Structural indicators for monitoring education and training systems in Europe 2022 - Overview of major reforms since 2015
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Structural indicators for
monitoring education and
training systems in Europe
2022
Overview of
major reforms since 2015
Eurydice background report
European Education
and Culture
3
Executive AgencyMore information on the European Union is available on the Internet (https://europa.eu/). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2022 PRINT EC-05-22-293-EN-C ISBN 978-92-9488-105-2 doi:10.2797/922846 PDF EC-05-22-293-EN-N ISBN 978-92-9488-106-9 doi:10.2797/479169 © European Education and Culture Executive Agency, 2022 The Commission’s reuse policy is implemented by Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39 --- https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2011/833/oj). Unless otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed, provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the EU, permission may need to be sought directly from the respective rightholders. The EU does not own the copyright in relation to any images which do not carry the copyright indicator © European Union.
Structural indicators for
monitoring education and
training systems in Europe
2022
Overview of
major reforms since 2015
Eurydice background report
Authors EACEA:
Teodora Parveva (coordinator), Akvile Motiejunaite,
Sogol Noorani and Jari Riiheläinen
European Education
and Culture
Executive AgencyThis document is published by the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA, Platforms, Studies and Analysis). Please cite this publication as: European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice, 2022. Structural indicators for monitoring education and training systems in Europe – 2022: Overview of major reforms since 2015. Eurydice background report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Text completed in November 2022. European Education and Culture Executive Agency Platforms, Studies and Analysis Avenue du Bourget 1 (J-70 – Unit A6) BE-1049 Brussels Email: eacea-eurydice@ec.europa.eu Website: https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/
CONTENTS
Introduction 5
1. Early childhood education and care 7
Overview of reforms and policy developments since 2015 8
2. Achievement in basic skills 13
Overview of reforms and policy developments since 2015 13
3. Early leaving from education and training 17
Overview of reforms and policy developments since 2015 17
4. Higher education 21
Overview of reforms and policy developments since 2015 22
5. Digital competence at school 25
5.1. Compulsory starting grade for teaching digital competence and curriculum approaches 26
5.2. Learning outcomes related to digital competence 29
5.3. Teachers’ preparedness to teach digital competence 31
5.4. Assessment of pupils’ digital competence 32
5.5. Digital education ecosystem at school 34
5.6. Main findings 39
6. Scope of indicators / Key definitions 41
6.1. Early childhood education and care 41
6.2. Achievement in basic skills 42
6.3. Early leaving from education and training 44
6.4. Higher education 45
References 47
Glossary 49
3INTRODUCTION
This report contains more than 30 key structural indicators on education policies in five areas: early
childhood education and care (ECEC), achievement in basic skills, early leaving from education and
training (ELET), higher education and digital competence.
Policy context
The indicators provide information on the national policies and structures that contribute to achieving
the objectives of the new strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training
(2021–2030) ( 1).
The performance of the EU and its Member States regarding these objectives is analysed in detail in
the European Commission’s Education and Training Monitor. The Eurydice project on structural
indicators for monitoring education and training systems in Europe contributes to the contextual
information for this analysis. It provides yearly data, from 2015 onwards, which illustrate the main
policy developments in education and training systems across Europe. For the first time, this edition of
the structural indicators contains information on key policies on digital competence, as well.
Selection of indicators
The structural indicators were selected by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for
Education and Culture using information from recent Eurydice reports that provide an extensive focus
on specific policy areas.
The selection of the structural indicators was discussed with the Eurydice national units and country
representatives of the Standing Group on Indicators and Benchmarks.
2022 update
This report contains the updated indicators for the 2021/2022 school/academic year together with a
short overview of the major reforms since the start of the 2014/2015 school/academic year in five
policy areas:
1. Early childhood education and care (ECEC),
2. Achievement in basic skills,
3. Early leaving from education and training (ELET),
4. Higher education,
5. Digital competence
Information on the scope of each indicator, along with detailed definitions of the terms used, can be
found in Section 6.
Further information on recent reforms in all countries in the Eurydice network can be found in the
Education system descriptions, chapter 14.
Part of the information in this report that concerns the EU Member States was published in the
Education and Training Monitor 2022.
(1) Council Resolution of 19 February 2021 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training
towards the European Education Area and beyond (2021–2030), 2021/C 66/1.
5Structural indicators for monitoring education and training systems in Europe – 2022
Country coverage
The 2022 update of the structural indicators covers the EU Member States, as well as Albania (only
for digital competence), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, North
Macedonia, Norway, Serbia and Türkiye. The information was collected through a questionnaire
completed by the national representatives of the Eurydice network.
61. EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE
The structural indicators in this chapter provide an overview of some key features of early childhood
education and care (ECEC) systems. The choice of indicators was based on the research literature
analysis and the factors listed in the Council recommendation on high-quality early childhood
education and care systems ( 2). The recommendation identified five main aspects of quality in early
childhood education and care: access, staff, curriculum, evaluation/monitoring and
governance/funding.
However, considering the vast range of possible system-level information and bearing in mind the
limitations of scope and time, only several essential and robust indicators have been chosen for yearly
monitoring. The diagram below indicates the ECEC structural indicators covered in the Eurydice data
collection.
ECEC
Guarantee Professionalisation Educational
of a place of staff guidelines
Continuing
Requirement for
professional
tertiary education
development
In this analysis, ECEC refers to provision for children from birth through to compulsory primary
education that falls within a national regulatory framework, i.e. which must comply with a set of rules,
minimum standards and/or undergo accreditation procedures. Only centre-based provision is
considered. Home-based provision or child-minding services are out of scope. The definition goes
beyond the education programmes classified as International Standard Classification of Education
(ISCED) level 0 (early childhood education), as it includes all registered ECEC services, not only those
with a defined educational component. In many European countries, the ECEC provision for children
under age 3 does not qualify as ‘early childhood educational development’ (ISCED level 010), but it
still offers an important service for children and their families.
Many European countries structure ECEC services according to the age of the children. Usually, the
transition from the first phase to the second takes place when children are around 3 years old. In order
to reflect the different regulations, a distinction is often made between the provision for children under
3 years old and for children of 3 years and over. However, it is important to keep in mind that in some
countries the transition can be as early as 2.5 years or as late as 4 years of age.
Some European countries have several types of ECEC provision. The indicators show if a certain
measure is available in the main type of ECEC provision for each age group.
(2) OJ C 189, 5.6.2019, p. 4–14. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2019.189.01.0004.01.ENG&toc=OJ:C:2019:189:TOC
7Structural indicators for monitoring education and training systems in Europe – 2022
Overview of reforms and policy developments since 2015
Since 2014/2015, when the structural indicators on ECEC were first gathered, there have been
substantial changes in the legal framework that guarantees access to ECEC in several EU Member
States. Eight countries have introduced compulsory ECEC for one year prior to starting primary
education, and another three countries have prolonged the period of mandatory attendance to
2–3 years. Moreover, a few countries are extending the ages of the legal right to ECEC for every child.
Attending the last year of ECEC has been made compulsory in Belgium (from the school year
starting September 2020), Czechia (2017), Croatia (2014), Lithuania (2016), Romania (2020),
Slovakia (2021), Finland (2015) and Sweden (2018).
Three countries have made compulsory attendance longer than one year. In Hungary, ECEC has
been compulsory for children from the age of 3 since September 2015. In France, the starting age of
compulsory education has been lowered from age 6 to 3 since September 2019. Greece has gradually
lowered the starting age of compulsory pre-primary school attendance from age 5 to age 4 (2021).
Bulgaria is gradually introducing compulsory education for 4-year-olds (this aims to be implemented in
all municipalities by 2023–2024). Cyprus is planning to introduce compulsory education for 4-year-olds
from 2025.
A legal entitlement to ECEC has been introduced or extended in Czechia, Poland and Portugal.
These countries have imposed a statutory duty on ECEC providers in a catchment area to secure
publicly subsidised ECEC provision for all children of a certain age whose parents require a place.
Czechia and Poland have been gradually extending the entitlement to age 3 (this has been fully
implemented in Poland from 2017 and in Czechia from 2018). Portugal lowered the start of universal
pre-school education (ISCED level 020) to age 3 from September 2018, and a strategy was carried
out to adjust the pre-school network to parents’ needs. A gradual expansion of the universal guarantee
to pre-school education has been adopted in Lithuania. According to this plan, 2-year-olds will have a
place guaranteed from 2025. In Slovakia the preparation of legal entitlement for 4-year-olds since
2024 and 3-year-olds since 2025 is under way.
There have been substantial reforms aiming to improve the quality and governance in ECEC in some
countries. It is important to mention Italy, which is going through a major restructuring of the ECEC
system. An integrated ECEC system from birth till age 6 is being introduced: the two components of
ECEC (nursery services and pre-schools) have been integrated into a single framework with the aim
of enhancing quality, effectiveness and numbers of providers all over the country.
Several countries have introduced structural reforms concerning staff qualification or continuing
professional development (CPD). Ireland, Italy, Malta and Finland have raised or are in the process
of raising a minimum qualification requirement for all or for a large proportion of staff working with
children. In these countries, supporting systems of CPD to attain the necessary degrees have been
established. However, the process of staff professionalisation is still ongoing. In addition, Belgium
(Flemish Community), Bulgaria and Estonia introduced reforms to provide a coherent system for
continuing professional development (CPD). Since September 2018 a school type called Fachschule
für pädagogische Assistenzberufe, i.e. school for pedagogical assistant professions (ISCED level 3),
operates in Austria. In Czechia, 8 hours of CPD per year are ensured for staff providing childcare
services in children’s groups since 2021 October.
81. Early childhood education and care
Educational guidelines have been established for the youngest children for the first time in Belgium
(Flemish Community) and in France. In Belgium (Flemish Community), a non-binding pedagogical
framework for childcare settings for babies and toddlers (under 2.5 years of age) is being implemented
from 2015/2016. In 2017, France adopted the national framework for early childhood care for services
outside the ISCED classification (mainly ECEC provision for children under age of 3 years). This non-
binding document sets the main principles and values for safe child development and provides some
educational guidance. In Italy, national guidelines for educational services for children under the age
of 3 years were issued at the beginning of 2022. A joint training activity has started for all those who
carry out educational/pedagogical and management activities in ECEC institutions. Currently, Portugal
is in the process of drafting/adapting the educational guidelines for the ECEC provision for children
under age 3.
New ECEC educational guidelines are in place in several countries. In 2016, new curriculum for pre-
school education (children aged 3 and over) was introduced in Bulgaria and Cyprus (preschool
education curriculum). Croatia adopted the new national curriculum for early and pre-primary
education (2014), followed by amendments to the preschool programme in 2018. In Slovakia, a new
state educational programme for pre-primary education is applied in all ECEC settings for 3–5-year-
olds from 2016. In Finland, a new national core curriculum for pre-primary education is in place since
2016 and for ECEC since 2017. Norway introduced a new framework plan for kindergartens in 2017.
In France, new educational guidelines apply since September 2020 for ISCED level 020 settings
(targeting children aged 3 and over). Romania adopted a new curriculum in 2019 that proposes a
unitary approach to early education and care from birth to age 6, as there were previously different
guidelines for each group. In Italy, educational guidelines for the integrated system (for children aged
0–6 years) were issued at the end of 2021.
A few countries changed their ECEC educational guidelines or introduced new areas of instruction.
Lithuania (2015) updated its pre-primary curriculum (for the last year of ECEC) and established a
detailed achievement list of children in ECEC. Poland introduced an area ‘Preparation to use a
modern foreign language’ (since 2014) as well the development of reading, writing and mathematical
skills (since 2017) in the pre-school core curriculum for children aged 3 and over. In Portugal, the
educational guidelines for children aged 3 and over have been reviewed and updated (2016). In
Greece, a pilot project on creative engagement in English language and soft skills workshops have
been included in the pre-school curriculum (children aged 4 and over) from 2020/2021.
9Structural indicators for monitoring education and training systems in Europe – 2022
ECEC summary table 1: Legal framework, 2021/2022
Starting age
Universal legal entitlement to ECEC Compulsory ECEC Compulsory primary education
Belgium BE fr 2y 6m 5y 6y
Belgium BE de 3y 5y 6y
Belgium BE nl 2y 6m 5y 6y
Bulgaria 5y 7y
Czechia 3y 5y 6y
Denmark 6m 6y
Germany 1y 6y
Estonia 1y 6m 7y
Ireland 6y
Greece 4y 6y
Spain 3y 6y
France 3y 6y
Croatia 6y 7y
Italy 6y
Cyprus 4y 8m 6y
Latvia 1y 6m 5y 7y
Lithuania 6y 7y
Luxembourg 3y 4y 6y
Hungary 3y 6y
Malta 5y
Netherlands 5y 6y
Austria 5y 6y
Poland 3y 6y 7y
Portugal 3y 6y
Romania 5y 6y
Slovenia 11m 6y
Slovakia 5y 6y
Finland 9m 6y 7y
Sweden 1y 6y 7y
Bosnia and Herzegovina 5y 6y
Iceland 6y
Liechtenstein 4y 6y
Montenegro 6y
North Macedonia 6y
Norway 1y 6y
Serbia 5y 6m 6y 6m
Türkiye 5y 9m
NB: The abbreviation ‘y’ means years, ‘m’ means months.
A universal legal entitlement to ECEC exists when every child of a certain age has an enforceable right to benefit from ECEC
provision.
101. Early childhood education and care
ECEC summary table 2: Selected quality aspects, 2021/2022
1.2. Staff 1.3. Curriculum
1.2.1. At least one staff member 1.2.2. CPD professional duty or or educational guidelines
with a tertiary qualification in necessary for promotion
education sciences
Belgium BE fr
Belgium BE de
Belgium BE nl
Bulgaria
Czechia
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Croatia
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Iceland
Liechtenstein
Montenegro
North Macedonia
Norway
Serbia
Türkiye
NB: = children aged 3 years or more ( ); = the entire ECEC phase (from birth to the start of compulsory education).
3
1. Tertiary qualification in education = minimum 3 years (ISCED level 6).
2. CPD refers to continuing professional development.
(3) Refers to children aged 2.5 years or more in Belgium (French and Flemish Communities) and to children aged 4 years
or more in Greece, the Netherlands and Liechtenstein.
112. ACHIEVEMENT IN BASIC SKILLS
Low student achievement in the basic skills of literacy/mother tongue, mathematics and science is a
concern for many European countries. It is an issue associated not only with the effectiveness of
teaching and learning, but also with providing an equitable system of education. Recognising the need
for sustained action, the Council of the European Union agreed an EU-level target related to basic
skills, which aims to reduce the proportion of 15-year-olds underachieving in reading, mathematics
and science to less than 15 % by 2030 ( 4).
However, underachievement – defined as performing below level 2 in the Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA) test – continues to be a serious challenge across Europe. The latest PISA
results from 2018 show that 21.7 % of EU students had low achievement in reading, 22.4 % in
mathematics and 21.6 % in science. Across the EU as a whole, underachievement increased in
science and reading and remained stable in mathematics over the past decade (PISA 2018 and the
EU: Striving for social fairness through education ( 5).
The structural indicators below focus on a selection of policies and measures that could contribute to
improving student achievement. All indicators concern compulsory education, which in the majority of
European countries corresponds to ISCED levels 1 and 2.
Achievement
in basic skills
Additional support
Nationally Recent national Use of Student under-
to schools with
standardised reports on performance data in achievement
disadvantaged
tests achievement school evaluation as a topic in ITE
students
The selected indicators relate to competences in three distinct areas, i.e. literacy, mathematics and
science. These are often treated separately and given different emphasis in national policies.
Evidence shows that there is usually more focus on literacy and numeracy than on science.
Overview of reforms and policy developments since 2015
The national testing of students has emerged as an important instrument of education policy. It is a
widespread practice in Europe but takes different forms, including sample-based testing. Only a
minority of European education systems do not systematically organise national tests in the basic
skills. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been changes in the timeline and
mechanisms for organising national tests in the past two years. In some cases, national tests were
cancelled or postponed, or alternative testing methods were employed ( 6).
Most European countries publish national reports on achievement in each of the basic skills based
on national performance data. In many cases, these reports are complemented by reports based on
the country results from international surveys such as PISA, the Trends in International Mathematics
(4) Council Resolution of 19 February 2021 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training
towards the European Education Area and beyond (2021-2030). 2021/C 66/1.
(5) European Commission, PISA 2018 and the EU – Striving for social fairness through education, Publications Office of the
European Union, 2019.
(6) For more information on changes to examinations and national tests in mathematics and science due to COVID, see
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2022. Increasing achievement and motivation in mathematics and science
learning in schools, pp.69–77.
13Structural indicators for monitoring education and training systems in Europe – 2022
and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy (PIRLS). Moreover, in
around a third of countries, national reports are based solely on the results of international surveys. In
terms of the subject areas covered by these reports, as with the previous indicator on national testing,
it appears that performance in the language of instruction and mathematics is analysed much more
often than performance in science.
Across Europe, the evaluation of schools has become increasingly important for monitoring the
overall quality of education. In most cases, school evaluators examine a variety of data from different
sources, which can include different types of student performance data.
In most countries where the external evaluation of schools is practised, evaluators take student
performance data into account to form their judgement on school quality. This is not the case in
Greece ( 7), Cyprus, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Norway, where external school evaluation is concerned
with school processes and compliance with regulations. Moreover, several countries do not carry out
any external school evaluation (Croatia ( 8), Finland and Bosnia and Herzegovina). In the past years, a
major reform in Bulgaria led to the introduction of external school evaluation and the use of student
performance data in it.
Teachers’ ability to deal with student difficulties and their skills in managing students with a range of
different abilities and needs are crucial. A number of countries stipulate that the competences
needed to tackle low student achievement should be acquired during initial teacher education
(ITE).
The education authorities in half of all European systems provide central-level regulations,
recommendations and/or guidelines for ITE programmes that specify that prospective teachers should
learn how to address student difficulties during their training. Central-level involvement in determining
the content of ITE programmes varies between countries. The diverse approaches are reflected in the
differing degrees of detail in guidance documents and the variety of practices both at national level
and at the level of individual higher education institutions. In some cases, only general guidelines are
provided without specifying particular subjects. Again, science is the area that is less likely to be
mentioned explicitly. It is also significant that in the rest of education systems there are no such
guidelines, which is often due to the fact that in these cases higher education institutions are
completely autonomous in determining the content of their teacher education programmes.
The central education authorities in around two thirds of all education systems allocate additional
resources to schools that enrol large numbers of disadvantaged students. There are a variety of
approaches in terms of the organisation of the support, the groups targeted and actions funded.
In most countries, schools receive the additional funding directly from the central authorities, although
in many cases local authorities are also involved. In some countries, financial flows are rather complex
because several levels of authorities (central, regional, local) are involved in the allocation of funding.
Moreover, in some cases, in addition to the centrally allocated funding, education providers / schools
can apply for extra funds for specific purposes.
(7) In the 2021–2022 school year, national tests on achievement and school evaluations are carried out in a pilot in
300 primary schools and 300 lower secondary schools. See http://iep.edu.gr/el/arxiki-eedx and http://iep.edu.gr/el/deltia-
typou-genika/pisa.
(8) The pilot project ‘External Evaluation of Primary and General Upper Secondary Schools’ (Vanjsko vrednovanje osnovnih
škola i gimnazija) started at the end of 2017 and represents the first phase in the preparation of the introduction of a
comprehensive system of external evaluation of educational institutions. See https://www.ncvvo.hr/vanjsko-
vrednovanje/vanjsko-vrednovanje-odgojno-obrazovnih-ustanova/pilot-projekt-vanjskoga-vrednovanja-osnovnih-skola-
gimnazija/.
142. Achievement in basic skills
Central authorities do not allocate such additional resources in Denmark, Croatia, Hungary, Romania,
North Macedonia and Norway. In Denmark and Norway this is done at the level of municipalities. In
other countries, additional resources for these purposes are provided mainly through social
programmes (Romania) or EU and other international projects (North Macedonia). In certain cases
(Denmark and Hungary), central-level support is not financial, but focuses on reinforcing the
professional development of teachers, providing remedial classes and other educational support.
Across Europe, additional support is most commonly linked to socioeconomic background, migrant
status and disability. Criteria like geographical location and ethnic origin are used less often. Targeted
funds are used most often to provide additional staff – educational or other professionals, the creation
of specific professional development opportunities to improve teachers’ competences in providing
inclusive education and for career advice services. In the past 7 years, reforms in this area have led to
the establishment of a scheme for additional support to disadvantaged students (Malta) or to the
reinforcement of existing support (e.g. Czechia, Germany, Spain and Slovenia) ( 9). Finally, to counter
the negative impact of COVID-19, several education systems have launched new initiatives in support
of disadvantaged students and schools in the past 2 years.
In conclusion, the review of the structural indicators on achievement in basic skills demonstrates that
while most countries organise national standardised tests and publish national reports on
achievement, not all three basic skills are treated equally, and science is given less attention.
Moreover, many countries use student performance data in external school evaluation, but only
around half have issued national guidelines to include tackling student underachievement as a topic in
ITE. Finally, while most countries provide some type of central support to schools with large numbers
of disadvantaged students, there is a great variety of approaches in terms of the organisation of the
support, the target groups and actions funded.
Overall, there have been few policy changes and reforms across the indicators on achievement in
basic skills in the past 8 years. This could be seen as an indication that these areas do not seem to be
a priority for policy action, even though in many countries there are no major improvements in student
achievement as measured by the PISA survey.
(9) For more information on support to disadvantaged schools, see European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2020. Equity in
school education in Europe, pp.173–186.
15Structural indicators for monitoring education and training systems in Europe – 2022
Summary table on achievement in basic skills, 2021/2022 (*)
2. Recent national 3. Use of performance 4. Guidelines on 5. Additional resources provided
reports data in underachievement by top-level authorities to schools
on achievement school evaluation as a topic in ITE with disadvantaged students
Belgium BE fr R M S R M S
Belgium BE de R M S R M S
Belgium BE nl R M S R M S
Bulgaria R M S
Czechia R M S
Denmark R M S R M S
Germany R M S R
Estonia R M S R M S
Ireland R M S R M
Greece R M S
Spain R M S R M S
France R M S R M S
Croatia R M S
Italy R M
Cyprus R M S R M S
Latvia R M S
Lithuania R M S R M S
Luxembourg R M R M S
Hungary R M S R M S
Malta R M S R M S
Netherlands R M S
Austria R M R M S
Poland R M S R M S
Portugal R M S
Romania R M S
Slovenia R M S
Slovakia R M
Finland R M
Sweden R M S R M S
Bosnia and Herzegovina R M S
Iceland R M
Liechtenstein R M
Montenegro R M S
North Macedonia R M S R M S
Norway R M S R M S
Serbia R M S
Türkiye R M S
NB: ‘R’ = reading; ‘M’ = mathematics; ‘S’ = science.
(*) No data collection on indicator 1. National tests in compulsory education for the 2021/2022 school year.
163. EARLY LEAVING FROM EDUCATION AND TRAINING
The structural indicators on early leaving from education and training (ELET) ( 10) focus on certain key
policies and measures that together cover the three main areas of action – prevention, intervention
and compensation – as highlighted in the Council recommendation of 28 June 2011 ( 11). The need to
continue to bring down the rate of ELET and for more young people to obtain an upper secondary
education qualification was reiterated in the Council resolution of 19 February 2021. A new EU-level
target was agreed: the share of early leavers from education and training should be less than 9 %, by
2030 ( 12).
This set of structural indicators provides an overview of recent reforms and policy developments of
some of the main activities taking place in European countries to achieve the EU-level target on ELET.
The indicators focus on school education: primary, general secondary and school-based initial
vocational education (ISCED levels 1, 2 and 3). Since 2015, when the structural indicators on ELET
were first gathered, there have been many reforms in all of the following six areas.
ELET
Providing
Collecting Increasing the Offering Supporting
language
national data flexibility and Addressing education and early leavers in
support to
on ELET based permeability of ELET in career re-entering the
students with a
on a student education ITE and CPD guidance in education and
different mother
register pathways schools training system
tongue
Overview of reforms and policy developments since 2015
A national data collection system based on a student register can be used to understand the
scale of the problem and to develop and implement appropriate policies to address ELET. Such a
system can also be employed to both monitor absenteeism and evaluate the effectiveness of policies
to reduce early leaving. Since 2015, more and more European education systems have put in place
such a data-collection system, making it possible to monitor absenteeism and analyse early-school-
leaving patterns at different levels – school, local, regional and national. In 2021/2022, the majority of
European countries are collecting national data on ELET through a student register.
Policies for increasing the flexibility and permeability of education pathways can help prevent
ELET by removing potential obstacles to the completion of education and training programmes. These
might include initiatives to promote alternative education and training pathways (e.g. vocational or
technical rather than general), to facilitate the transition between pathways and to improve systems for
the recognition of students’ skills and qualifications. In 2021/2022, almost all European countries have
policies in place to promote alternative education and training pathways; and measures exist in many
(10) Early leaving from education and training (ELET) refers to students leaving education or training before completing the
upper secondary level and thus not obtaining the corresponding school-leaving certificate. However, the structural
indicators on ELET focus on the whole period of school education: primary education, general secondary and school-
based initial vocational education (ISCED levels 1, 2 and 3).
(11) Council Recommendation of 28 June 2011 on policies to reduce early school leaving, OJ C 191, 1.7.2011.
(12) Council Resolution of 19 February 2021 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training
towards the European Education Area and beyond (2021–2030). 2021/C 66/1.
17Structural indicators for monitoring education and training systems in Europe – 2022
countries to facilitate transitions between the different pathways. In Slovakia, conceptual and
legislative steps have been taken as of 2022 to introduce a system for the recognition of qualifications.
Language support for students with a mother tongue other than the language of instruction can
be crucial as these students are often at increased risk of early leaving. The great majority of
European countries already had such policies in place in 2015. Further developments in this area
have mainly been focused on intensifying this support. In 2020/2021, reforms occurred in Iceland
resulting in better access to language tests and language classes for non-Icelandic speakers. In
Czechia, Spain, Portugal and Slovenia additional policies and measures were introduced leading to
increased language support for students with a different mother tongue.
Addressing ELET in ITE and/or in CPD is essential if teachers are to know how to support students
who are showing signs of disengagement at school, and who are therefore at risk of leaving school
early. This was an area addressed by a relatively small number of countries in 2015, but which has
since become the focus of top-level policies and measures in an increasing number of countries.
Despite these positive developments across Europe, this current update of the structural indicators
shows that educating and training teachers on issues relating to ELET is still an area where
comparatively fewer policies can be found.
The role of education and career guidance services in preventing students from leaving education
and training is widely acknowledged. In order to strengthen this area in schools, several countries have
introduced reforms since 2015 to ensure that education and career guidance is not only delivered
through school-based guidance or counselling services, but also through the national curriculum, thus
systematically reaching all students. These developments are in addition to the existing support provided
by the school guidance services in all these countries. This two-way approach to promoting education
and career guidance in schools is now (in 2021/2022) promoted through top-level policies in about two-
thirds of European countries.
Support for early leavers to re-enter the education and training system has been strengthened
through a number of policy developments since 2015. These have involved the provision of second-
chance education, education and career guidance and/or ‘Youth guarantee’-related education and
training initiatives ( 13). Reforms in this area have occurred in 2021/2022 in Slovakia through the
introduction of the Lifelong learning and counselling strategy for 2021–2030. Currently, almost all
European countries have policies promoting second-chance education for early leavers, and most of
them support early leavers through targeted education and career guidance and through ‘Youth
guarantee’-related initiatives supporting early leavers in re-entering the education and training system.
(13) The ‘Youth guarantee’ is a commitment by all Member States to ensure that all young people under the age of 25 receive
a good quality offer of employment, further education, apprenticeship or traineeship within a period of 4 months of
becoming unemployed or leaving formal education. See the Council Recommendation of 30 October 2020 on A Bridge to
Jobs – Reinforcing the Youth Guarantee and replacing the Council Recommendation of 22 April 2013 on establishing a
Youth Guarantee, OJ C 372, 4.11.2020.
183. Early leaving from education and training
ELET summary table 1, 2021/2022
2. Policies for increasing the flexibility and permeability of
1. National data education pathways: 3. Policies for language
collection on ELET 2.1. Providing 2.2. Facilitating 2.3. Recognising support for students with
based on a student alternative education transitions within skills and/or a different mother
register and training pathways education and qualifications tongue
training systems
Belgium BE fr
Belgium BE de
Belgium BE nl
Bulgaria
Czechia
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Croatia
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Iceland
Liechtenstein
Montenegro
North Macedonia
Norway
Serbia
Türkiye
19Structural indicators for monitoring education and training systems in Europe – 2022
ELET summary table 2, 2021/2022
4. Policies 5. Education and 6. Policies to support early leavers in re-entering the
encouraging the career guidance education and training system:
inclusion of ELET in schools 6.1. Second-chance 6.2. Education and 6.3. Youth
in ITE and/or CPD (ISCED levels 2 and 3) (*) education career guidance guarantee
Belgium BE fr
Belgium BE de
Belgium BE nl
Bulgaria
Czechia
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Croatia
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Iceland
Liechtenstein
Montenegro
North Macedonia
Norway
Serbia
Türkiye
(*) Education and career guidance provided both as a compulsory part of the curriculum and by school guidance services in
lower and upper secondary education.
204. HIGHER EDUCATION
In 2008, the Council adopted an EU-wide benchmark on tertiary education, stating that by 2020 at
least 40 % of 30–34-year-olds should have a tertiary or equivalent-level qualification ( 14). This
benchmark was part of the double headline target on education within the Europe 2020 growth
strategy. According to Eurostat data, this target was reached in 2019 ( 15). To emphasise the need for
further progress in this area, in 2021 the Council agreed a new EU-level target on tertiary-level
attainment, which states that ‘The share of 25–34-year-olds with tertiary education attainment should
be at least 45 %, by 2030’ ( 16).
The following five structural indicators were developed in relation to the EU-level priorities, and guided
by the Commission’s communication, ‘Supporting growth and jobs: An agenda for the modernisation
of Europe’s higher education systems’ ( 17). Among the Communication’s main objectives are two key
interlinked policy goals: increasing and widening participation and improving the quality and relevance
of higher education. To achieve these goals, the following indicators were chosen.
Higher
education
Targets for Completion rate
Recognition of Performance-
widening partici- Monitoring of as a requirement
informal and based funding
pation of under- characteristics in external
non-formal with focus on
represented of student body quality
learning social dimension
groups assurance
Related to these indicators, the Commission’s communication of 30 September 2020 on achieving the
European Education Area by 2025 ( 18) defines inclusion – ensuring that higher education is accessible
to diverse student populations – as one of its key objectives. Furthermore, the Council, in its resolution
for setting out the targets for 2030, stated that ‘education and training systems should become more
flexible, resilient, future-proof, and appealing, reaching out to a more diverse learner body and offering
recognition and validation of prior learning, upskilling and reskilling training opportunities, including at
higher qualification levels and throughout the working life… Moreover, to reinforce cooperation
between education institutions and foster mobility, there is still work to be done in areas such as the
automatic mutual recognition of qualifications and study periods abroad and quality assurance’ ( 19).
(14) Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training
(‘ET 2020’), OJ C 119, 28.5.2009.
(15) Eurostat press release of 22 April 2020 (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/10749941/3-22042020-BP-
EN.pdf/04c88d0b-17af-cf7e-7e78-331a67f3fcd5).
(16) Council Resolution of 19 February 2021 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training
towards the European Education Area and beyond (2021–2030). 2021/C 66/1.
(17) Communication from the European Commission, 2011. ‘Supporting Growth and Jobs: An Agenda for the Modernisation of
Europe’s Higher Education Systems’. COM (2011) 567 final. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
(18) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on achieving the European Education Area by 2025. COM(2020) 625 final.
Brussels.
(19) Council Resolution of 19 February 2021 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training
towards the European Education Area and beyond (2021–2030). 2021/C 66/1.
21Structural indicators for monitoring education and training systems in Europe – 2022
Overview of reforms and policy developments since 2015
In the area of higher education, there were some reforms since 2015. Indicators with new policies
were quantitative targets in terms of widening participation and attainment of under-represented
groups, completion as a required criterion in external quality assurance, and performance-based
funding with a focus on the social dimension.
For the indicator on widening participation of under-represented groups, quantitative targets have
been issued in the gender equality strategy for 2021–2030 in Czechia ( 20).
For the indicator on recognition of informal and non-formal learning, in Austria, paragraph 56 of the
2002 Universities Act was amended in 2021. A new undergraduate admission procedure for people
with non-formal or informal qualifications wishing to continue their education will be recognised by
universities. With this new procedure, universities will deliver professional Bachelor degrees (BA prof)
in collaboration with non-university educational institutions’. Informal qualification means qualified work
experience of several years.
Regarding performance-based funding with a focus on the social dimension, in Hungary, the Ministry
for Innovation and Technology has entered into a framework agreement with 21 model exchange
institutions in 2021. This agreement includes a set of conditions for the financing of public tasks
directly performed by the foundation which owns and maintains the higher education institution. The
agreement specifies, among other things, the indicators for social-dimension-based funding, such as
the number of disabled students actively enrolled in the higher education institution; the number of
students actively enrolled in the higher education institution from specific territories that have been
categorised as ‘to develop’; and the number of students actively enrolled in the higher education
institution who are raising a child.
Two countries (Romania and Finland) ceased to set quantitative targets for widening participation and
attainment of under-represented groups between 2015 and 2021.
When looking at the five indicators for the 2021/2022 reference year, in more than two thirds of the
education systems, monitoring of socioeconomic characteristics of the student body was the most
widely implemented policy. Also, recognition of prior informal or non-formal learning and the
requirement of completion rates was implemented in more than half of the education systems.
The two remaining policies (Indicators 4.1 and 4.5), which focus the most on the social dimension and
widening participation in higher education, were implemented in less than half of the education
systems, even if there were developments in this area during the 2021/2022 academic year in some
countries ( 21). This suggests that while indicators related to the quality and relevance of higher
education are implemented in the majority of education systems, there is more work to be done
related to the two indicators on widening participation and the social dimension of higher education.
(20) https://www.vlada.cz/cz/ppov/rovne-prilezitosti-zen-a-muzu/aktuality/vlada-dnes-schvalila-strategii-rovnosti-zen-a-muzu-
na-leta-2021–2030-187164/
(21) For more information on current policies for improving equity and inclusion in higher education, see European
Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2022. Towards Equity and Inclusion in Higher Education in Europe.
224. Higher education
Summary table on higher education, 2021/2022
1. Quantitative 2. Monitoring of 3. Recognition of 4. Completion 5. Performance-
targets for widening socioeconomic informal or non- rates as a required based funding
participation and/or background of formal learning in criterion in external mechanisms with a
attainment of under- students entry to higher quality assurance social dimension
represented groups education focus
Belgium BE fr
Belgium BE de
Belgium BE nl
Bulgaria
Czechia
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Croatia
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Iceland
Liechtenstein
Montenegro
North Macedonia
Norway
Serbia
Türkiye
235. DIGITAL COMPETENCE AT SCHOOL
The structural indicators in this chapter provide an overview of key policies that support the
development of digital competence at school in Europe. The selection of indicators is based on the
strategic priorities outlined in the European Commission’s 2021–2027 Digital Education Action Plan,
which is a renewed EU policy initiative to support the sustainable and effective adaptation of education
and training systems to the digital age ( 22). In particular, the Digital Education Action Plan sets two
strategic priorities: promoting the development of a European digital education ecosystem and
enhancing digital competence (knowledge, skills and attitudes) of all learners for the digital
transformation and a world mediated by digital technologies ( 23). Achieving these priorities requires the
implementation of a number of initiatives such as promoting:
• basic digital skills and competences from an early age;
• digital literacy, including tackling disinformation;
• computing education;
• high-quality learning content, user-friendly tools and secure platforms which respect e-privacy
rules and ethical standards;
• digitally competent and confident teachers and education and training staff;
• effective digital capacity planning and development, including up-to-date organisational
capabilities.
In addition, as a direct follow-up to Action 11 of the Digital Education Action Plan, in February 2021 the
Council of the European Union introduced a new target on digital skills. It called for the share of low-
achieving eight-graders in computer and information literacy to be less than 15 % by 2030 ( 24).
In line with these EU-level policy priorities and upon the request of the Directorate-General for
Education and Culture, the Eurydice network undertook the 2022 trial data collection on structural
indicators for digital competence. The diagram below depicts the selection of indicators.
Digital
competence
at school
Compulsory Learning Teachers’ Assessment Digital
starting grade outcomes preparedness of pupils’ education
and related to to teach digital ecosystem at
curriculum digital digital competence school
approaches competence competence
Appointment Top-level Criteria in
of school requirement to external
digital have a school school
coordinators digital plan evaluation
(22) COM/2020/624 final.
(23) SWD (2020) 209 final. COM (2020) 624 final.
(24) OJ C 66, 26.2.2021.
25Structural indicators for monitoring education and training systems in Europe – 2022
The majority of these indicators are based on the analysis in the 2019 Eurydice report Digital
Education at School in Europe (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019a) and the Eurydice
brief Digital Education at School in Europe (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019b). In order
to align with the EU-level digital skills target, the selected indicators cover International Standard
Classification of Education (ISCED) levels 1 and 24.
5.1. Compulsory starting grade for teaching digital competence and
curriculum approaches
In order to foster the development of digital competence in students, national school curricula need to
explicitly include it as from primary education. In this analysis, the term ‘national curriculum’ is used in
a wide sense, referring to any official steering document issued by top-level authorities which contains
study programmes, learning content, learning objectives, attainment targets, assessment guidelines or
syllabi.
The curriculum approaches to digital competence may include teaching and learning through a cross-
curricular topic, a separate subject or several other subjects (integrated approach). National curricula
often combine several of these approaches, which are defined as follows.
• Cross-curricular. Digital competences are understood to be transversal and are therefore taught
across all subjects in the curriculum. All teachers share the responsibility for developing digital
competences.
• Separate subject. Digital competences are taught as a discrete subject area similar to other
traditional subject-based competences.
• Integrated into other subjects. Digital competences are incorporated into the curriculum of other
subjects or learning areas.
In line with the European target to reduce the share of low achievement in digital skills for all pupils,
the focus of this indicator is on the compulsory curriculum for all pupils, therefore excluding
optional subjects related to digital competences.
5.1.1. Compulsory starting grade for teaching digital competence
One way of understanding the importance given to digital competences by top-level education
authorities is to examine the earliest grade from which digital competences are taught at school and
whether this is done as a separate subject or as a transversal competence.
Figure 1 shows that in most European education systems the compulsory teaching of digital
competences for all pupils starts in primary education (ISCED level 1). In 18 systems this is done as
early as the first grade of primary education, and in another seven systems this happens several
grades later. The latest compulsory starting grade that has been reported is seventh grade in lower
secondary education (ISCED level 24), which concerns the current situation in Cyprus and Malta.
Finally, in several systems (the three Communities of Belgium, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands,
Slovenia, Iceland and Norway) top-level education authorities have not established a compulsory
starting grade for the teaching of digital competences for all students. That said, general objectives
unrelated to specific grades may exist, such as in Slovenia, and some German Länder have
introduced compulsory starting grades. In some of these systems, the decision on the starting grade is
subject to school and/or local autonomy.
265. Digital competence at school
For instance, in the French and German-speaking Communities of Belgium, some schools offer projects in informatics in primary
education. In lower secondary education, informatics is an optional subject in some schools, but the contents vary across all schools.
In Ireland, there is no compulsory starting grade for teaching digital competences to all or most students. Instead, a top-level
recommendation aims to assist schools in effectively embedding digital technologies into teaching, learning and assessment.
Schools can then use their own local autonomy and come up with their own, bespoke approach to embedding digital technologies in
teaching and learning on a school-wide level.
In the Netherlands, digital competences are not yet part of the formal curriculum. Schools have autonomy to decide how they
integrate digital competences in the curriculum. However, a recent report on monitoring digital competences in primary education has
found that 39 % of teachers work on digital skills through other subjects (integrated in other compulsory subjects) ( 25).
5.1.2. Curriculum approaches to teaching digital competence
Across Europe digital competence is being taught using a number of curricular approaches. In certain
cases, these approaches could be employed in parallel or they could change depending on the
education level. Overall, in primary education, the most common approach is to teach digital
competence as a cross-curricular subject, while in lower secondary education this is most often done
as a compulsory separate subject. This trend was already observed in the 2019 Eurydice report Digital
Education at School in Europe.
In terms of the combination of curriculum approaches, a variety of situations can be observed at
national level. It is common for two out of the three approaches discussed above to coexist (Denmark,
Estonia, Greece, France, Latvia, Luxembourg (only in primary education), Hungary, Austria, Poland,
Portugal, Sweden and Montenegro). Some systems (Czech Republic, Liechtenstein and Serbia) even
use all three curriculum approaches.
On the other hand, some systems favour only one curriculum approach during both primary and lower
secondary education. For instance, in Bulgaria, Slovakia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia
and Türkiye, digital competence is taught only as a compulsory separate subject, while in Italy and
Finland digital competence is taught only as cross-curricular competence.
Finally, it is also worth noting that digital competence is taught as a compulsory separate subject from
first grade in nine countries (Greece, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Liechtenstein,
Montenegro, Serbia and Türkiye).
(25) https://ecp.nl/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Rapportage-ECP-Monitor-Digitale-Geletterdheid-PO-2-november-2021.pdf
27Structural indicators for monitoring education and training systems in Europe – 2022
Figure 1: Compulsory starting grade and curriculum approaches to teaching digital competence, 2021/2022
ISCED 1 ISCED 24
Compulsory Compulsory Integrated in Compulsory Integrated in
Cross- Cross-
starting separate other compulsory separate other compulsory
curricular curricular
grade subject subjects subject subjects
Belgium BE fr
Belgium BE de
Belgium BE nl
Bulgaria 3
Czechia 4
Denmark 1
Germany
Estonia 1
Ireland
Greece 1
Spain 1
France 1
Croatia 5
Italy 1
Cyprus 7
Latvia 1
Lithuania 1
Luxembourg 1
Hungary 3
Malta 7
Netherlands
Austria 6
Poland 1
Portugal 1
Romania 5
Slovenia
Slovakia 3
Finland 1
Sweden 1
Albania 5
Bosnia and 1
Herzegovina
Iceland
Liechtenstein 1
Montenegro 1
North Macedonia 3
Norway
Serbia 1
Türkiye 1
Symbols:
Exist School/local autonomy
28You can also read
