working Document on boosting and targeting
language competences. At the level of primary education (ISCED 1), the
teaching of languages has become more common since 2000. Across the EU, the
average number of foreign languages learned by primary pupils has increased
from 0.5 in 2000 to 0.8 in 2010[65]. In 2010, more than half of pupils across the EU enrolled
in lower secondary education (ISCED 2) and general upper secondary education
(ISCED 3 general) were learning at least two foreign languages; 60.8% and 59.6%
respectively. Figure 6.2 shows a trend between 2000 and 2010: whereas the
percentage of general upper secondary pupils in the EU learning at least two
foreign languages has stagnated and even decreased, the share of lower
secondary pupils learning at least two foreign languages has been steadily
increasing. Figure 6.3. Average
number of languages learned per pupil in general upper secondary education
(2010) Source: Eurostat (UOE). At the level of lower secondary education, in 2010
pupils learned on average at least two foreign languages in Luxembourg (2.5), Finland (2.2), Netherlands (2.1), Italy (2.0), and Cyprus (2.0). At the other end
of the scale, pupils in Ireland, Hungary and the United Kingdom studied the
lowest number of languages (1.0 in each of the 3 countries)[66]. Figure 6.3 illustrates the situation for general upper
secondary education. Here, at least two foreign languages are learnt by pupils
in Luxembourg (3.0), Finland (2.7), Belgium (2.2), Sweden (2.2), Czech Republic (2.1), France, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia (all 2.0). The lowest number of foreign
languages at this level is learnt in the United Kingdom and Portugal (both 0.5). In pre-vocational and vocational upper secondary education,
the overall percentage of foreign languages learned per pupil is considerably
lower than in general upper secondary education. Nevertheless, the share of
pupils learning at least two languages has doubled over the last decade. Pupils
enrolled in vocational education learn on average two foreign languages in Luxembourg (2.0), followed by Romania (1.8), Poland (1.6), Belgium/Flemish community (1.6), Slovakia (1.5), Bulgaria (1.4), and Italy (1.4).[67] English is by far the most widely taught foreign language
in the EU at ISCED level 2. The proportion of pupils who learn English as a
foreign language at this level increased from 74.3% in 2000 to 93.7% in 2010.
However, during the decade 2000-2010, more and more pupils have also been
learning French, German and Spanish. Especially the teaching of Spanish as a
foreign language has seen a steady increase during the period.[68]
Outcomes
of foreign language learning
The Barcelona Council set not only the objective to
teach the mother tongue plus two foreign languages, but also called for the establishment
of a linguistic competence indicator. This decision arose from the need of
having a more complete picture of the language competences in Europe, and of
the progress made towards the objective of teaching at least two foreign
languages from a very early age. Figure 6.4. First foreign language: Percentage of tested pupils achieving each
level (2011) Source: First European
Survey on Language Competences: Final Report. Average of listening, reading and
writing. In order to collect accurate and up-to-date data on the
outcomes of foreign language teaching systems, in 2008 the Commission launched
a European Survey on Language Competences (ESLC)[69]. The
ESLC, the first survey of its kind, was designed according to international
education survey standards used by PISA, PIRLS and TIMSS. In the spring of 2011, fourteen European countries took
part in the survey: Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, France, Greece, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK (England). Belgium’s three linguistic communities participated separately, adding up to a total
of 16 education and training systems. The survey provides comparable data on foreign language
competences of almost 54,000 pupils at the end of lower secondary education[70]. In each of the 16
educational systems pupils were tested in two foreign languages, chosen from
the five most widely taught EU official languages: English, French, German,
Italian and Spanish. The choice of test languages was made by the
participating countries or linguistic communities. The language
tests covered three language competences: listening, reading and writing. The
results of the survey are reported according to the levels of the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). In addition to the assessment of language competences,
contextual information was collected through questionnaires filled in by the
tested pupils, and their foreign language teachers and principals.
Furthermore, system-wide information was collected through National Research
Coordinators. The results of the language assessment show that the
tested pupils are quite far from achieving the objective of having benefited
from being taught two foreign languages. One of the key findings from the
survey is an overall low level of competences in both first and second foreign
languages tested: a level of independent user is achieved by only 42% of tested
pupils in the 1st foreign language (figure 6.4) and by only 25% in the 2nd
foreign language (figure 6.5). Moreover, a large number of tested pupils did
not even achieve the level of a basic user: 14% for the 1st and 20% for the 2nd
foreign language. Figure 6.5. Second foreign language: Percentage of tested pupils achieving each
level (2011) Source: First European
Survey on Language Competences: Final Report. Average of listening, reading and
writing. Another finding provided by the ESLC is a strong
variation of ability across countries in Europe. For the first foreign
language, the proportion of pupils reaching the level of independent user
varies from 82% in Malta and Sweden (English) to only 14% in France (English)
and 9% in England (French). For the second foreign language, the level of
independent user is reached by 4% in Sweden (Spanish) and 6% in Poland (German) compared to 48% in the Netherlands (German). In the Flemish and German Communities
of Belgium, the only two education systems in which English was tested as the
second foreign language, scores are even higher, with 80% and 58% of pupils
reaching the level of independent user. The ESLC confirms that English is the most widely
adopted first foreign language learned by European pupils. As figure 6.6 shows,
English is also the language in which pupils reach the highest level. Moreover,
English is perceived as the most useful and, for the majority of tested pupils,
the easiest to learn. Figure 6.6. Global scores for all tested pupils by language (2011) Source: First European
Survey on Language Competences: Final Report. Regarding the factors directly linked to formal language
learning in schools, the ESLC results demonstrate positive effects on
achievement when the foreign language is actively used by both teachers and
pupils during language lessons; when foreign language teaching begins at an
earlier stage and in more languages; and when pupils use the foreign language
for meaningful communication in the classroom and outside. Furthermore, pupil
achievement is positively influenced by being able to speak foreign languages
with parents, by usage at home to engage with traditional and new media, by
believing it to be useful and, finally, by feeling capable of successfully
learning it. As a next step, the Council has invited the Commission
to submit, by the end of 2012, a proposal for a possible benchmark in the area
of languages based on the results from the first European Survey on Language
Competences.
6.3. ICT skills
Exploiting the potential of ICT is a key issue addressed
in the Communication on Rethinking Education (in particular, chapter 2.2), and
the enhancement of digital competence was one of the main pillars of the
Digital Agenda for Europe[71], one of the Europe 2020 flagship
initiatives. In the Digital Agenda for Europe, lack of ICT skills is identified
as one of the key obstacles to harnessing the potential of ICT. The priorities for the second cycle of ET 2020, set out
in the annex to the 2012 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission[72],
also includes working "[…] together to promote the acquisition of the key
competences identified in the 2006 Recommendation on key competences for
lifelong learning, including on the learning of digital competences […]". Awaiting direct assessments of ICT skills[73] we currently have to
base our cross-country comparisons on self-declared ICT skills. Eurostat
provides biannual data on self-declared computer skills[74] of 16-74
year-olds in Europe through their Community survey on ICT usage in households
and by individuals. Figure 6.7. Percentage of individuals with low, medium and high computer skills,
2011 Source: Eurostat,
Information Society Statistics. Note: Individuals aged 16 to 74 years. For
details about different types of computer activities, see http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/4-26032012-AP/EN/4-26032012-AP-EN.PDF. There are large differences across countries. In Romania and Bulgaria only around 4 out of 10 have some computer skills, and only around 1 out of 10
has high computer skills. This contrasts with the situation in Austria, Luxembourg and the Nordic countries where around 4 out of 10 have higher computer skills.
On average in EU 27, 66% have some computer skills, 14% low skills, 25% medium
skills and 27% high skills. This is an increase in computer skills since 2006
when 57% had some computer skills, 13% low skills, 23% medium skills and 21%
high skills. There is a clear generational and educational divide in
computer skills. 45% in the age group 16-24 has high computer skills compared
with 31% and 10% in the age groups 25-54 and 55-74 respectively. Computer
skills are positively correlated with educational attainment in all the age
groups, with the difference in skills between lowest and highest education
attainment level most pronounced in the 25-54 age group. These gaps show that
action to increase ICT skill levels is needed, and education and training
systems can contribute to this by embedding ICT and OER (open educational
resources). Teachers and school heads express a positive attitude
about the wider learning potential of ICT and its essential role in teaching
and learning for pupils in the 21st century and infrastructure
barriers to the use of ICT in education have been reduced over the last 5
years. Still, data from 2011[75] reveal that although online
resources and networks are now widely available in Europe and the majority of
teachers are now familiar with ICT at school, they still use it first and
foremost to prepare their teaching, while digital resources of all types are
still far too rarely used during lessons. Moreover, teacher participation in
training on how to use ICT for teaching and learning is rarely compulsory. This
and other findings suggest that there should be a strong focus on measures,
particularly training, to support and develop teachers’ ICT competence and ICT
use in the classroom. Moreover, central regulations
in most European countries lay down requirements for strengthening teachers'
ICT skills for teaching throughout their basic education and further training[76].
6.4. Entrepreneurial skills
According to the Key Competence Framework put forth in
2006[77],
the entrepreneurship key competence refers to an individual’s ability to turn
ideas into action. It includes creativity, innovation and risk taking, as well
as the ability to plan and manage projects in order to achieve objectives. The
overall goal of entrepreneurship education is to give students the attitudes,
knowledge and skills to act in an entrepreneurial way, for either a commercial
or non-commercial objective. The fourth long term objective of ET 2020 is to enhance
creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship, at all levels of
education and training. The importance of entrepreneurship education is also
visible in the Europe 2020 Strategy where the need to embed creativity,
innovation and entrepreneurship into the education systems is highlighted in
three flagships: Youth on the Move, An Agenda for New Skills and Jobs, and
Innovation Union. Results from a 2011 survey on entrepreneurship education
show that 23 EU Member States have current strategies or on-going initiatives
addressing the implementation of entrepreneurship education into general
education at primary and/or secondary level[78]. Specific strategies/action
plans focused exclusively on the integration of entrepreneurship education are
found in Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK (Wales), Estonia and Lithuania. The survey also looks at whether entrepreneurship education is explicitly
recognised in central level educational steering documents[79].
Such recognition is found in two thirds of the EU27 countries at primary level
and at upper secondary level all Member States integrate entrepreneurship into
the curriculum in some form. At secondary level most countries have defined learning
outcomes for entrepreneurship education, in many countries covering all three
dimensions: attitudes, knowledge and skills. No country has learning outcomes
linked only to entrepreneurial skills. There is currently a lack of international data
providing comparable measurements of entrepreneurship as a key competence. Most
available data apply to a narrower understanding of entrepreneurship, i.e.
linked to business start-ups, and do not allow conclusions on the role of
entrepreneurship education for such start-ups[80]. Figure 6.8. Percentage of individuals aged 18 to 64 who believe to have the
required skills and knowledge to start a business,
2011 Source: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2011
Note: Italian result is from 2010. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor provides annual data
on adults' attitudes/perceptions of entrepreneurship. Results show that in only
4 of the 20 EU Member States covered by the monitor in 2011, did more than half
of the adult population believe to have the required skills and knowledge to
start a business. All the Nordic countries are found at the lower end of the
spectrum, with less than 41% expressing perceived capabilities to start a
business. Earlier results have suggested that early-stage entrepreneurial
activity is associated, at least to some degree, with past training in starting
a business[81].
6.5. Civic skills
The Key Competences Framework from 2006 includes social
and civic competences[82].
Civic competence, and particularly knowledge of social and political concepts
and structures (democracy, justice, equality, citizenship and civil rights),
equips individuals to engage in active and democratic participation. Thus
civic competences contribute to the third strategic objective of ET 2020 of
promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship. In 2009, 22 EU countries and a total of 38 education
systems worldwide participated in the International Civic and Citizenship
Education Study (ICCS), administrated by the International Association for the
Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)[83]. The analysis of four different dimensions of civic
competences (derived from grouping items of the ICCS) shows that there is
little correlation between cognition/civic knowledge on the one hand and
attitudes and values on the other. Denmark and Finland perform best as regards
civic knowledge of pupils, whereas Italy scores highest on citizenship values
and participatory attitudes (see table 6.2). Ireland, Sweden and Spain perform best in the sub-dimension of social justice. Furthermore, research shows that there is a diversity in
the provision of civic education in Europe (civics as a subject of its own or
integrated into other subject areas) and that participatory structures in the
provision of education are as important as the content when it comes to
acquiring civic competences. Table 6.2. Civic competences of 8th grade pupils, 2009 || || Dimensions of civic competences || Citizenship education || Civic knowledge || Citizenship values || Social justice || Participatory attitudes || Knowledge about democratic institutions || Average minimum taught time devoted to citizenship education as a separate subject during a notional year || Primary || Lower secondary || Upper secondary EU average || 511 || 583 || 662 || 495 || 546 || || || Belgium || 514 || 542 || 647 || 435 || 546 || || || Bulgaria || 466 || 629 || 652 || 506 || 504 || || || 11.6 Czech Republic || 510 || 544 || 624 || 436 || 540 || || || Denmark || 576 || 532 || 681 || 491 || 624 || || || Germany || : || : || : || : || : || || || Estonia || 525 || 565 || 653 || 487 || 560 || 4.4 || 17.5 || 17.5 Ireland || 534 || 610 || 703 || 525 || 578 || || 23.0 || Greece || 476 || 633 || 689 || 541 || 505 || 8.8 || 15.0 || 15.0 Spain || 505 || 621 || 709 || 506 || 538 || 8.3 || 17.5 || 35.0 France || : || : || : || : || : || 30.0 || 28.0 || 16.0 Italy || 531 || 656 || 673 || 544 || 568 || || || Cyprus || 453 || 651 || 652 || 517 || 477 || || 4.0 || 8.0 Latvia || 482 || 597 || 619 || 525 || 510 || || || Lithuania || 505 || 599 || 650 || 532 || 521 || || 16.0 || Luxembourg || 473 || 567 || 678 || 486 || 515 || || || 21.1 Hungary || : || : || : || : || : || || || Malta || 490 || 598 || 662 || 495 || 527 || || || Netherlands || (494) || 534 || 620 || 450 || 522 || || || Austria || 503 || 565 || 652 || 524 || 536 || || 15.0 || Poland || 536 || 600 || 661 || 498 || 575 || || 16.3 || 18.6 Portugal || : || : || : || : || : || 27.0 || 27.0 || Romania || : || : || : || : || : || 15.0 || 10.0 || Slovenia || 516 || 565 || 672 || 485 || 548 || || 17.5 || Slovakia || 529 || 555 || 635 || 478 || 560 || || 24.8 || 6.2 Finland || 576 || 534 || 667 || 457 || 622 || || || Sweden || 537 || 556 || 706 || 482 || 575 || || || UK || 519 || 569 || 655 || 498 || 554 || || || Croatia || : || : || : || : || : || || || 12.6 Iceland || : || : || : || : || : || || || Turkey || : || : || : || : || : || || 16.0 || Liechtenstein || 531 || 546 || 660 || 497 || 568 || || || Norway || 515 || 629 || 706 || 501 || 557 || || 22.3 || Source: IEA ICCS 2009
survey, JRC-CRELL, Eurydice. Note: ICCS results for Belgium refer to Flemish
Community, for UK to England.
7.
Student mobility in vocational training and
Higher Education
Facilitating free movement of persons is at
the heart of the European Union policies and enabling students to study or
train in another country is encouragement for youth to look for employment
opportunities outside their home country later in life. The European Commission
strongly supports student mobility and has proposed significantly increased
funding opportunities in this area for the period 2014 to 2020.
7.1. Promoting learning mobility of
young people
Mobility broadens
personal and intellectual horizons and can also stimulate quality of education
by inspiring new ways of teaching and learning. It is, therefore also a vital
tool for modernising our educational institutions at all levels across the
whole of Europe. The European Commission runs a number of mobility programmes
under the Lifelong Learning Programme, such as Erasmus for higher education,
Leonardo da Vinci for vocational education and training, Comenius for school
education and Grundtvig for adult education. The European Commission proposal
for the successor programme, Erasmus for All, proposes a sharp budget increase
of more than 70% in the next multi-annual budgetary period 2014-2020. On 29 November
2011, the European Council adopted conclusions[84] which stipulate two benchmarks and
an indicator on respectively higher education, initial vocational training and
general youth mobility. The benchmarks set concrete targets to be achieved by
2020. Many EU Member States have followed up on the Europe-wide targets by setting
their own national targets as well. Student mobility
has two driving forces: firstly the desire to go abroad and study or train in
another country and secondly, the attractiveness of national education systems.
The currently
available statistics on learning mobility only give a fragmented picture of
mobility flows; for the number of students enrolled abroad and graduating
abroad (degree mobility) and for those who have had a period of study or
training abroad (credit mobility). Work is currently underway between the
European Commission (Eurostat) and the Member States to adapt current
methodology for collecting data in order to meet the benchmark requests.
7.2. Mobility in vocational education
and training
The benchmark for learning mobility in initial
vocational training (IVET), defined as the vocational orientation within upper
secondary education, apprenticeships included, stipulates that by 2020 'an EU
average of at least 6 % of 18-34 year olds with an initial vocational education
and training qualification should have had an initial VET-related study or
training period (including work placements) abroad lasting a minimum of two
weeks.' No national targets are defined and the European average could in
principle be calculated by selecting a European representative sample. Very little evidence exists concerning
the actual magnitude of IVET mobility within the European Union and its Member States. The benchmark was defined on the basis of the Flash Eurobarometer survey
"Youth on the move" (2011) and first evidence from selected countries
as Germany and Finland. Eurostat is presently undertaking efforts for measuring
the benchmark via a sample survey with the aim of providing feedback on the
benchmark by end of 2015. The Leonardo da Vinci programme covering
IVET mobility provides some indication of the level and development of IVET
mobility flows. This data shows in general low participation rates in this
programme with 2% out of total IVET upper secondary enrolments. The percentages
are slightly higher for some smaller EU member States (see figure 7.1). In
total this gives an EU level of IVET mobility of only 0.7% only for the
Leonardo da Vinci programme in 2010, up from 0.5% in 2005. These enrolment
figures should be interpreted with care. The benchmark concerns graduates from
IVET and it is likely that the level would be higher given that IVET studies
last more years. The figures here do not include bilateral national programmes
or free movers (mobility organised by the student himself). A recent study on
mobility developments in school education, vocational education and training,
adult education and youth exchanges commissioned by the European Commission,
shows that the number of participants in schemes financed from other sources
than the EU action programmes amount to nearly the double the total of these. Figure 7.1. Percentage of students participating in Leonardo da Vinci programs
out of total number of students in vocational training* at upper secondary
level vocational orientation, 2005 and 2010 Sources: DG EAC estimates
based on Eurostat and DG EAC data sources. Leonardo da Vinci
programme, European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/education/leonardo-da-vinci/statistics_en.htm. Eurostat
(UOE collection) * The number of students participating in a Leonardo da Vinci
project (selection database) as a percentage of students enrolled in initial
vocational training programmes (ISCED 3 upper secondary vocational orientation.)
** UK: 2006 (break in series from 2005 to 2006). The available evidence shows that the present European
average is far from the 2020 benchmark target. However, these figures do not
cover all IVET mobility within the European Union. Multi- or bilateral specific
national programmes may add significantly to these figures in the future.
7.3. Mobility in higher education
The modernisation
agenda of Europe's higher education systems[85] underlines the importance of
international mobility of students in helping educational institutions connect
across the globe and in enhancing the quality of study programmes. The 2020 benchmark
within higher education is along the lines of the mobility target set by the Bologna ministers in Louvain/Leuven in 2009. It stipulates that by 2020 “at least 20% of
higher education graduates should have had a period of higher education-related
study or training (including work placements) abroad, representing a minimum of
15 ECTS credits or lasting a minimum of three months.” The benchmark is
defined in terms of graduates, e.g. either students successfully completing a
degree abroad or students who graduate in their country of origin and have
spent a period abroad for study or training purposes. Data presently available regarding students
going abroad for study purposes generally show low levels of mobility (see
table 7.1). In fact, mobile students enrolled within the EU, EEA and candidate
countries' area show an EU average of 2.4% for tertiary education for degree
mobility and 1.2% for credit mobility. This said, there are important
differences between countries which firstly depend on the structure of tertiary
education (most students at that level in Cyprus, Luxembourg and Lichtenstein
would need to go abroad to study at tertiary level because of the limited offer
of study programmes in their home country). Secondly, a large number of mainly
big EU countries have low outbound mobility levels (as ES, FR, IT, PL and the UK, - but also DK, NL, HU and SI). Table 7.1 does not refer to the benchmark
measure as it concerns enrolments and not graduates. Graduate data are not yet
available for many countries and it is not possible to indicate the level at
which the benchmark currently lies. Table 7.1. Percentage of students enrolled in another EU member state, EEA or
candidate country, 2010 || Degree mobility || Credit mobility || Absolute || % || Absolute || % || Total tertiary education || Bachelor and master level || Doctorate level || Total tertiary education || Bachelor and master level || Doctorate level || Bachelor and master level EU27 || 434 919 || 371 664 || 31 325 || 2.4 || 2.3 || : || 202 667 || 1.2 BE || 9,425 || 8,304 || 515 || 2.6 || 4.2 || 5.6 || 6,347 || 3.0 BG || 20,423 || 19,026 || 463 || 6.9 || 7.2 || 11.0 || 1,687 || 0.7 CZ* || 10,125 || 9,258 || 551 || 2.5 || 2.6 || 2.3 || 5,975 || 1.6 DK || 3,637 || 3,210 || 255 || 1.6 || 1.7 || 3.9 || 2,416 || 1.2 DE || 77,948 || 67,289 || 6,921 || 3.9 || 3.4 || : || 28,854 || 1.4 EE || 3,080 || 2,681 || 210 || 4.3 || 5.9 || 7.7 || 939 || 2.1 IE || 17,963 || 14,479 || 1,157 || 9.1 || 9.9 || 15.7 || 2,128 || 1.5 GR* || 25,796 || 22,841 || 2,424 || 4.2 || 5.6 || : || 3,179 || 0.8 ES || 17,500 || 14,763 || 1,203 || 1.0 || 1.0 || 1.9 || 31,158 || 2.0 FR* || 31,750 || 24,184 || 1,491 || 1.6 || 1.7 || 3.5 || 30,213 || 1.9 IT* || 30,128 || 24,016 || 4,430 || 1.6 || 1.3 || 11.3 || 21,039 || 1.1 CY || 26,124 || 20,858 || 662 || 54.4 || 54.8 || 58.7 || 216 || 1.1 LV* || 3,740 || 3,247 || 112 || 3.3 || 3.5 || 5.0 || 1,736 || 1.9 LT || 7,230 || 6,468 || 212 || 3.5 || 4.5 || 6.8 || 3,002 || 2.1 LU || 6,412 || 5,832 || 147 || 67.1 || 68.5 || 67.4 || 468 || 11.6 HU || 6,827 || 6,005 || 500 || 1.8 || 1.8 || 7.2 || 4,140 || 1.2 MT* || 1,152 || 858 || 218 || 9.7 || 8.2 || 76.0 || 189 || 2.0 NL || 9,418 || 7,524 || 746 || 1.5 || 1.2 || 8.5 || 7,678 || 1.2 AT || 9,679 || 9,109 || 438 || 3.3 || 3.8 || 2.1 || 5,112 || 1.8 PL || 26,767 || 23,507 || 1,816 || 1.2 || 1.1 || 5.0 || 14,021 || 0.7 PT || 10,081 || 7,008 || 2,074 || 2.6 || 1.9 || 11.8 || 5,388 || 1.5 RO || 21,758 || 18,588 || 1,469 || 2.2 || 1.9 || 4.9 || 3,994 || 0.4 SI || 2,100 || 1,852 || 162 || 1.8 || 2.2 || 4.9 || 1,368 || 1.6 SK || 29,851 || 27,725 || 1,678 || 11.6 || 11.5 || 14.2 || 2,151 || 1.0 FI || 5,953 || 5,430 || 259 || 2.0 || 2.0 || 1.4 || 4,549 || 1.6 SE || 10,662 || 9,681 || 596 || 2.5 || 2.5 || 3.8 || 2,997 || 0.7 UK || 9,391 || 7,924 || 620 || 0.4 || 0.5 || 1.2 || 11,723 || 0.6 IS || 2,257 || 2,004 || 144 || 11.6 || 10.8 || 35.7 || 225 || 1.3 LI* || 205 || 178 || 14 || 51.2 || 49.4 || 51.9 || 25 || 3.5 NO || 10,094 || 9,627 || 255 || 4.4 || 4.3 || 3.5 || 1,356 || 0.6 CH || 8,827 || 7,811 || 521 || 5.3 || 5.0 || 4.8 || : || : HR || 5,052 || 4,383 || 317 || 3.3 || 4.2 || 9.5 || 235 || 0.2 MK* || 4,284 || 3,939 || 188 || 6.6 || 6.3 || 42.8 || : || : TR* || 22,137 || 19,994 || 1,164 || 0.6 || 0.8 || 2.6 || 8,758 || 0.4 Source: Eurostat (UOE data
collection) for degree mobility data (provisional data). *Citizenship instead
of mobile students. European Commission, Erasmus statistics:
http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/statistics_en.htm: for credit mobility
statistics. * Degree mobility: a student enrolled in destination country, which
is different from the country of origin (e.g. where the prior education was
taken (upper secondary degree)) **Credit mobility: a student enrolled in
country of origin but having been abroad (country of destination) for a study
period during the programme. Only EU Erasmus programme covered. Total Tertiary:
ISCED level 5 and 6. Bachelor and master level: ISCED level 5A and doctorate
level: ISCED level 6 (ISCED 97). Reading note: 3.9% of students (with a upper
secondary degree from Germany) are enrolled in tertiary education in another
EU/EEA or candidate country (in relation to all students enrolled at tertiary
education level in Germany. This corresponds to an absolute number of 77,948
students. 1.4% of students enrolled in tertiary education in Germany have had a study or training period abroad participating in an EU Erasmus programme. This
corresponds to 28,854 students for the academic year 2009/2010. The attractiveness of a higher education
system can be measured by the number of international students enrolled in
study programmes at higher education institutions. The Bologna process and the
establishment of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA)[86] was
instrumental in modernising education structures throughout Europe and actively
encourages student mobility. As noted, the Bologna Process has, like the
EU, defined a benchmark learning mobility for higher education graduates which
aims at the same goal for 2020 and uses, to a large extent, the same
parameters. In addition, an inbound mobility indicator is also underway with
the aim of measuring the attractiveness of the EHEA as a study place[87]. Table 7.2. Inbound mobility in the EU27, EEA and candidate countries,
enrolment and graduates, bachelor and master level in tertiary education, 2005
and 2010 || Degree mobility*, enrolments || Credit mobility (Erasmus)*, enrolments || Degree mobility*, graduates || 2005 || || 2010 || || 2005 || || 2010 || || 2010 || || absolute || % || absolute || % || absolute || % || absolute || % || absolute || % EU27 || 978,553 || 6.4 || 1,109,868 || 6.7 || 151,046 || 1,0 || 205,528 || 1,2 || 222,345 || : Belgium || 1,3401 || 7.6 || 23,004 || 10.9 || 5,087 || 2.8 || 7,300 || 3.5 || 7,826 || 13.4 Bulgaria** || 7,877 || 3.7 || 9,677 || 3.8 || 250 || 0.1 || 627 || 0.2 || 1,725 || 3.3 Czech R.*** || 16,352 || 5.9 || 31,818 || 8.4 || 2,613 || 0.9 || 4,616 || 1.2 || 6,475 || 7.1 Denmark || 3,780 || 1.9 || 12,986 || 6.4 || 4,356 || 2.2 || 6,186 || 3.1 || 2,927 || 6.5 Germany || 186,608 || 9.7 || 181,220 || 8.7 || 17,879 || 0.9 || 22,509 || 1.1 || 24,490 || 7.5 Estonia || 804 || 1.9 || 1,023 || 2.3 || 372 || 0.9 || 767 || 1.7 || 185 || 2.5 Ireland || : || : || 9,696 || 6.9 || 3,870 || 3.1 || 5,073 || 3.7 || 2,961 || 6.7 Greece || 10,730 || 2.7 || 17,231 || 4.3 || 1,899 || 0.5 || 2,983 || 0.7 || : || : Spain || 9,383 || 0.6 || 30,095 || 2.0 || 26,611 || 1.8 || 35,389 || 2.3 || 4,371 || 1.8 France** || 184,415 || 11.9 || 206,436 || 12.8 || 21,420 || 1.4 || 26,141 || 1.6 || : || : Italy** || 42,026 || 2.1 || 66,077 || 3.4 || 14,591 || 0.7 || 18,137 || 0.9 || 5,133 || 2.4 Cyprus || 290 || 6.8 || 2,159 || 11.2 || 125 || 2.9 || 452 || 2.4 || 199 || 7.3 Latvia** || 1,661 || 1.5 || 1,628 || 1.8 || 258 || 0.2 || 526 || 0.6 || 260 || 1.2 Lithuania || 830 || 0.6 || 2,932 || 2.1 || 626 || 0.5 || 1,374 || 1.0 || 392 || 1.2 Luxembourg || || || 1,349 || 33.4 || 15 || : || 313 || 7.5 || 264 || 33.2 Hungary*** || 12,834 || 3.2 || 15,092 || 4.4 || 1,554 || 0.4 || 2,804 || 0.8 || 2,048 || 3.4 Malta || 582 || 7.2 || : || : || 295 || 3.7 || 879 || 9.9 || : || : Netherlands || 16,676 || 3.1 || 27,964 || 4.4 || 6,965 || 1.2 || 8,594 || 1.3 || 4,961 || 3.9 Austria*** || 31,287 || 15.4 || 47296.85 || 16.5 || 3,735 || 1.8 || 4,992 || 1.7 || 4,740 || 11.4 Poland** || 9,114 || 0.4 || 17,510 || 0.8 || 3,063 || 0.1 || 6,070 || 0.3 || 3,200 || 0.5 Portugal*** || 15,398 || 4.3 || 9,714 || 2.6 || 4,542 || 1.3 || 7,385 || 2.0 || 2,907 || 3.8 Romania || 9,835 || 1.5 || 12,964 || 1.3 || 653 || 0.1 || 1,325 || 0.1 || 1,953 || 0.7 Slovenia || 493 || 0.9 || 1,507 || 1.8 || 589 || 1.0 || 1,271 || 1.5 || 139 || 1.3 Slovakia** || 1,519 || 0.9 || 7,157 || 3.2 || 508 || 0.3 || 1,085 || 0.5 || 1,838 || 2.5 Finland || 6,863 || 2.4 || 10,774 || 3.8 || 5,736 || 2.0 || 6,580 || 2.3 || 1,841 || 3.9 Sweden || 18,643 || 4.8 || 26,644 || 6.5 || 7,048 || 1.8 || 9,500 || 2.4 || 5,196 || 10.4 UK || 252,672 || 15.1 || 335,914 || 17.6 || 16,386 || 1.0 || 22,650 || 1.2 || 136,314 || 24.5 Iceland** || 459 || 3.2 || 833 || 4.8 || 256 || 1.8 || 491 || 2.9 || 148 || 3.7 Liechtenstein || 28 || 5.3 || : || : || 31 || 5.9 || 46 || 6.5 || 156 || 78.4 Norway || 12,249 || 5.9 || 3094 || 1.4 || 2,260 || 1.1 || 3,865 || 1.8 || 1,024 || 2.8 Switzerland || 16,787 || 11.4 || 28,485 || 16.1 || : || : || : || : || 6,320 || 14.0 Croatia || 3,595 || 2.7 || 525 || 0.5 || : || : || : || : || 103 || 0.4 Turkey** || 16,152 || 1.1 || 23,329 || 1.0 || 828 || 0.1 || 3,336 || 0.1 || 515 || 0.2 Source: Eurostat (UOE data
collection, provisional data) and European Commission, Erasmus statistics: http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/statistics_en.htm. Notes:
*Degree mobility: a student enrolled/graduating in destination country, which
is different from the country of origin (e.g. where the prior education was
taken (upper secondary degree)); *Credit mobility: a student
enrolled/graduating in country of origin but having been abroad (country of
destination) for a study period during the programme; only EU Erasmus programme
covered. ** and *** foreigners instead of mobile students//graduates. Bachelor
and master level: ISCED 1997 level 5A programmes (at least three years
duration, theoretically based/research preparatory or giving access to
professions with high skills requirements.) For some countries the ISCED 5A
coverage could be slightly broader than bachelor and master degrees. Reading
note: The percentage of degree mobile students enrolled has risen from 15.1% in
2005 to 17,6% in 2010 in the United Kingdom, whereas Erasmus students made up
1% in 2005 and 1.2% in 2010. 24.5% of all graduates in the United Kingdom in 2010 were mobile students. Table 7.2 shows the current level of enrolled
mobile students in the EU, EEA and candidate countries, both for degree and
credit mobility, - and compares this level to 2005. It also shows the
percentage of mobile graduates who graduated in a given country in 2010. For
graduates it can be noted than more than half of mobile graduates in the EU are
taking a degree in the United Kingdom; a total of 136,314 graduates in 2010 and
close to a quarter of the total graduate population in the UK. Other countries as Luxembourg, Belgium, Sweden and Austria also have high levels of foreign graduates whereas particularly some
Eastern European countries as Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia have low levels (but also Italy and Spain). In 2010, more than 1.3 million students were
enrolled in tertiary education abroad, e.g. in another country compared to
where they had obtained their upper secondary degree[88]. This
amounted to nearly 8% of the student population; where 1.2% where Erasmus
students enrolled. This figure has only increased slightly from 2005 with 0.6
percentage point.
8.
Adult participation in lifelong learning
8.1. Participation of adults in
learning activities
In the process of learning throughout one's life, adult
education and training covers the longest span. Continued learning after
initial education and training is required to maintain and develop skills, to
adapt to structural change and technical developments, for staying in jobs,
career advancement or to get back into the labour market. Taking account of
this importance, the Council established a benchmark for "adult participation
in lifelong learning"[89] and adopted a resolution on a
renewed European agenda for adult learning[90]. The benchmark
objective is to have, by 2020, 15% of European adults participating in lifelong
learning activities[91]. Table 8.1. Percentage of the population aged 25-64 participating in formal or
non-formal learning || 2006 || 2010 || 2011 || Total || Total || Total || Male || Female || Foreign-born[92] || Low edu-cated || Unem-ployed || Job-related of non-formal (a) EU 27 || 9.5 || 9.1 || 8.9 || 8.2 || 9.6 || 9.9 || 3.9 || 9.1 || 83.4 EU 27 adjusted (c) || 8.7 || 8.9 || 8.9 || || || || || || Belgium || 7.5 || 7.2 || 7.1 || 6.7 || 7.4 || 8.6 || 3.1 || 8.9 || 85.3 Bulgaria || 1.3 || 1.2 || 1.2 || 1.2 || 1.2 || : || : || : || 96.3 Czech Republic || 5.6 || 7.5 || 11.4b || 11.2b || 11.6b || 10.2b || 2.8b || 7.5b || 93.3 Denmark || 29.2 || 32.5 || 32.3 || 25.6 || 39.0 || 33.3 || 23.4 || 35.1 || 93.1 Germany || 7.5 || 7.7 || 7.8 || 7.9 || 7.7 || 6.4 || 3.1 || 5.1 || 88.0 Estonia || 6.5 || 10.9 || 12.0 || 9.2 || 14.5 || (6.1) || : || (8.5) || 90.5 Ireland || 7.3 || 6.7 || 6.8 || 6.3 || 7.2 || 7.9 || 2.8 || 6.4 || : Greece || 1.9 || 3.0 || 2.4 || 2.6 || 2.3 || 1.2 || 0.4 || 2.7 || 84.1 Spain || 10.4 || 10.8 || 10.8 || 10.0 || 11.6 || 8.6 || 4.6 || 13.2 || 72.9 France || 6.4 || 5.0 || 5.5 || 5.2 || 5.9 || 5.1 || 2.5 || 5.2 || 89.0 Italy || 6.1 || 6.2 || 5.7 || 5.3 || 6.0 || 3.4 || 1.2 || 5.5 || 71.0 Cyprus || 7.1 || 7.7 || 7.5 || 7.2 || 7.8 || 5.3 || (1.3) || 6.9 || 80.9 Latvia || 6.9 || 5.0 || 5.0 || 3.8 || 6.1 || (3.0) || : || (4.0) || 84.4 Lithuania || 4.9 || 4.0 || 5.9 || 4.6 || 7.1 || : || : || (3.5) || 89.3 Luxembourg || 8.2 || 13.4 || 13.6 || 14.2 || 13.0 || 12.1 || (4.5) || (15.3) || : Hungary || 3.8 || 2.8 || 2.7 || 2.6 || 2.9 || (3.2) || 0.5 || 2.0 || 81.9 Malta || 5.4 || 6.2 || 6.6 || 6.3 || 6.9 || || 3.3 || : || 70.9 Netherlands || 15.6 || (16.6) || 16.7 || 16.5 || 16.9 || 19.5 || 10.5 || 17.3 || 84.7 Austria || 13.1 || 13.7 || 13.4 || 12.2 || 14.5 || 11.2 || 4.1 || 18.6 || 80.5 Poland || 4.7 || 5.3 || 4.5 || 4.0 || 5.0 || : || (0.8) || 4.8 || 87.5 Portugal || 4.2 || 5.8 || 11.6b || 11.1b || 12.1b || 13.9b || 8.0b || 17.1b || 84.0 Romania || 1.3 || 1.3 || 1.6 || 1.6 || 1.5 || : || (0.3) || (1.5) || 82.6 Slovenia || 15 || 16.2 || 15.9 || 13.7 || 18.2 || (7.2) || (3.3) || 16.4 || 70.8 Slovakia || 4.1 || 2.8 || 3.9 || 3.4 || 4.4 || : || : || 1.7 || 92.0 Finland || 23.1 || 23.0 || 23.8 || 19.9 || 27.7 || 25.9 || 10.7 || 19.7 || 85.6 Sweden || 18.4p || 24.5 || 25.0 || 18.4 || 31.9 || 25.5 || 16.9 || 40.4 || 88.0 United Kingdom || 26.7 || 19.4(b) || 15.8p || 14.0p || 17.5p || 19.6p || 7.2p || 14.8p || 76.0 Croatia || 2.9 || (2.2) || (2.3) || (2.3) || (2.3) || : || : || : || 78.1 Iceland || 27.9 || 25.2 || 25.9 || 22.8 || 29.0 || 19.1 || 16.1 || 30.9 || : MK* || 2.3 || 3.2 || 3.4 || 3.4 || 3.3 || : || (0.3) || (2.3) || : Turkey || 1.8 || 2.5 || 2.9 || 3.0 || 2.7 || 3.1 || 1.4 || 5.5 || 70.0 Norway || 18.7 || 17.8 || 18.2 || 17.1 || 19.2 || 19.1 || 10.4 || 18.9 || : Switzerland || 22.5 || 30.6 || 29.9 || 31.0 || 28.7 || 23.6 || 9.9 || 23.0 || : Source: Eurostat (LFS); p =
provisional; b = break in time series; (a) = share of job-related training of
all non-formal training activities. Deviating source: AES 2007 with 1-year
reference period; (b) = break in time series in previous years; (c) = model
calculation of EU27 average levelling out the effect of breaks in time series
in relevant countries, based on the assumption that breaks have led to more
realistic figures (EC including JRC-CRELL); : = Data either not available or
not reliable due to very small sample size; Migrant = based on Country of
birth; low education = Pre-primary, primary and lower secondary education
(ISCED levels 0-2); *MK: The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Statistical figures show that lifelong learning is far
from being a reality for most European citizens (Table 8.1). The average
amounts to 8.9% and it seems unlikely that the 15%-benchmark will be reached by
2020. In fact, the data suggest that participation has slightly decreased over
the last five years: in 2006, it amounted to 9.5%. However, available data have
been subject to numerous breaks in time series and when these are levelled out,
participation appears to have been fairly stable[93].
However, on average, Member States have not made
significant progress in reaching the benchmark. In 2011 only 5 Member States
exceeded the 15% threshold, whereas in 14 countries participation rates reached
no more than half the level required. The importance of improving adult
learning policies is also reflected in some 2012 European Country-specific
Recommendations addressed to Estonia, Spain, France and Poland[94]. The Nordic countries are still the best performers and
achieve consistently high participation rates above or close to 25%. The
Netherlands, Slovenia, Austria, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Spain, Estonia
and, most recently, Portugal are in the next group, with participation rates of
between 10% and 17%[95]. Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary and Romania still remain below 3% and, in some cases, even have decreasing rates. Participation is considerably different among sub-groups
of the adult population. For example, men in general participate less than
women (8.2% as opposed to 9.6%), while also demonstrating a higher preference
for job-related learning in all countries (88% as opposed to 78.7% for women
according to the Adult Education Survey – AES - 2007), a fact that reflects the
higher labour market activity of men. The foreign-born population is on average more involved
in learning activities than the native-born population (EU average 9.9% as
opposed to 8.9%), although not in all countries. This might to some extent be
due to targeted learning activities such as language courses, but also reflects
higher unemployment among foreign-born individuals in some countries, resulting
in more participation in labour market integration measures. In all Member States, citizens with no more than lower
secondary education engage less than half as often in learning activities than
the overall adult population (3.9% in EU27). In light of the high propensity of
job-related adult learning, this is not surprising when taking into account
that this group is less active on the labour market. Nevertheless, the size of
the gap and the fact that it applies to all countries unveils the large
potential for addressing this and unleashing its potential value for Member State economies. Moreover, job opportunities for this segment of the workforce are
decreasing. While it is common knowledge that people in employment
generally take more than average advantage of learning opportunities, the
picture for unemployed people is more diverse. While average participation is
only slightly higher than for the overall 25-64 age group (9.1% as opposed to
8.9%), some countries stand out with their rates being considerably higher than
for the overall population – namely Spain, Austria, Portugal and Sweden – most
likely showing efforts made to maintain and upgrade the skills of the jobless
and to facilitate their re-integration into the labour market.
8.2. The relevance of informal
learning
Informal learning is described as learning which is
generally without tutoring, intentional, but less organised and less structured
and may include for example learning activities that occur in the household or
in the daily life[96]. Thereby, it constitutes an
important, yet not sufficiently investigated component of adult learning and
cannot be overlooked. The European Commission has identified its added value
and proposed a Recommendation for the promotion and recognition of non-formal
and informal learning. Due to the inherent unstructured nature of informal
learning, measuring informal learning entails considerable problems.
Nevertheless, the AES provides information on self-reported informal learning,
complementing the statistics on adult lifelong learning. Figure 8.1. Percentage of the population aged 25-64 participating in informal
learning (2007) Source: Eurostat (AES). In 2007, the EU participation rate in informal learning
among adults was 44.7% (Figure 8.1[97]),
notably higher than the rates for non-formal activities (32.7%) and formal
education (6.3%). Informal learning can therefore be regarded as a crucial element
of adult learning, despite its high variation across countries, ranging from
18.8% in Romania to 84.1% in the Slovak Republic. More importantly, statistics
point towards the increasing importance of informal learning. When comparing
similar learning activities in 2003 and 2007, figures have steeply increased
(e.g. for "reading books or printed material for learning purposes"
from 33% to 44%).
8.3. What levels of competences have
adults acquired?
As pointed out in chapter 6, sufficient cognitive skills
are a prerequisite for individuals to find a job, as well as to participate
actively in society. It is a major task for societies to provide the right
levels of skills to their citizens through education and training. Likewise and
from a macroeconomic perspective, for matching the demand for a skilled
workforce in Europe it is the actual skills of the workforce that matters
rather than the formal educational attainment. However, comprehensive evidence
about the actual skills of the adult population in Europe, how these relate to
education and learning processes and how they match with requirements at the
workplace, is still lacking[98]. Existing European surveys on adult
education mainly contain information on participation, forms of provision of
training and obstacles to access, thus providing only indirect measures of
adult skills. This is why the European Commission has engaged in supporting the
OECD's Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC)[99],
which directly assesses the skills of the adult population in participating
countries. From an education perspective, it is of major importance
to get a picture of whether and to what extent educational programmes
contribute to developing the skills of the young population. Based on PIAAC
field trial results, figure 8.2 shows how the distribution of skills and the
extent of overlap by level of formal educational attainment vary within and
across countries[100]. In country A, skill levels of higher education graduates
are significantly higher than those of graduates from upper secondary
education, unlike countries B and C, where the skill levels of graduates from
higher education even overlap with those of individuals who have not completed
secondary education. Moreover, upper secondary graduates in country B perform
on almost the same level as higher education graduates in country C. The figure
emphasises how the actual skills of the population, rather than the formal
degrees, distinguish countries from one another. Furthermore, this measure will
allow for at least a partial explanation of the variation in labour market
success of graduates from similar educational programmes across participating
countries. Figure 8.2. Levels of foundation skills by qualification levels, adults aged 16
to 65[101] Source: OECD (based on
indicative PIAAC field test results). As
the skills acquired when leaving education are important for finding a job and
entering into the labour market, maintaining adequate skills levels throughout
working life can be considered important for the individual for staying in
employment and being able to take advantage of rapidly changing technological,
economic and societal environments. It can be expected that skills are more
liable to deteriorate when not being utilised on the job or for other
activities. PIAAC measures skills of the entire age range of the workforce and
therefore provides an indirect measure of skills development over the lifespan.
9.
Matching educational outcomes and labour market
needs
9.1. The employment rate of graduates
In 2012 the Council established a new benchmark to
reflect the role of education and training in raising employability[102].
The indicator underpinning this employment rate benchmark focuses on young
individuals, 20 to 34 year-olds that graduated from ISCED levels 3-6 no more
than three years before the reference year (see figure 9.1). According to the
new benchmark, by 2020, 82% of the new graduates should be in employment.[103]
In 2011, the respective cohort of individuals amounted to 11.3 million, of
which 77.2% were employed (see table 9.1 on the next page). Figure 9.1. Employment rate of graduates, aged 20-34, by educational attainment* Employment rates of graduates aged 20-34 who
have graduated no more than three years ago Source: Eurostat (LFS).
Note*: Graduated no more than three years before the reference year. Figure 9.1 plots the evolution of the EU27 employment
rate benchmark, and its disaggregation by educational attainment, between 2006
and 2011. The employment rate increased until 2008 and decreased afterwards.
Between 2008 and 2011, it declined by 4.8 percentage points, compared to the
1.7 percentage points observed for the overall employment rate (20-64 years
old). This strong decrease signals the fact that the cohort targeted by the
employment rate benchmark has been particularly affected by the crisis. The figure also unveils the importance of educational
attainment for employability. Firstly, it shows that a higher level of
educational attainment is associated with higher employment rates. Secondly,
even though the employment rate has declined for both educational attainment
levels, the reduction between 2008 and 2010 was stronger for the lower educated
cohort. Between 2010 and 2011, moreover, the cohort of highly educated graduates
did not suffer any further decline in their employment rate, while for the low
educated it decreased by 0.8 percentage points. There is a high cross-country variation in the
employment rate of graduates (table 9.1. on the next page). Whereas the Netherlands, Malta, Luxembourg and Austria have been among the best performing countries since 2006,
Italy and Greece have always been at the lower end. Again distinguishing
between higher and lower educated cohorts, it is interesting to observe that
both the Netherlands and Malta consistently show up among the best performers
for both cohorts and Greece as one of the worst. As for Italy, this has always been the case for the highly educated cohort, and, since 2007, also for the
graduates from ISCED levels 3-4. In recent years, employment rates of highly
educated graduates in Spain have continuously dropped to very low levels. Table 9.1. Employment rate of graduates by country and educational attainment Employment rates of graduates aged 20-34 who
have graduated no more than three years ago[104] || Employment rate benchmark in % (ISCED 3-6) || ISCED 3-4 (%) || ISCED 5-6 (%) || || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || EU27 countries || 79.0 || 80.9 || 82.0 || 78.3 || 77.5 || 77.2 || 73.9 || 75.6 || 77.2 || 72.5 || 72.1 || 71.3 || 84.2 || 86.0 || 86.9 || 83.8 || 82.7 || 82.7 || Belgium || 81.1 || 82.1 || 83.9 || 81.0 || 81.3 || 80.8 || 72.0 || 73.2 || 73.6 || 71.9 || 71.5 || 73.5 || 87.5 || 88.5 || 90.8 || 87.8 || 88.2 || 86.0 || Bulgaria || 69.6 || 72.3 || 79.6 || 73.6 || 68.7 || 57.5 || 58.8 || 62.5 || 74.1 || 63.7 || 58.4 || 48.4 || 82.3 || 85.0 || 87.2 || 85.2 || 82.7 || 74.0 || Czech Republic || 82.8 || 87.6 || 87.9 || 84.5 || 81.3 || 80.3 || 80.9 || 86.1 || 87.6 || 81.7 || 77.4 || 76.1 || 87.5 || 91.2 || 88.5 || 89.0 || 87.1 || 85.6 || Denmark || 89.0 || 90.9 || 90.6 || 87.9 || 83.5 || 83.0 || 89.3 || 89.0 || 90.2 || 84.2 || 82.0 || 82.9 || 88.7 || 92.8 || 90.9 || 91.0 || 84.8 || 83.1 || Germany || 82.1 || 84.2 || 86.5 || 85.3 || 86.1 || 88.2 || 77.9 || 79.6 || 83.2 || 81.0 || 83.7 || 84.5 || 90.9 || 91.8 || 92.5 || 92.9 || 90.2 || 94.2 || Estonia || 84.9 || 86.5 || 82.3 || 67.6 || 64.3 || 75.1 || 78.6u || 81.7u || 81.9 || 64.5u || 48.4u || 68.4u || 90.5 || 90.8 || 82.7 || 71.2u || 76.7 || 81.5 || Ireland || 88.5 || 87.4 || 85.7 || 75.5 || 71.5 || 71.4 || 82.0 || 81.2 || 79.2 || 61.8 || 56.9 || 52.6 || 91.4 || 90.4 || 88.7 || 83.3 || 80.2 || 81.7 || Greece || 66.6 || 67.8 || 67.9 || 64.7 || 58.5 || 50.2 || 62.6 || 64.2 || 62.9 || 60.1 || 55.8 || 46.2 || 69.2 || 69.9 || 70.8 || 67.7 || 60.3 || 52.5 || Spain || 82.3 || 85.8 || 81.9 || 72.6 || 70.4 || 66.4 || 77.7 || 81.7 || 74.5 || 63.8 || 60.5 || 51.4 || 84.0 || 87.4 || 85.1 || 76.1 || 74.5 || 71.8 || France || 79.0 || 80.0 || 83.3 || 77.2 || 77.4 || 77.6 || 72.0 || 73.0 || 75.1 || 68.7 || 69.2 || 68.5 || 83.3 || 84.8 || 88.9 || 83.4 || 83.0 || 83.5 || Italy || 66.2 || 66.1 || 65.2 || 60.6 || 57.7 || 57.6 || 63.6 || 62.6 || 60.5 || 56.0 || 52.3 || 50.6 || 69.0 || 70.0 || 70.5 || 66.0 || 64.7 || 66.1 || Cyprus || 80.5 || 82.3 || 85.8 || 81.2 || 78.6 || 73.1 || 74.0 || 71.5 || 80.9 || 73.8 || 70.0 || 57.6 || 82.6 || 85.3 || 87.0 || 83.0 || 80.1 || 76.7 || Latvia || 78.5 || 82.0 || 83.1 || 71.4 || 64.6 || 72.7 || 73.1 || 77.9 || 77.6 || 59.2 || 54.0 || 56.9 || 85.0 || 86.5 || 87.6 || 82.1 || 75.5 || 85.1 || Lithuania || 83.3 || 83.7 || 79.3 || 72.9 || 73.6 || 69.4 || 74.7 || 72.8 || 67.8 || 56.9 || 54.3 || 48.2u || 90.4 || 92.5 || 87.6 || 84.6 || 84.4 || 82.2 || Luxembourg || 91.1 || 88.0 || 86.9 || 85.5 || 89.5 || 86.1 || 86.5 || 87.7 || 80.0 || 79.3 || 86.6 || 78.5 || 95.8 || 88.3 || 92.9 || 90.4 || 91.3 || 90.7 || Hungary || 79.8 || 80.1 || 80.1 || 75.6 || 74.4 || 73.5 || 71.8 || 72.9 || 71.7 || 66.4 || 65.9 || 63.5 || 87.6 || 86.9 || 87.4 || 84.7 || 82.8 || 83.3 || Malta || 91.2 || 93.7 || 95.7 || 94.1 || 93.8 || 91.2 || 87.0u || 89.9 || 96.3 || 89.7 || 87.3u || 85.6 || 94.2 || 96.5 || 95.3 || 97.5 || 98.0 || 94.7 || Netherlands || 92.7 || 94.4 || 93.6 || 92.9 || 92.6 || 92.2 || 90.7 || 91.9 || 91.4 || 91.3 || 89.7 || 89.1 || 94.4 || 96.6 || 95.4 || 94.2 || 94.8 || 94.4 || Austria || 90.1 || 90.5 || 90.6 || 88.6 || 88.7 || 91.0 || 89.9 || 89.9 || 89.0 || 87.7 || 88.2 || 91.0 || 90.3 || 91.9 || 94.7 || 91.0 || 90.0 || 91.2 || Poland || 71.3 || 74.8 || 79.3 || 78.4 || 76.5 || 75.4 || 60.7 || 64.9 || 70.1 || 68.7 || 67.4 || 65.7 || 81.6 || 84.4 || 87.0 || 85.7 || 83.7 || 82.6 || Portugal || 82.9 || 81.2 || 82.7 || 82.6 || 80.7 || 76.0 || 80.7 || 79.7 || 81.9 || 79.9 || 77.4 || 73.5 || 84.3 || 82.0 || 83.2 || 84.2 || 83.2 || 78.3 || Romania || 74.7 || 79.3 || 84.8 || 77.6 || 71.2 || 70.4 || 64.8 || 70.7 || 77.1 || 69.1 || 61.3 || 58.8 || 86.4 || 89.0 || 92.9 || 85.7 || 81.9 || 80.7 || Slovenia || 80.8 || 81.6 || 83.4 || 82.3 || 80.7 || 76.0 || 77.4 || 78.0 || 79.8 || 73.3 || 75.1 || 68.7u || 84.5 || 84.9 || 86.7 || 88.7 || 84.3 || 80.3 || Slovakia || 77.5 || 81.0 || 81.4 || 74.4 || 69.4 || 70.3 || 71.7 || 77.8 || 79.5 || 67.9 || 60.5 || 61.7 || 87.9 || 86.4 || 84.3 || 83.5 || 80.6 || 79.5 || Finland || 79.7 || 82.8 || 82.3 || 77.8 || 79.7 || 78.4 || 75.3 || 81.4 || 78.9 || 72.9 || 76.3 || 73.6 || 87.4 || 85.1 || 87.8 || 84.1 || 84.9 || 85.1 || Sweden || 83.3 || 85.4 || 85.9 || 81.7 || 82.7 || 84.4 || 78.4 || 81.0 || 81.6 || 74.6 || 77.3 || 79.5 || 88.2 || 89.9 || 90.7 || 89.9 || 89.3 || 90.5 || United Kingdom || 86.3 || 85.7 || 83.6 || 80.0 || 81.6 || 81.2 || 84.7 || 82.0 || 79.5 || 75.0 || 76.5 || 75.6 || 87.7 || 89.2 || 87.3 || 84.0 || 85.9 || 85.7 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || Reference population of the employment rate benchmark in millions (ISCED 3-6) || Reference population in millions (ISCED 3-4) || Reference population in millions (ISCED 5-6) || || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || EU27 countries || 10.4 || 10.5 || 10.7 || 10.7 || 10.9 || 11.3 || 5.3 || 5.2 || 5.3 || 5.2 || 5.4 || 5.4 || 5.2 || 5.3 || 5.4 || 5.5 || 5.5 || 5.8 Source: Eurostat (LFS). Notes: m = missing data ; u = unreliable
data. Between 2008 and 2010, all countries except Luxembourg reveal a decrease in their employment rate. This was particularly the case for Latvia, Estonia, Ireland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Bulgaria with a decrease of more than 10
percentage points. The overall decrease of 0.3 percentage points observed
between 2010 and 2011 hides important cross-country variations: whereas the
employment rate of graduates increased in France, Slovakia, Sweden, Germany,
Austria and particularly Latvia and Estonia, it decreased substantially in
Portugal, Slovenia, Lithuania, Spain, Cyprus and particularly Greece and
Bulgaria. The European Commission has explored the determinants of
the employment rate benchmark, by estimating the probability of being employed
while taking into account individual characteristics, institutional factors and
other contextual factors. The probability of being employed is higher for males
and older individuals and increases with time since graduation, revealing that
the transition from education to work is particularly challenging immediately
after graduation. The gender gap in the employment rate has decreased, but at
the expense of the male probability of being employed rather than due to an
improvement for women. Focusing on the importance of educational attainment,
having graduated from tertiary education significantly increases the
probability of being employed when compared to those having graduated from
ISCED 3 or 4. The contribution of educational attainment is constant and
significant, even after controlling for labour market contextualising
variables.
9.2. The educational attainment of
adults
Educational attainment is the visible output of
education systems. The completion of upper secondary education is considered as
the minimum requirement for achieving adequate skills for a successful
integration into the labour market. This is why the Europe 2020 strategy
contains a headline target aiming to reduce the share of those who have not
completed upper secondary education (early school leavers, see chapter 3) and,
until 2010, a benchmark was in place that called for increasing the completion of
upper secondary education of 20-24 year olds to 85%. Figure 9.2. Population having completed at least upper secondary education by age group and groups of EU 27 Member
States (%) Source: Eurostat (LFS);
grouping by European Commission: North: DK, FI, SE; East: BG, CZ, EE, LT, LV, HU, PL, RO, SI, SK; South: EL, ES, IT, CY, MT, PT; West: BE, DE, EI, FR, LU, NL, AT, UK. The rising demand for a higher skilled workforce in most
parts of Europe over the past decades has led to a steadily rising educational
attainment of the population. This is reflected in distribution of educational
attainment for different age groups (figure 9.2). The share of the population
that has attained at least upper secondary education is lowest in the older age
groups and rises with younger cohorts. Educational attainment is highest in the
eastern Member States, followed by slightly lower shares in the northern and
the western countries. In the eastern countries upper secondary education has
since long been the standard attainment, which is why only the oldest group
shows a considerably lower attainment. In the North and West, the peak of
attainment is only reached in the age group of 25-34, which reflects the
relatively long duration of educational provision in these countries. The
Southern countries show the strongest improvement in attainment over time,
where attainment among the 20-24 olds is more than twice as high as among those
close to retirement. The older cohorts with the lowest educational attainment
steadily leave the workforce and are replaced by a younger, higher educated
generation. This dynamism leads to a higher skilled workforce and potentially
to certain levels of over-qualification and youth unemployment, if labour
markets do not provide adequate jobs. Progress in upper secondary educational attainment of
20-24 olds has only been modest in recent years (table 9.2). In 2011, 19 Member
States performed above the average of 79.5% while some large countries such as Germany, Spain and Italy showed attainment rates way below the average. In general, progress was
larger in countries with low attainment rates, whereas in good performing
countries saturation effects could be observed. Nevertheless, attainment rates
still differ widely, from 59.2% in Malta to 93.3% in the Slovak Republic. Table 9.2. Educational
attainment of the population || Population with at least upper secondary attainment (%) || Females with at least upper secondary attainment (%) || Unemployment rate of 25-64 years old by educational attainment (%) 20-24 years || 25-34 years || 55-64 years || lower sec and less || Upper secondary || tertiary 2006 || 2010 || 2011 || 2011 || 2011 || 2011 || 2011 || 2011 EU 27 countries || 77.9 || 79 || 79.5 || 82.8 || 58.7 || 14.8 || 7.6 || 5 Belgium || 82.4 || 82.5 || 81.6 || 83.3 || 53.4 || 12.1b || 5.7b || 3.4b Bulgaria || 80.5i || 84.4 || 85.5 || 80.5 || 73.2 || 25.5 || 9 || 4.7 Czech Republic || 91.8 || 91.9 || 91.7 || 93.8 || 80.4 || 21.6 || 5.7 || 2.6 Denmark || 77.4 || 68.6 || 70 || 83.7 || 64.7 || 8.9 || 6 || 5 Germany || 71.9 || 74.4 || 75.8 || 86.5 || 78.9 || 13.9 || 5.8 || 2.4 Estonia || 82 || 83.2 || 82.6 || 90.3 || 87.9 || 26.4 || 11.9 || 7.9 Ireland || 85.8 || 86.5 || 86.9 || 87.6 || 54.7 || 21.7 || 15 || 7.1 Greece || 81 || 83.4 || 83.6 || 82.1 || 42.7 || 17 || 17.7 || 12.8 Spain || 61.6 || 61.2 || 61.7 || 70.2 || 29.7 || 26.4 || 19.3 || 11.7 France || 83.3 || 83.2 || 83.8 || 84.6 || 53.6 || 12.9 || 7.4 || 4.9 Italy || 75.5 || 76.3 || 76.9 || 74.8 || 37.6 || 9.4 || 6 || 5.2 Cyprus || 83.7 || 86.3 || 87.7 || 87.5 || 47.7 || 7.5 || 6.8 || 5.8 Latvia || 81 || 79.9 || 80.4 || 89 || 88.1 || 25.8 || 16 || 6.4 Lithuania || 88.2 || 86.9 || 86.9 || 92.1 || 88.8 || 37.3 || 17.7 || 5.6 Luxembourg || 69.3 || 73.4 || 73.3 || 84.1 || 64.2 || 6.1u || 3.7 || 3.5 Hungary || 82.9 || 84 || 83.3 || 87.5 || 69.2 || 23.1 || 9.6 || 3.9 Malta* || 51.1 || 53.3 || 59.2 || 48.7 || 11.1 || 7.4 || : || : Netherlands || 74.7 || 77.6b || 78.2 || 84.1 || 52.9 || 5.4 || 3.8 || 2.8 Austria || 85.8 || 85.6 || 85.4 || 86.7 || 63.2 || 7.1 || 3.2 || 2.3 Poland || 91.7 || 91.1 || 90 || 95.4 || 78.3 || 16.9 || 8.7 || 4.5 Portugal || 49.6 || 58.7 || 64.4 || 61.7 || 17 || 13.3b || 10.9b || 8b Romania || 77.2 || 78.2 || 79.6 || 75.2 || 51.4 || 6.9 || 6.4 || 3.8 Slovenia || 89.4 || 89.1 || 90.1 || 96.9 || 65.6 || 12.7 || 8.2 || 4.7 Slovakia || 91.5 || 93.2 || 93.3 || 94.3 || 79 || 39.2 || 11.5 || 5.2 Finland || 84.7 || 84.2 || 85.4 || 92.9 || 73 || 11.3 || 6.9 || 4 Sweden || 84.9p || 85.9p || 88.7p || 88.9p || 69.1p || 11 || 4.6 || 3.9 United Kingdom || 78.8 || 80.4 || 80.1 || 83.5 || 61.3 || 10.4b || 6.1b || 3.7b Croatia || 94.6 || 95.7 || 95.6 || 90.7 || 59.2 || 15.8 || 11.6 || 8u Iceland || 49.3 || 53.4 || 56.9 || 78.6 || 52 || 7.3 || 5.4 || 4.5 MK** || 75.8 || 82.8 || 85.3 || 69.8 || 44.4 || 36 || 28.7 || 19.5 Turkey || 46 || 51.1 || 52.6 || 35.6 || 9.4 || 7.4 || 8 || 6.8 Norway || 68.6b || 71.1 || 71.2 || 85.3 || 78.9 || 5.2 || 2.2 || 1.6 Source: Eurostat
(LFS); p = provisional; b = break in series; : = data lacking; *MT:
Figures under review for certain secondary education qualifications, see also
footnote 23; **MK: The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, see Annex
2.1. Women have caught up in educational attainment
particularly in some southern Member States and gaps between Member States are
much smaller in the younger generation compared to the older generation (cf.
table 9.2). Nevertheless, in Malta and Portugal, still less than two thirds of
young females have attained a sufficient educational level, indicating urgent
need for further improvement. The assumption that upper secondary education is a
prerequisite for economic and social inclusion is confirmed by unemployment
rates (table 9.2). Unemployment rates at European Union level of those who have
not achieved upper secondary education are nearly two times those of upper
secondary graduates and three times those of tertiary graduates. This pattern
appears in almost all EU countries.
9.3. Future
skills needs
Even though the acquired level of education of Europeans
is still increasing, the skills acquired will have to suit the needs of
changing labour markets. Anticipating the future labour market demand lies at
the heart of the Agenda for New Skills and Jobs[105].
Since 2008, Cedefop has been forecasting changes in skills demand and supply in
Europe up to 2020[106]. In terms of occupations, the main
observed trends are expected to continue throughout the decade, namely an
increase in the higher level knowledge- and skills-intensive jobs and a
decrease in jobs requiring fewer transversal skills. The share of
highly-qualification jobs will increase from 29% in 2010 to almost 35% in 2020.
The share of jobs employing those with medium-level qualifications will remain
very significant, at around 50%, despite strong country variations; and the
share of jobs requiring only low qualifications will decrease from 20% to less
than 15%. Table 9.3 presents this forecast by country. The
countries where the employment of highly qualified workers will increase the
most between 2010 and 2020 are Slovakia, Cyprus and France and the countries
where it will increase the least are Germany, Estonia and Sweden. Lithuania is the only country where the demand for the higher skilled is expected to
decrease. The share of medium qualification jobs is expected to decrease in
nine Member States, ranging from -1.5% in Slovakia to -14.9% in Denmark. The countries where the share of medium qualification jobs is expected to increase
the most are Portugal, Malta and Spain, although all of these are expected to
have a concomitant increase in highly-qualified jobs. Finally, the only
countries where the share of low qualification jobs is expected to increase are
Latvia, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania and Sweden. On the supply side, the forecast is estimated in terms
of the number of economically active people (aged 15 and above) and the
qualifications they will hold. It is therefore largely predetermined by
demographic development and by education and training policies already in
place. Cedefop’s projections show a substantial increase of the population with
a university degree or equivalent (18 million). While the supply of the
medium-level qualifications (mainly vocational) is expected to increase to a
lesser extent (2 million), it will still constitute the majority of the
European labour force by 2020 (50%). On the other hand, the supply of low-level
qualifications is projected to fall by around 16 million. This shift reflects
the fact that young people entering the labour market will be more and more
qualified, while the lower-qualified older people will progressively leave the
active workforce. As illustrated by Table 9.3, this overall trend is visible in
all Member States, while the supply of medium qualifications is expected to
rise in some countries (Malta, Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Italy, the
United Kingdom , Belgium, Greece, Ireland and France) and drop in others
(particularly in Denmark, Poland and Romania). The share of high qualifications is projected to
increase more for women than for men, while the share of medium qualified is
expected to rise more for men than for women and the share of lower qualified
will drop faster for women than for men. In other words, on average, women are
projected to be higher qualified than men by 2020. Furthermore, there is a persistent mismatch between
supply and demand of ICT skills. The demand for ICT practitioners is growing at
a rate of 3% per year in the EU while there is a gradual decrease in the number
of ICT graduates. As a result, there are not enough workers to fill all the
vacancies available in the sector. According to a recent estimate, there will
be up to 700 000 unfilled ICT practitioners' vacancies in the European Union by
the year 2015[107], despite soaring unemployment and
the economic crisis in Europe. Table 9.3. Skills demand
and supply trends by level of qualifications || Demand for skills || Supply of skills || High || Medium || Low || High || Medium || Low || Change (%) || Change (%) || Change (%) || Change (%) || Change (%) || Change (%) || 2000-2010 || 2010-2020 || 2000-2010 || 2010-2020 || 2000-2010 || 2010-2020 || 2000-2010 || 2010-2020 || 2000-2010 || 2010-2020 || 2000-2010 || 2010-2020 EU27 || 31.5 || 19.7 || 9.4 || 4.8 || -21.0 || -20.1 || 44.3 || 26.5 || 8.0 || 1.8 || -17.3 || -28.9 Belgium || 28.4 || 16.3 || 21.4 || 13.5 || -28.3 || -19.4 || 31.5 || 19.7 || 25.1 || 11.5 || -25.2 || -31.7 Bulgaria || 20.8 || 10.0 || 25.3 || 3.1 || -26.8 || -24.0 || 19.2 || 8.2 || 3.7 || -0.9 || -31.5 || -34.9 Czech Republic || 38.6 || 30.3 || 2.3 || -3.0 || -34.9 || -15.1 || 47.6 || 46.2 || 0.9 || -6.3 || -40.2 || -47.5 Denmark || 23.9 || 13.0 || -22.5 || -14.9 || 33.3 || 20.8 || 38.7 || 20.7 || -18.6 || -13.3 || 7.6 || 4.0 Germany || 10.3 || 0.4 || 5.9 || 0.4 || -14.6 || -6.5 || 16.4 || 9.0 || 7.8 || -2.5 || -15.5 || -18.1 Estonia || 21.4 || 5.6 || -11.1 || 6.1 || -19.2 || 17.5 || 37.1 || 12.4 || -0.9 || -6.9 || -31.2 || -24.0 Ireland || 67.7 || 16.8 || 5.9 || 13.2 || -33.1 || -30.2 || 86.2 || 13.8 || 20.3 || 5.2 || -23.2 || -33.8 Greece || 47.1 || 22.0 || 15.2 || 15.9 || -13.4 || -24.4 || 51.1 || 24.6 || 12.7 || 11.3 || -16.0 || -26.7 Spain || 50.0 || 26.2 || 51.5 || 32.2 || -17.6 || -32.2 || 66.9 || 23.1 || 69.4 || 30.1 || -3.9 || -39.3 France || 31.1 || 32.3 || 3.9 || 2.2 || -20.2 || -16.9 || 45.7 || 29.3 || 10.4 || 3.5 || -18.4 || -20.4 Italy || 44.0 || 21.6 || 22.8 || 13.1 || -16.1 || -18.2 || 56.5 || 34.5 || 19.5 || 13.2 || -18.4 || -25.5 Cyprus || 63.3 || 33.3 || 28.0 || 13.9 || -13.1 || -18.3 || 75.3 || 30.8 || 38.7 || 17.5 || -10.1 || -26.5 Latvia || 27.0 || 23.7 || -9.1 || -6.4 || -12.6 || 36.0 || 46.9 || 29.0 || 0.0 || -11.7 || -30.6 || -27.6 Lithuania || -10.7 || -9.0 || 14.7 || 17.2 || -47.2 || 4.9 || 5.0 || 3.0 || 12.0 || -0.2 || -61.0 || -40.7 Luxembourg || 88.7 || 29.9 || 36.9 || 16.4 || 0.0 || -30.7 || 107.1 || 34.5 || 18.8 || 18.9 || -22.2 || -38.8 Hungary || 37.2 || 25.9 || -8.5 || -2.2 || -38.7 || -13.2 || 50.2 || 38.6 || 0.1 || -6.5 || -30.9 || -49.0 Malta || 81.8 || 22.5 || 44.0 || 36.1 || -11.0 || -20.2 || 95.7 || 37.8 || 46.4 || 31.7 || -13.0 || -37.9 Netherlands || 45.7 || 26.1 || -2.2 || -1.8 || -13.3 || -11.1 || 52.1 || 34.6 || 0.9 || -0.1 || -16.2 || -30.1 Austria || 43.7 || 31.1 || 4.5 || -1.7 || -5.7 || -9.4 || 62.2 || 51.2 || 5.4 || -6.9 || -10.7 || -22.9 Poland || 54.8 || 26.7 || 9.5 || -13.7 || -12.5 || -3.6 || 39.4 || 45.5 || -5.9 || -15.1 || -19.2 || -32.5 Portugal || 63.1 || 18.2 || 38.8 || 40.3 || -18.3 || -14.9 || 71.7 || 24.0 || 49.8 || 26.4 || -11.7 || -15.6 Romania || 13.8 || 27.1 || -1.7 || 0.8 || -46.5 || -17.2 || 359.6 || 71.4 || -26.6 || -17.8 || -0.3 || -22.9 Slovakia || 48.7 || 39.2 || 2.9 || -1.5 || -44.6 || -14.8 || 66.3 || 28.5 || 3.4 || -6.7 || -23.4 || -29.4 Slovenia || 56.4 || 25.5 || 0.2 || -5.7 || -29.7 || -15.6 || 66.6 || 40.5 || 0.4 || -3.8 || -36.7 || -41.6 Finland || 32.3 || 11.4 || 9.2 || 4.2 || -32.4 || -20.1 || 36.2 || 26.4 || 2.6 || -9.9 || -43.0 || -45.5 Sweden || 18.9 || 9.0 || 0.4 || 5.6 || -5.0 || 4.0 || 39.3 || 28.8 || 7.3 || -2.4 || -6.7 || -25.9 United Kingdom || 30.6 || 19.4 || 16.6 || 15.7 || -30.7 || -44.4 || 40.2 || 20.4 || 19.7 || 13.0 || -29.6 || -43.6 Source: Cedefop skills
forecasts (2012). Note: Percentage change in the number of posts in the
labour market requiring the different qualification levels. Overall, there is a projected rise in the level of
skills both from the demand and from the supply side. This parallel rise does
not, however, prevent from potential skills mismatches, such as
over-qualification gaps[108]. In addition, as the level of
formal skills increases, employers will need to screen applicants also on the
basis of their non-formal skills and competences. Hence, a perfect match in
terms of level of a job seeker's educational attainment and the formal skills
demanded by an employer is likely to become a weaker guarantee of
employability. A more precise
matching framework defined in terms of the actual nature rather than level of
the skills supplied and demanded could thus improve our understanding of the
real sources of skills mismatches.
Annexes
Annex 1.
Further tables and figures
Chapter
2 Table 2.A. General
Government Expenditure on education as % of GDP || 2004 || 2005 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 EU 27 countries || 5.2 || 5.2 || 5.2 || 5.1 || 5.2 || 5.5 || 5.5 Belgium || 5.8 || 5.9 || 5.8 || 5.8 || 6.0 || 6.3 || 6.3 Bulgaria || 4.1 || 4.3 || 3.7 || 3.8 || 4.1 || 4.3 || 3.8 Czech Republic || 4.6 || 4.6 || 4.7 || 4.5 || 4.5 || 4.8 || 4.8 Denmark || 7.6 || 7.3 || 7.0 || 6.7 || 6.9 || 8.0 || 8.1 Germany || 4.1 || 4.1 || 4.0 || 3.9 || 4.0 || 4.3 || 4.3 Estonia || 6.3 || 6.0 || 6.0 || 5.9 || 6.7 || 7.1 || 6.8 Ireland || 4.6 || 4.6 || 4.7 || 4.9 || 5.4 || 6.1 || 6.0 Greece || 3.9 || 3.9 || 3.9 || 3.9 || 4.1 || 4.1 || 3.8 Spain || 4.4 || 4.3 || 4.3 || 4.4 || 4.6 || 5.1 || 4.9 France || 5.8 || 5.8 || 5.7 || 5.5 || 5.6 || 6.0 || 6.0 Italy || 4.6 || 4.7 || 4.6 || 4.6 || 4.4 || 4.6 || 4.5 Cyprus || 6.5 || 6.4 || 6.4 || 6.3 || 6.8 || 7.2 || 7.5 Latvia || 6.1 || 5.6 || 6.0 || 5.8 || 6.6 || 6.8 || 6.2 Lithuania || 5.8 || 5.4 || 5.3 || 5.2 || 5.8 || 6.8 || 6.1 Luxembourg || 4.9 || 4.7 || 4.4 || 4.2 || 4.4 || 5.0 || 5.1 Hungary || 5.8 || 5.8 || 5.8 || 5.4 || 5.2 || 5.3 || 5.6 Malta || 5.8 || 5.7 || 5.7 || 5.4 || 5.3 || 5.5 || 5.8 Netherlands || 5.6 || 5.5 || 5.3 || 5.3 || 5.5 || 6.0 || 5.9 Austria || 5.3 || 5.2 || 5.2 || 5.2 || 5.4 || 5.8 || 5.7 Poland || 5.7 || 6.1 || 6.0 || 5.7 || 5.7 || 5.6 || 5.7 Portugal || 6.7 || 6.8 || 6.6 || 6.1 || 6.2 || 5.8 || 6.5 Romania || 3.6 || 3.6 || 4.1 || 3.9 || 4.5 || 4.1 || 3.4 Slovenia || 6.5 || 6.6 || 6.4 || 5.9 || 6.1 || 6.5 || 6.6 Slovakia || 3.9 || 4.0 || 3.7 || 3.9 || 3.5 || 4.3 || 4.5 Finland || 6.3 || 6.2 || 6.0 || 5.7 || 5.9 || 6.6 || 6.5 Sweden || 7.1 || 7.0 || 6.9 || 6.7 || 6.8 || 7.2 || 7.0 United Kingdom || 5.9 || 6.2 || 6.1 || 6.2 || 6.4 || 7.0 || 7.0 Source: Eurostat. Government
finance statistics (general government expenditure by function). Table 2.B. General
Government Expenditure on education as % of total GGE || 2004 || 2005 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 EU 27 countries || 11.1 || 11.2 || 11.1 || 11.1 || 11.0 || 10.8 || 10.8 Belgium || 11.7 || 11.4 || 12.0 || 12.0 || 11.9 || 11.8 || 11.8 Bulgaria || 10.6 || 11.5 || 10.9 || 9.5 || 10.8 || 10.7 || 10.0 Czech Republic || 10.7 || 10.7 || 11.3 || 10.9 || 10.9 || 10.8 || 10.9 Denmark || 14.0 || 13.9 || 13.7 || 13.3 || 13.4 || 13.7 || 14.0 Germany || 8.7 || 8.7 || 8.9 || 9.0 || 9.0 || 9.0 || 9.0 Estonia || 18.6 || 17.8 || 17.8 || 17.3 || 16.9 || 15.7 || 16.8 Ireland || 13.9 || 13.7 || 13.6 || 13.3 || 12.7 || 12.5 || 9.0 Greece || 8.5 || 8.8 || 8.6 || 8.1 || 8.0 || 7.6 || 7.5 Spain || 11.3 || 11.1 || 11.2 || 11.2 || 11.1 || 10.9 || 10.7 France || 10.9 || 10.8 || 10.8 || 10.5 || 10.5 || 10.6 || 10.6 Italy || 9.6 || 9.7 || 9.4 || 9.6 || 9.0 || 8.9 || 8.9 Cyprus || 15.3 || 14.8 || 15.0 || 15.3 || 16.1 || 15.7 || 16.1 Latvia || 17.0 || 15.7 || 15.7 || 16.3 || 16.8 || 15.3 || 13.9 Lithuania || 17.3 || 16.2 || 15.9 || 14.9 || 15.5 || 15.6 || 14.9 Luxembourg || 11.5 || 11.4 || 11.4 || 11.7 || 11.8 || 11.7 || 12.1 Hungary || 11.8 || 11.7 || 11.1 || 10.7 || 10.7 || 10.4 || 11.3 Malta || 12.8 || 12.7 || 12.8 || 12.7 || 12.1 || 12.7 || 13.5 Netherlands || 12.0 || 12.2 || 11.7 || 11.8 || 11.8 || 11.6 || 11.5 Austria || 9.8 || 10.5 || 10.7 || 10.6 || 10.9 || 10.9 || 10.8 Poland || 13.4 || 14.0 || 13.6 || 13.4 || 13.3 || 12.6 || 12.5 Portugal || 15.1 || 15.0 || 14.9 || 13.8 || 13.9 || 11.6 || 12.6 Romania || 10.8 || 10.7 || 11.6 || 10.3 || 11.4 || 9.9 || 8.3 Slovenia || 14.1 || 14.7 || 14.3 || 14.0 || 13.8 || 13.3 || 13.3 Slovakia || 10.5 || 10.4 || 10.2 || 11.3 || 10.0 || 10.4 || 11.2 Finland || 12.5 || 12.2 || 12.2 || 12.1 || 11.9 || 11.7 || 11.8 Sweden || 13.1 || 13.0 || 13.1 || 13.1 || 13.2 || 13.2 || 13.3 United Kingdom || 13.7 || 14.0 || 13.9 || 14.0 || 13.5 || 13.5 || 13.8 Source: Eurostat. Government
finance statistics (general government expenditure by function). Table 2.C. Breakdown of
total expenditure in public educational institutions || Current expenditure as % of total expenditure || Capital expenditure as % of total expenditure || Personnel expenditure as % of current expenditure || Other current expenditure as % of current expenditure 2004 || 2009 || 2004 || 2009 || 2004 || 2009 || 2004 || 2009 EU 27 countries || 91.6 || 91.2 || 8.4 || 8.8 || 77.5 || 77.1 || 22.5 || 22.9 Belgium || 97.1 || 96.3 || 2.9 || 3.7 || 88.3 || 87.4 || 11.7 || 12.6 Bulgaria || 93.4 || 91.0 || 6.6 || 9.0 || 72.0 || 64.5 || 28.0 || 35.5 Czech Republic || 90.4 || 88.8 || 9.6 || 11.2 || 60.1 || 58.4 || 39.9 || 41.6 Denmark || 93.9 || 94.1 || 6.1 || 5.9 || 78.9 || 82.0 || 21.1 || 18.0 Germany || 92.8 || 91.8 || 7.2 || 8.2 || 81.1 || 77.2 || 18.9 || 22.8 Estonia || 90.5 || : || 9.5 || : || : || : || : || : Ireland || 93.2 || 91.5 || 6.8 || 8.5 || 81.2 || 81.3 || 18.8 || 18.7 Greece || 79.3 || : || 20.7 || : || 78.0 || : || 22.0 || : Spain || 90.2 || 88.5 || 9.8 || 11.5 || 82.1 || 80.7 || 17.9 || 19.3 France || 89.8 || 90.0 || 10.2 || 10.0 || 82.6 || 80.3 || 17.4 || 19.7 Italy || 92.1 || 94.8 || 7.9 || 5.2 || 77.7 || 77.7 || 22.3 || 22.3 Cyprus || 89.4 || 88.1 || 10.6 || 11.9 || 89.3 || 85.9 || 10.7 || 14.1 Latvia || 91.6 || 87.3 || 8.4 || 12.7 || 76.0 || 79.0 || 24.0 || 21.0 Lithuania || 94.2 || 96.1 || 5.8 || 3.9 || 78.9 || 82.2 || 21.1 || 17.8 Luxembourg || 80.1 || : || 19.9 || : || 86.2 || : || 13.8 || : Hungary || 93.6 || 91.6 || 6.4 || 8.4 || 76.3 || 71.6 || 23.7 || 28.4 Malta || 94.4 || 94.4 || 5.6 || 5.6 || 84.6 || 78.6 || 15.4 || 21.4 Netherlands || 87.3 || 87.9 || 12.7 || 12.1 || 80.5 || 78.3 || 19.5 || 21.7 Austria || 95.2 || 95.8 || 4.8 || 4.2 || 75.2 || 74.7 || 24.8 || 25.3 Poland || 93.1 || 92.3 || 6.9 || 7.7 || 65.5 || 67.1 || 34.5 || 32.9 Portugal || 96.1 || 93.8 || 3.9 || 6.2 || 90.0 || 87.0 || 10.0 || 13.0 Romania || 94.1 || 86.2 || 5.9 || 13.8 || 71.1 || 74.8 || 28.9 || 25.2 Slovenia || 90.5 || 90.1 || 9.5 || 9.9 || 76.7 || 76.1 || 23.3 || 23.9 Slovakia || 94.6 || 94.3 || 5.4 || 5.7 || 60.2 || 59.9 || 39.8 || 40.1 Finland || 91.0 || 93.7 || 9.0 || 6.3 || 65.6 || 63.6 || 34.4 || 36.4 Sweden || 94.7 || 94.0 || 5.3 || 6.0 || 69.2 || 67.3 || 30.8 || 32.7 United Kingdom || 92.1 || 90.4 || 7.9 || 9.6 || 69.4 || 78.0 || 30.6 || 22.0 Source: Eurostat (UOE). Indicators
on education finance. Note: all levels of education combined. Table 2.D. Expenditure
on public and private educational institutions per pupil/student compared to
GDP per capita. % || 2004 || 2005 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 EU 27 countries || 24.7 || 25.3 || 25.2 || 24.9 || 25.6 || 27.4 Belgium || 23.8 || 23.8 || 25.0 || 25.2 || 27.1 || 27.7 Bulgaria || 24.2 || 23.7 || 23.6 || 22.9 || 26.5 || 27.8 Czech Republic || 21.7 || 21.3 || 23.3 || 21.5 || 21.5 || 23.9 Denmark || 28.1 || 29.1 || 28.6 || 28.4 || 28.6 || 31.6 Germany || 24.7 || 25.4 || 23.7 || 23.4 || 24.2 || 26.9 Estonia || : || 20.4 || 20.4 || 20.8 || 24.7 || 28.0 Ireland || 18.5 || 18.5 || : || : || : || : Greece || 20.4 || 22.0 || : || : || : || : Spain || 24.0 || 24.8 || 24.9 || 25.8 || 27.0 || 28.7 France || 25.8 || 25.4 || 25.4 || 25.8 || 26.2 || 27.5 Italy || 25.5 || 24.9 || 26 || 23.9 || 25.8 || 25.8 Cyprus || 30.8 || 32.4 || 33.3 || 33.2 || 35.4 || 37.3 Latvia || 24.4 || 24.7 || 25.3 || 26.5 || 30.5 || 30.6 Lithuania || 21.5 || 20.5 || 20.9 || 21.4 || 23.2 || 27.4 Luxembourg || : || : || : || : || : || : Hungary || 26.7 || 26.7 || 26.8 || : || : || : Malta || 24.3 || 33.6 || 34.2 || 33.8 || 31.8 || 35.5 Netherlands || 25.1 || 24.9 || 24.2 || 23.8 || 24.1 || 27.0 Austria || 28.2 || 28.7 || 29.0 || 28.1 || 28.4 || 30.6 Poland || 24.8 || 26.6 || 24.8 || 23.8 || 26.7 || 27.6 Portugal || 25.3 || 26.9 || 26.8 || 26.2 || 25.3 || 28.2 Romania || : || 18.3 || : || : || : || 21.6 Slovenia || 29.5 || 30.5 || 30.4 || 27.3 || 28.4 || 31.9 Slovakia || 21.0 || 19.9 || 19.6 || 18.6 || 19.6 || 23.4 Finland || 24.8 || 24.1 || 23.7 || 22.7 || 23.7 || 26.3 Sweden || 26.0 || 25.7 || 25.4 || 25.3 || 26.3 || 28.4 United Kingdom || 23.2 || 26.1 || 28.0 || 27.1 || 26.3 || 28.2 Source: Eurostat (UOE). Indicators
on education finance. Note: compared to GDP per capita, all levels of education
combined, based on full-time equivalents. Chapter 3 Figure 3.A. Long-term
development of ESL rates in all ET 2020 countries Source: Eurostat
(LFS). Chapter
4 Table 4.A. Students by field of education || Women enrolled in fields of education, tertiary level (ISCED 5-6), as % of total, 2010 || Students enrolled by field of education, tertiary level (ISCED 5-6), as % of total, 2010 || || Education || Humanities and art || Social science, business and law || Science, maths and computing || Engineering, manufact. and construction || Agriculture and veterinary || Health and welfare || Services || Education || Humanities and art || Social science, business and law || Science, maths and computing || Engineering, manufact. and construction || Agriculture and veterinary || Health and welfare || Services || EU27 countries || 76,7 || 65,4 || 58,3 || 37,6 || 25,0 || 49,4 || 74,0 || 49,4 || 8,1 || 12,5 || 34,7 || 10,2 || 14,7 || 1,8 || 13,9 || 4,1 || Belgium || 71,7 || 55,5 || 53,8 || 29,4 || 22,8 || 53,1 || 73,2 || 50,8 || 12,2 || 10,8 || 31,7 || 6,2 || 11,5 || 2,8 || 23,1 || 1,7 || Bulgaria || 71,5 || 68,7 || 63,5 || 46,8 || 32,0 || 47,5 || 66,8 || 46,4 || 5,7 || 7,9 || 44,0 || 5,2 || 19,2 || 2,4 || 7,1 || 8,5 || Czech Republic || 78,6 || 66,8 || 62,4 || 35,2 || 25,0 || 56,7 || 77,7 || 42,9 || 12,5 || 9,0 || 33,7 || 11,1 || 14,3 || 3,7 || 10,5 || 5,2 || Denmark || 72,4 || 62,9 || 52,3 || 34,4 || 35,1 || 59,2 || 80,6 || 25,1 || 10,4 || 14,1 || 31,9 || 8,6 || 10,0 || 1,5 || 21,1 || 2,3 || Germany || 70,9 || 66,1 || 50,7 || 35,8 || 18,3 || 48,1 || 76,5 || 47,2 || 7,2 || 13,7 || 26,3 || 14,2 || 16,5 || 1,4 || 17,9 || 2,8 || Estonia || 91,6 || 74,3 || 66,2 || 38,1 || 23,8 || 53,1 || 88,1 || 51,4 || 6,8 || 13,6 || 36,4 || 10,4 || 13,4 || 2,2 || 9,1 || 8,0 || Ireland || 76,2 || 59,8 || 53,5 || 38,4 || 15,6 || 42,9 || 76,3 || 45,8 || 6,4 || 17,0 || 27,5 || 14,6 || 13,0 || 1,5 || 16,0 || 4,0 || Greece || 63,0 || 70,4 || 53,7 || 37,6 || 26,0 || 45,2 || 67,1 || 51,2 || 5,9 || 12,8 || 33,2 || 13,8 || 18,4 || 5,0 || 8,1 || 2,7 || Spain || 77,3 || 59,2 || 57,8 || 33,2 || 27,6 || 46,1 || 73,4 || 50,2 || 10,9 || 10,7 || 31,6 || 9,2 || 17,4 || 1,7 || 12,6 || 5,8 || France || 80,8 || 67,7 || 60,0 || 35,7 || 25,3 || 44,1 || 70,7 || 44,0 || 2,4 || 14,2 || 37,3 || 12,3 || 13,2 || 1,2 || 16,0 || 3,4 || Italy || 91,6 || 72,5 || 58,1 || 51,9 || 30,1 || 47,0 || 66,1 || 47,2 || 5,1 || 15,7 || 36,5 || 8,3 || 16,9 || 2,2 || 12,5 || 3,0 || Cyprus || 76,5 || 67,5 || 39,5 || 36,3 || 24,4 || 56,4 || 59,9 || 63,7 || 8,2 || 10,1 || 51,7 || 8,5 || 9,8 || 0,3 || 7,1 || 4,3 || Latvia || 83,0 || 77,0 || 68,1 || 32,2 || 21,4 || 50,8 || 85,1 || 56,9 || 8,2 || 8,5 || 49,9 || 5,5 || 12,6 || 1,1 || 8,2 || 6,1 || Lithuania || 76,0 || 72,6 || 67,4 || 34,6 || 20,6 || 54,2 || 82,4 || 44,0 || 10,5 || 7,3 || 46,5 || 5,1 || 17,1 || 1,9 || 8,8 || 2,9 || Luxembourg || 69,6 || 60,9 || 52,1 || 32,8 || 17,8 || : || 70,9 || : || 16,8 || 12,1 || 47,3 || 11,2 || 8,1 || : || 4,5 || : || Hungary || 79,8 || 64,2 || 64,4 || 32,4 || 18,1 || 44,9 || 73,2 || 59,6 || 6,6 || 9,6 || 40,4 || 7,1 || 14,0 || 2,4 || 9,3 || 10,5 || Malta || 81,8 || 59,5 || 57,8 || 47,1 || 26,2 || 36,0 || 63,1 || 57,4 || 10,0 || 18,1 || 33,2 || 16,4 || 9,4 || 0,2 || 11,6 || 1,2 || Netherlands || 73,2 || 54,2 || 47,8 || 19,9 || 16,9 || 51,2 || 73,6 || 48,4 || 13,3 || 8,5 || 38,9 || 6,3 || 8,2 || 1,1 || 17,3 || 6,5 || Austria || 75,5 || 65,7 || 55,8 || 35,6 || 23,3 || 59,5 || 64,3 || 51,1 || 11,9 || 13,4 || 37,2 || 11,0 || 14,7 || 1,3 || 7,9 || 2,4 || Poland || 77,4 || 70,0 || 63,5 || 37,9 || 29,7 || 52,9 || 73,7 || 50,6 || 13,6 || 9,2 || 39,7 || 8,1 || 13,2 || 1,9 || 7,7 || 6,7 || Portugal || 82,8 || 55,8 || 58,0 || 46,2 || 25,5 || 55,1 || 77,4 || 43,9 || 5,4 || 8,9 || 31,8 || 7,3 || 22,1 || 1,8 || 16,3 || 6,4 || Romania || 93,3 || 64,5 || 63,0 || 52,8 || 30,4 || 36,5 || 68,1 || 42,4 || 1,6 || 7,8 || 55,0 || 4,9 || 17,9 || 2,1 || 7,5 || 3,3 || Slovenia || 81,4 || 69,0 || 67,5 || 39,2 || 25,4 || 56,2 || 77,0 || 52,2 || 7,4 || 8,3 || 37,5 || 6,7 || 18,9 || 3,2 || 8,7 || 9,3 || Slovakia || 75,1 || 65,3 || 66,3 || 39,2 || 29,1 || 48,1 || 77,6 || 43,5 || 12,5 || 6,9 || 30,7 || 8,4 || 15,0 || 2,1 || 18,2 || 6,2 || Finland || 79,5 || 70,5 || 59,7 || 38,9 || 19,0 || 51,4 || 82,9 || 68,3 || 5,0 || 14,3 || 22,8 || 10,2 || 24,9 || 2,2 || 15,6 || 5,1 || Sweden || 77,2 || 60,9 || 61,4 || 41,8 || 29,1 || 62,8 || 79,7 || 58,3 || 13,2 || 13,6 || 27,2 || 8,6 || 16,7 || 1,0 || 17,2 || 2,5 || United Kingdom || 75,5 || 61,2 || 54,7 || 36,5 || 19,2 || 62,9 || 76,7 || 57,0 || 9,5 || 17,0 || 29,0 || 14,0 || 8,9 || 1,0 || 18,7 || 1,8 || Iceland || 81,6 || 65,1 || 59,6 || 38,3 || 33,6 || 63,4 || 86,6 || 68,7 || 15,6 || 14,6 || 36,9 || 8,1 || 9,3 || 0,6 || 13,2 || 1,7 || Liechtenstein || : || : || 32,6 || : || 50,0 || : || 39,0 || : || : || : || 70,1 || : || 24,7 || : || 5,2 || : || Norway || 76,1 || 60,6 || 57,9 || 36,1 || 27,0 || 60,2 || 82,0 || 45,0 || 14,5 || 10,8 || 32,0 || 8,3 || 8,1 || 0,7 || 20,3 || 5,2 || Switzerland || 71,6 || 60,1 || 47,7 || 31,9 || 15,9 || 49,6 || 73,2 || 50,8 || 9,2 || 12,1 || 36,7 || 9,7 || 13,2 || 1,1 || 13,2 || 4,8 || Croatia || 93,2 || 69,6 || 71,0 || 50,6 || 28,7 || 45,4 || 75,1 || 29,3 || 4,7 || 9,5 || 42,2 || 6,8 || 15,3 || 4,2 || 8,4 || 8,8 || MK* || 73,5 || 65,5 || 56,0 || 35,6 || 33,7 || 35,8 || 72,6 || 33,6 || 6,3 || 12,2 || 38,6 || 11,7 || 12,5 || 2,9 || 9,5 || 6,3 || Turkey || 54,5 || 53,3 || 44,8 || 43,0 || 22,4 || 48,0 || 62,3 || 31,0 || 8,3 || 7,8 || 53,8 || 6,5 || 10,9 || 3,6 || 5,9 || 3,2 Source: Eurostat (UOE).
Notes: DE, IT: data exclude ISCED level 6 (doctoral students). *MK: the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (see annex 2.1). Chapter 6 Table 6.A. Average number of foreign languages learned per pupil in ISCED 1, 2
and 3 (2000, 2005, 2010) || ISCED 1 || ISCED 2 || ISCED 3 General || ISCED 3 Pre-voc. and voc. || 2000 || 2005 || 2010 || 2000 || 2005 || 2010 || 2000 || 2005 || 2010 || 2000 || 2005 || 2010 EU 27 countries || 0.5 || 0.7 || 0.8 || 1.3 || 1.4 || 1.5 || 0.9 || 1.6 || 1.6 || 0.9 || 1.1 || 1.2 Belgium || 0.4 || 0.4 || 0.4 || 1.0 || 1.2 || 1.2 || 1.5 || 2.2 || 2.2 || 0.9 || 1.3 || 1.3 Belgium (fr & de) || 0.4 || 0.6 || 0.5 || 0.7 || 0.9 || 1.0 || 1 || 1.8 || 1.9 || 0.5 || 0.8 || 0.7 Belgium(nl) || 0.3 || 0.3 || 0.3 || 1.5 || 1.4 || 1.4 || 2.1 || 2.5 || 2.5 || 1.8 || 1.7 || 1.6 Bulgaria || 0.2 || 0.7 || 0.9 || 1.1 || 1.2 || 1.2 || 1.2 || 1.8 || 1.7 || 0.7 || 1.1 || 1.4 Czech Republic || 0.4 || 0.5 || 0.7 || 1.1 || 1.0 || 1.3 || 1.3 || 2.0 || 2.1 || 1.1 || 1.2 || 1.3 Denmark || : || 0.7 || 0.7 || 1.7 || 2.0 || 1.8 || 1.3 || 1.8 || 1.6 || 0.4 || 0.9 || 0.9 Germany || 0.2 || 0.5 || 0.7 || 1.2 || 1.2 || 1.3 || 0.7 || 1.4 || 1.4 || 0.4 || 0.5 || 0.4 Estonia || 1.1 || 1.1 || : || 2.0 || 2.0 || : || 2.1 || 2.3 || : || 1.8 || 1.8 || : Ireland || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.1 || 1.0 || 1.0 || 1.0 || 0.9 || 0.9 || 0.9 || : || 1.0 || 1.0 Greece || : || 0.9 || : || : || 1.9 || : || : || 1.1 || : || 0.9 || 0.8 || : Spain || 0.8 || 1.0 || 1.1 || 1.5 || 1.4 || 1.4 || 1.1 || 1.2 || 1.2 || 1 || 1.0 || : France || 0.5 || : || : || 1.5 || 1.5 || 1.5 || 1.6 || : || 2.0 || 1 || : || 1.2 Italy || 0.6 || 1.0 || 1.0 || 1.1 || 1.4 || 2.0 || 1.2 || 1.1 || 1.3 || 1.1 || 1.4 || 1.4 Cyprus || 0.5 || 0.6 || 0.6 || 2.0 || 1.9 || 2.0 || : || 1.7 || 1.9 || 1 || 1.2 || 1.1 Latvia || 0.5 || 0.6 || 0.8 || 1.5 || 1.6 || 1.7 || : || 1.8 || 1.9 || : || : || 1.2 Lithuania || 0.3 || 0.6 || 0.7 || 1.7 || 1.8 || 1.8 || 1.8 || 1.6 || 1.5 || 1.6 || 0.9 || 1.1 Luxembourg || 1.8 || 1.8 || 1.8 || 2.5 || 2.5 || 2.5 || 2.2 || 3.0 || 3.0 || 1.7 || 1.9 || 2.0 Hungary || : || 0.5 || 0.6 || 0.7 || 1.0 || 1.0 || 1.2 || 1.4 || 1.4 || 1.2 || 0.7 || 0.8 Malta || 1.0 || 1.0 || 1.0 || 2.1 || 2.2 || 1.8 || 0.8 || 1.0 || 1.3 || 0.1 || 0.0 || 1.0 Netherlands || : || 0.3 || 0.3 || : || 2.0 || 2.1 || : || 2.6 || 1.8 || : || : || : Austria || 0.9 || 1.0 || 1.0 || 1.1 || 1.1 || 1.1 || 1.3 || 1.9 || 1.8 || 1.2 || 1.3 || 1.2 Poland || 0.7 || 0.7 || 1.0 || 1.3 || 1.1 || 1.3 || 1.4 || 2.0 || 1.7 || 1.1 || 1.5 || 1.6 Portugal || : || 0.3 || 0.9 || : || 1.9 || 1.4 || : || 0.7 || 0.5 || : || 0.9 || 0.7 Romania || 0.6 || 0.6 || 0.6 || 1.9 || 1.9 || 1.9 || 1.3 || 2.0 || 2.0 || 1 || 1.2 || 1.8 Slovenia || : || 0.1 || 0.5 || 1.0 || 1.2 || 1.4 || 1.5 || 2.0 || 2.0 || 1.3 || 1.3 || 1.3 Slovakia || 0.4 || 0.5 || 0.7 || 1.1 || 1.1 || 1.4 || 1.4 || 2.0 || 2.0 || 1.3 || 1.3 || 1.5 Finland || 0.8 || 0.9 || 0.8 || 2.3 || 2.2 || 2.2 || : || 2.8 || 2.7 || 1.1 || : || : Sweden || 0.9 || 0.9 || 0.6 || 1.7 || 1.7 || 1.8 || 1.7 || 2.2 || 2.2 || 1.1 || 1.1 || 1.1 United Kingdom || : || 0.5 || 1.0 || : || 1.0 || 1.0 || : || 0.7 || 0.5 || : || : || : Croatia || : || 0.9 || 1.2 || : || 1.2 || 1.5 || : || 2.0 || 1.9 || : || 1.2 || 1.3 Montenegro || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : Iceland || 0.5 || 0.6 || 0.8 || 2.1 || 2.1 || 2.0 || 1.3 || 1.9 || 1.8 || 0.7 || 0.8 || 0.6 MK* || 0.0 || 0.2 || 1.0 || 1.2 || 1.5 || 1.8 || 1.3 || : || : || : || : || : Serbia || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : Turkey || : || : || 0.6 || : || : || : || : || : || 0.9 || : || : || 0.9 Liechtenstein || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : || : Norway || 1.0 || 1.0 || 1.0 || 1.7 || 1.5 || 1.7 || : || : || 1.0 || : || : || 0.5 Source:
Eurostat (UOE). *MK: The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (see annex 2.1). Figure 6.A. Proportion
of pupils in the EU learning English, French, German and Spanish as foreign
language at ISCED 2 (2000-2010) || 2000 || 2001 || 2002 || 2003 || 2004 || 2005 || 2006 || 2007 || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 English || 74.3 || 72.7 || 75.4 || 75 || 83.3 || 90.2 || 91.7 || 92.2 || 92.9 || 93.2 || 93.7 French || 21.3 || 21.3 || 26 || 24.6 || 21.4 || 29.3 || 31 || 33.3 || 32.9 || 32.6 || 32.7 German || 11.3 || 11.7 || 13.7 || 13.6 || 12.5 || 17.4 || 17 || 16.6 || 16.2 || 15.7 || 16.9 Spanish || 5.1 || 5 || 5.8 || 6.4 || 6.3 || 7.8 || 8.9 || 9.7 || 10.3 || 10.7 || 11.4 Source: Eurostat (UOE).
Annex 2. List
of abbreviations
2.1. Country
abbreviations
EU European Union BE Belgium BG Bulgaria CZ Czech Republic DK Denmark DE Germany EE Estonia EL Greece ES Spain FR France IE Ireland IT Italy CY Cyprus LV Latvia LT Lithuania LU Luxembourg HU Hungary MT Malta NL Netherlands AT Austria PL Poland PT Portugal || RO Romania SI Slovenia SK Slovakia FI Finland SE Sweden UK United Kingdom AC Acceding Countries HR Croatia CC Candidate Countries IS Iceland MK* The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia TR Turkey EEA European Economic Area LI Liechtenstein NO Norway Other CH Switzerland * ISO code 3166. Provisional code which does not prejudge
in any way the definitive nomenclature for this country, which will be agreed
following the conclusion of negotiations currently taking place on this subject
at the United Nations (http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166_code_lists.htm)
2.2. General
abbreviations
AES Adult Education Survey AGS Annual Growth Survey ALL Adult Literacy and Life-skills
Survey CEDEFOP European Centre for the Development of
Vocational Training CRELL Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning
(co-ordinated by JRC) CSR Country-Specific Recommendation DG EAC Directorate-General for Education and
Culture, European Commission EACEA Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive
Agency, European Commission ECEC Early Childhood Education and Care ECTS the European Credit Transfer System EEA European Economic Area (EU 27+Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) EENEE European Expert Network on Economics
of Education ESL Early school leavers or early leavers from
education and training (used interchangeably) ESLC European Survey on Language Competences EURYDICE Education Information Network in the
European Community ISS Information society statistics
(Eurostat) GDP Gross Domestic Product GGE General Government Expenditure 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 ISCED International Standard Classification
of Education IVET Initial vocational education and
training JAF Joint Assessment Framework JRC Joint Research Centre (European
Commission) LFS European Union Labour Force Survey
(Eurostat) NESET Network of
Experts on Social Aspects of Education and Training NESSE Network of Experts
in Social Sciences of Education and training NRP National Reform Programme OECD Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development OER Open Educational Resources OJ Official Journal of the European Union PIAAC Programme for the International Assessment
of Adult Competencies (OECD study) PIRLS Progress in International Reading
Literacy Survey PISA Programme for
International Student Assessment PPS Purchasing Power Standards SCP Stability and
Convergence Programme TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics
and Science Study UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (based in Paris) UNICEF United
Nations Children's Fund UOE UNESCO Institute for
Statistics/OECD/Eurostat (common data collection) VET Vocational education and training [1] For country specific summaries see the
Commission Staff Working Document "Rethinking Education: Country
analysis". [2] This initiative
has been set out in the 2012 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission "Education
and Training in a smart, sustainable and inclusive Europe, OJ (2012/C 70/05). [3] See the Commission Staff
Working Document "Language Competences for Employability, Mobility and
Growth". [4] It is precisely
because the outcomes of education and training are so uniquely multifaceted
that both effectiveness and efficiency are very difficult to quantify. Decades
of research on the benefits of education has found non-monetary private and
public outcomes such as life-satisfaction and happiness, health and well-being,
democratisation, political stability and civic participation, lower crime rates
and social cohesion. For an overview of the literature, see EENEE (2006),
Efficiency and Equity in European Education and Training Systems. [5] For the detailed estimates for women see
OECD (2012), Education at a Glance 2012, Table A9.2 [6] European
Commission (2009), Study on the efficiency and effectiveness of public spending
on tertiary education (http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication16267_en.pdf). [7] Culminating in
the conclusions from the Economic and Financial Affairs Council meeting on
ensuring the future efficiency and effectiveness of public expenditure on
tertiary education (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/ cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/117192.pdf).
[8] European
Commission (2010), Efficiency and effectiveness of public expenditure on
tertiary education in the EU: Joint Report by the Economic Policy Committee and
Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs
(http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2010/pdf/ocp70_en.pdf). [9] Ibid. [10] EENEE (2006),
Efficiency and Equity in European Education and Training Systems. See also
COM(2006) 481 and SEC(2006) 1096. [11] For an overview
of how Member States compare in terms of private funding of education, school
autonomy and school accountability, see EACEA/Eurydice (2012), Key Data on
Education in Europe 2012 (http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/key_data_en.php). [12] See the
conclusions from the Economic and Financial Affairs Council meeting in 2010
(http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/117192.pdf). [13] This simple message
nevertheless poses a huge challenge to the sector, as many of the arguably most
important benefits of education and training are not easily quantified – let
alone translated into a monetary return to a certain level of investment. [14] For a detailed
explanation about the small differences in the calculation of total public
expenditure in the UNESCO-OECD-EUROSTAT (UOE) data collection and the general
government expenditure data from the government finance statistics (using the
classification of the functions of government – COFOG) see Eurostat's Manual on
sources and methods for the compilation of COFOG statistics - Classification of
the Functions of Government (COFOG) - 2011 edition http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-11-013/EN/KS-RA-11-013-EN.PDF [15] This section is
based on EACEA/Eurydice (forthcoming), Recent trends in the public funding of
Education in Europe. [16] The terms early
leavers from education and training and early school leavers are used
interchangeably throughout the text. They are defined as persons aged 18 to 24
fulfilling the following two conditions: (1) the highest level of
education or training attained is ISCED 0, 1, 2 or 3c short, (2) no
education or training has been received in the four weeks preceding the survey.
The reference group to calculate the early school leaving rate consists of the
total population of the same age group (18 to 24). All measurements come from
the EU Labour Force Survey. [17] Individuals aged
15 to 24 years, 2011 value for EU 27 (Eurostat/LFS). [18] See
http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/about-cedefop/projects/forecasting-skill-demand-and-supply/skills-forecasts.aspx. [19] NESSE (2010),
Early school leaving: Lessons from research for policy makers
(http://www.nesse.fr/nesse/nesse/activities/reports). [20] EENEE (2010), The
Cost of Low Educational Achievement in the European Union
(http://www.eenee.de/portal/page/portal/EENEEView). [21] It is noteworthy,
however, that many of these foreign-born early school leavers arrive in the
host countries only after compulsory schooling age. They are not a
"product" of the education and training system in the host country,
and instead require compensatory measures. [22] Data for Slovenia and data breakdown for Lithuania lack reliability due to small sample sizes. [23] The Maltese
series on ESL are under review by the Maltese Statistical Office and Eurostat.
The review concerns the classification of certain qualifications at secondary
level. The revision applies to all years covered (2006-2011) and would mean a
reduction of about 9 percentage points for the 2011 rate of early school
leavers. [24] The latest EU
policy documents on early school leaving concern a Council Recommendation on
policies to reduce early school leaving (2011/C 191/01), a Communication
entitled "Tackling early school leaving: A key contribution to the Europe
2020 Agenda" (COM(2011)18), and a staff working paper entitled
"Reducing early school leaving" (SEC(2011)96). [25] Countries having
already achieved their national target are marked in green. Countries are shown
according to their 18-24 cohort size, with five categories. Further notes: the
values for Luxembourg for 2009-2011 and for Slovenia 2008-2011 are labelled as
unreliable by Eurostat. Average annual change rates are calculated without
including breaks in series, i.e. for Luxembourg 2008-2009, and for Netherlands
2009-2010. [26] See the
Commission Staff Working Document "Rethinking Education: Country
analysis". [27] Adjustments on
the basis of cohort changes are based on EUROPOP2010 projections. Because EUROPOP
does not provide a population projection explicitly for the 18-24 cohort, this
age range is approximated by using two fifths of the 15-19 cohort and 20-24
cohort. [28] See COM(2011)18
and SEC(2011)96. [29] COM(2011) 567
final. [30] See
http://www.ehea.info/. The
introduction of bachelor and master degrees in European countries changes the
structures of tertiary education where the previous norm would be one long
first degree. This is replaced by a two-degree structure, where many students
would still qualify at both bachelor and master level. [31] Including Croatia (who will join European Union in 2013) will have a -0.1 percentage pointpoints
impact on the value reported here. [32] Since
cohortCohort sizes for Cyprus and Romania are missing for 2011 therefore, they
have been assumed here equal towith the last availableyear (2010) values
(2010).. [33] The Luxembourgish
tertiary attainment rate reflects to a large degree the highly educated
population which is living and working in the country. Luxembourg has attracted a highly educated workforce which has immigrated from abroad and
it therefore does not necessarily reflect the outcome of the Luxembourgish
education system. [34] COM (2011) 567
final, section 2. [35] The population of
people born abroad is in a number of countries of such a small size that no
statistics can reliably be calculated based on the Labour Force Survey,
examples are Poland, Romania and Bulgaria plus the Baltic states. [36] Countries having
already achieved their national target are marked in green. Countries are shown
according to their 30-34 cohort size, with five categories. Average annual
change rates are calculated without including breaks in series, i.e. for
Luxembourg 2009-2010 and for the Netherlands 2010-2011. [37] For more
information on the European Semester, see: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/making-it-happen/index_en.htm.
For
all national targets, see: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/targets_en.pdf. [38] Promoting
mobility and cross-border cooperation are also important parts of the higher
education modernisation agenda; these issues are treated in chapter 6 of the
Education Monitor. [39] COM(2011) 66
final. [40] This benchmark
can be seen as the successor of the Barcelona targets to "provide
childcare by 2010 to at least 90% of children between 3 years old and the
mandatory school age and at least 33% of children under 3 years of age"
(Barcelona European Council, 2002). However, the Barcelona targets were
intended primarily to remove disincentives to labour force participation of
young parents, particularly women, by taking into account the demand for
childcare facilities. [41] Used age range to calculate
the participation rate in early childhood education and care. [42] Pre-primary
education only, enrolment and personnel in full-time units (FTU). [43] Total private and
public expenditure as a percentage of purchasing power standards (PPS) per
pupil compared to GDP in PPS per capita. [44] Since September 1st
2011 this has become compulsory. [45] European
Commission (2011). Eurypedia: European Encyclopedia on National education
Systems (https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php?title=Home).
[46] EACEA/EURYDICE
(2009). Early Childhood Education and Care in Europe: Tackling Social and
Cultural Inequalities. [47] EACEA/EURYDICE
(2009). [48] UNICEF/Innocenti
Working Paper (2008). Benchmarks for Early Childhood Services in OECD
Countries. [49] OECD (2012).
Starting Strong III. [50] EACEA/Eurydice (2012). Key Data on Education,
p. 97. [51] OECD (2012). Starting Strong III. [52] EACEA/EURYDICE
(2009). [53] FRA-UNDP (2012).
The situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States: Survey results at a glance.
http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/FRA-2012-Roma-at-a-glance_EN.pdf. [54] COM(2012) 226
final. [55] This benchmark derives from
the PISA survey, which distinguished between various levels of performance.
Pupils who fail to reach level 2 are considered to be inadequately prepared for
the challenges of the knowledge society and for lifelong learning. The
benchmark accordingly measures the share of pupils with reading, maths and
science proficiency at level one or below. [56] EU High Level
Group of Experts on Literacy: Final Report
(http://ec.europa.eu/education/focus/literacy_en.htm). [57] Although not
included in the original PISA 2009, Malta was covered by the PISA 2009+ study
published by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) in December
2011. It is not included in the weighted EU average. [58] OECD, 2004. Learning
for Tomorrow's World – First Results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD. [59] Mullis, I.V.S.,
Martin, M.O. &Foy, P., 2008. TIMSS 2007 International Mathematics
Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science
Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College, TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center. [60] OECD (2012), Untapped
Skills: Realising the Potential of Immigrant Students, OECD Publishing
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264172470-en). [61] European
Commission (forthcoming) Study on educational
support for newly arrived migrant children. [62] Presidency
conclusions, Barcelona European Council 2002. [63] OJ (2009/C
119/02). [64] For more
information on how foreign language teaching is arranged, see EACEA/Eurydice, Key
Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe, 2012 Edition. Brussels: Eurydice. [65] Learning
more than one language was in 2010 common practice at primary level in Luxembourg (1.8 on average), followed by Spain (1.1 on average) (see Table 6.A. in annex). [66] See Table 6.A. in
annex. [67] See Table 6.A. in
annex. [68] See Figure 6.A.
in annex. [69] Complete information
about the ESLC, including the final and technical reports, can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/index.html [70] Exceptions
to test at ISCED 3 were accorded to: Belgium NL (second foreign language),
Belgium FR (both languages), Belgium DE (second foreign language), Bulgaria (both languages) and England (both languages). [71] COM(2010) 245
final. [72] OJ (2012/C
70/05). [73] In 2013 IEA will carry out
their International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS), directly
assessing the computer and information literacy of 8th grade
students across countries, including 9 EU countries. [74] Computer skills are defined as
having ever performed at least one of the following activities: Copying or
moving a file or folder; using copying and paste tools to duplicate or move
information within a document; using basic arithmetic formulas in a
spreadsheet; compressing (or zipping files); connecting and installing new
devices; writing a computer programme using a specialized programming language.
Low computer skills refers to having done one or two of these computer-related
activities, medium skills refers to having done three or four of these
activities, and high skills
five or all of them. [75] Report
for the European Commission "Survey of Schools: ICT in Education.
Benchmarking Access, Use and Attitudes to Technology in Europe's Schools",
European Schoolnet and University of Liège (expected to be published in fall
2012). [76] Eurydice
(2011) Key Data on Learning and Innovation through ICT at School in Europe 2011
(http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/key_data_en.php). [77] OJ (2006/962/EC). [78] Eurydice (2012),
Entrepreneurship Education at School in Europe: National Strategies, Curricula
and Learning Outcomes (http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/thematic_reports_en.php). [79] Official
documents containing curricula, guidelines obligations and/or recommendations. [80] For a useful
overview of indicators and data sources for entrepreneurship education in 10
Member States see http://ec.europa.eu/education/more-information/doc/2011/entrepreneurship_en.pdf. [81] GEM Special
Report on Education and Training (2010) pp.30-31. [82] OJ (2006/962/EC). [83] See:
http://www.iea.nl/iccs_2009.html. [84] OJ 2011/C 372/08. [85] SEC(2011)1063
final. [86] See: http://www.ehea.info/. [87] See: http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/%281%29/Bucharest%20Communique%202012%281%29.pdf. [88] The concept for
measuring student mobility is not yet harmonised across countries and some
countries use permanent residence abroad or even citizenship as criteria. [89] OJ (2009/C 119/02). [90] OJ (2011/C 372/01). [91] In the Council
Conclusions defined as "The percentage of the population aged 25-64
participating in education and training during the 4 weeks prior to the survey
(Eurostat/Labour Force Survey)", where "benefit can also be drawn
from the information on adult participation in lifelong learning gathered by
the Adult Education Survey." [92] The sub-group foreign-born
refers to first generation immigrants, and hence does not capture second or
third generation immigrants or populations who are not naturalized. [93] See footnote (c) of
table 8.1. [94] http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/making-it-happen/country-specific-recommendations/index_en.htm provides access to all CSRs. [95] After the United Kingdom had adjusted its
data collection instrument, participation appeared to be considerably lower in
2011, albeit still above the benchmark level. The opposite applies for Portugal, where an adjustment moved the country's performance up to midfield. [96] http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Lifelong_learning_statistics [97] The
reference period for learning activities in the Adult Education Survey (AES) is
12 months. Participation rates are therefore considerably higher than in the
LFS. Hence, only participation can only be compared between countries. [98] Previous studies
such as the International Adult Literacy Study (IALS) or the Adult Literacy and
Lifeskills Survey (ALL) only covered smaller sets of skills or fewer countries. [99] PIAAC assesses
literacy, numeracy and problem solving in technology rich environment skills of
the population aged 16-65 in 33 countries (among them 21 EU Member States). [100] The name of the countries A, B, C in figure 8.2 are not
disclosed since the results presented are based on the PIAAC field test, and
not the PIAAC main data collection. Results from the latter are still being
collected and processed, and will be made publicly available in the end of
October 2013. [101]
Skills
include literacy, numeracy and problem solving in technology-rich environments.
Qualification levels: not completed school: ISCED 2 and less; upper secondary:
ISCED 3/4 completed; University: ISCED 5/6. [102] OJ (2009/C
119/02). [103] OJ (2012/C
169/04). For figure 9.1 and table 9.1, please note: Individuals currently engaged
in any form of education or training are excluded to ensure that the
employability of that cohort may not be altered by the fact that the individual
is currently engaged in an updating/upgrading of his/her skills. [104] In line with the
Council Conclusion (2012/C 169/04), individuals currently engaged in any form
of education or training are excluded to ensure that the employability of that
cohort may not be altered by the fact that the individual is currently engaged
in an updating/upgrading of his/her skills. [105] COM(2010) 682 final. [106] http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/about-cedefop/projects/forecasting-skill-demand-and-supply/skills-forecasts.aspx. [107] Report for the European Commission “Anticipating the Evolution
of the Supply and Demand of e-Skills in Europe (2010-2015)” Empirica and IDC Europe, December 2009. Updated forecast presented at the European e-Skills Conference on 13
December 2011 in Brussels [108] See:
http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/Files/3056_en.pdf