Previous Section Next Section

3. Investment and quality of expenditure in education and training

A partial overview of the initial policy response in a selection of Member States shows that investment to accelerate digitalisation increased, additional teachers were hired or additional teacher training was provided, funding was made available for student counselling and assistance, and bonuses were paid to teachers. Some countries also compensated schools for additional prevention costs, e.g. of protective equipment or additional disinfection products. Investment in better infrastructure or summer “bridging" programmes were mentioned in fewer countries. In this new context, the EU set up a Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). With the European Structural and Investment Funds, the increase in EU funds going into education and training is much higher than in the period 2014-2020.

The benefits that educational attainment can bring to individuals and society are very well established²³⁴. They are significant and typically materialise over a long period of time²³⁵. However, there is a wide consensus that levels of educational attainment do not give the full picture. Being in school does not always necessarily translate into learning. It is important to assess the quality of education by looking both at students’ academic achievements and at their learning outcomes, as well as at their social, emotional and ethical competences.

Financial resources are essential for education and training systems to perform and to ensure equity in learning opportunities and outcomes. Additional school resources improve educational achievement, when used effectively. However, there is no certainty that increasing the amount of funding invested in education automatically improves the performance of education and training systems or leads to significantly better learning outcomes. Students living in countries that channel different levels of public resources to education achieve comparable learning outcomes, as measured by PISA.

As an illustration, we can focus on the six countries where students’ academic achievement, as measured by PISA, is above average²³⁶. Four of the countries where the proportion of low achievers are below average, namely Denmark, Estonia, Slovenia and Poland, dedicate more than the EU average (1.5% of GDP in 2018) to public investment in pre-primary and primary education²³⁷, while in the other two, Ireland and Finland, the amount of public investment is well below the EU average. Among the countries where the proportion of top performers in reading is above 10%, three countries, namely Estonia, Sweden and Poland, dedicate more than the EU average to public investment in education. In the other three (Germany, Finland and Ireland), the share of public investment in pre-primary and primary is below the EU average.

There has long been a focus on resource-based education policies and the impact that additional funding invested in education has on students’ outcomes. A review of studies²³⁸ highlights that, while a meta-analysis carried out in 1996 concluded that “school resources are systematically related to student achievement and that these relations are large enough to be educationally important,” subsequent studies had found little or no effect. However, some recent studies attest to the positive impact of increasing investment in low-income school districts on students’ achievements, as well as the positive effect of school funding on students’ college enrolment and the likelihood of earning a postsecondary degree.

The evidence base for the effectiveness of education-related measures in different contexts continues growing, but knowledge about the cost of such measures remains limited. This makes it more difficult to assess which measures are effective for achieving good outcomes, and efficient. More can be done on building and sharing evidence of how public investment can improve the quality of education and training.

As an example of focused assessments of investments in specific measures, a review of evidence highlights the experimental research findings that tutoring measures evaluated in rigorous experiments are highly effective in supporting students who are struggling with reading or mathematics. The impact was found to be greater when the measures are carried out during school hours by teachers or teaching assistants and in the lower grades. The effects are greater compared with other measures to support struggling students, such as after-school programmes, extended day instruction or use of computer-assisted instruction and other digital approaches. The costs of tutoring measures ranges between medium and high: overall, the authors of the review assess the cost of tutoring to be relatively high, but simple forms of tutoring are found to be less costly and still effective. In comparison, high costs are associated to the other measures assessed which are found to be significantly less effective.

At EU level, policy attention to the effectiveness and efficiency of public expenditure on education has increased in recent years, with more focus on how to improve the impact of resources invested than necessarily on changes in funding levels or different distribution of funding. The Council Resolution on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training confirmed the commitment to intensifying work on investment in education and training, as part of the new European cooperation framework towards the European Education Area and beyond, stating: ’Effective and efficient investment in education and training is a prerequisite for enhancing quality and inclusiveness of the education and training systems and improving the education outcomes, as well as for driving sustainable growth, improving well-being and building a more inclusive society. While respecting the principle of subsidiarity, intensified work on investment has a potential to aid the recovery from the current crisis and contribute to the green and digital transitions of the education and training sector’.

The following sections provide a broad context for the theme of investment in education using the available indicators for education expenditure in recent years. A preliminary review is then given of early national responses to the sudden needs emerging from the physical school closures at various levels of education. Finally, there is an overview of the Recovery and Resilience Plans and the increased EU resources being channelled into education and training.

3.1 Total expenditure on education and training

Expenditure on education largely comes from public budgets, and also includes funding from students, their families and other private sources²⁴¹. Figure 69 shows the estimated proportion of expenditure on education from the three main sources - government, non-educational private sources and international organisations - in 2018 the most recent year for which comparable data are available.

The share of total education-related expenditure from public budgets ranged from 73.0% in Cyprus to 97.7% in Romania, in the countries for which data is available for 2018²⁴². The share of expenditure coming from private sources was above 9% in all countries for which data are available, except Romania, Luxembourg and Finland, and within the range of 18-26% in Netherlands, Slovenia, Slovakia, Portugal, Spain and Cyprus. The contribution of international organisations is generally below 3% of total expenditure in all but five of the Member States for which data are available: Slovakia, Portugal, Poland, Lithuania and Latvia.

The tertiary-education level has the largest proportion of funds coming from private sources, with household expenditure (through tuition fees) being the biggest source. Private sources account for at least 30% of total expenditure in tertiary education in Portugal, Slovakia, Latvia, Spain, Cyprus and Bulgaria. They account for 10% or below in Romania, Luxembourg and Denmark.

Figure 70 shows the distribution of total expenditure on education by level of education, excluding early childhood educational development, in 2018. The largest proportion of expenditure on education goes to primary and lower secondary education, except in Bulgaria where that category is the second highest. Primary and lower secondary education account for between 30.6% of total expenditure in Bulgaria and half of the total in Luxembourg (51.6%). Tertiary education often accounts for the second highest share of total expenditure, except in Bulgaria where it is the highest, in Luxembourg where it is the lowest, and in Italy where it is the second lowest. Tertiary education accounts for between 20% and 30% of total educational expenditure in all countries, except Luxembourg (10.8%), Italy (19.3%) and Netherlands (30.6%).

Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education typically accounted for between 15% and 25 % of total educational expenditure, with lower shares recorded in Lithuania (13.4%), and higher shares registered in Malta (26.4%), Belgium (26.5%) and Italy (30.7%). Generally, pre-primary education has the smallest share of educational expenditure, ranging from 5.7 % in Cyprus and 10.0 % or below in Netherlands, Malta and Portugal, and up to 15% to 20% of total education expenditure in Latvia (16.7%), Lithuania (18.7%) and Bulgaria (18.9%). In Lithuania and Denmark, the proportion of expenditure on upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education was the lowest, and in Luxembourg the share of expenditure on tertiary education was lower than the share on pre-primary education.

Previous Section Next Section

3.2 Public expenditure on education and training

The most recent comparable data on general government expenditure available are for 2019, when general government expenditure on education amounted to €654 bn or 4.7% of GDP in the EU. Of this, “pre-primary and primary education” accounted for 1.6% of GDP and secondary education accounted for 1.8% of GDP. For tertiary education, expenditure amounting to 0.8% of GDP was reported in the EU²⁴³.

TThere are considerable differences between countries in the amount of public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP, ranging from below 4% in Ireland (3.1%), Italy (3.9%), Romania (3.6%) and Bulgaria (3.9%) to 6.0% and above in Estonia (6.0%), Belgium (6.2%), Denmark (6.3%) and Sweden (6.9%).

Public expenditure on education in the EU accounts for on average 10% of total public expenditure. In Estonia (15.5%) and Latvia (15.0%), public expenditure on education accounted for over 15% of general government total expenditure while the ratio is below 10% in Italy (8.0% of total expenditure), Greece (8.3%), Spain and France (both 9.5%), Germany (9.6%), Slovakia (9.8%) and Austria (9.9%).

There were limited changes in recent years in most countries. The most significant changes occurred in Bulgaria, Czechia and Estonia, where education accounts for an increasing share of total public expenditure (with an increase of over 1 percentage point between 2016 and 2019), and Cyprus where the share has decreased (above 1 percentage point over the same period). Recently, there has also been a year-on-year real change of over 7% in Romania, Bulgaria, Czechia, Cyprus and Malta.

Previous Section Next Section

3.3 Public expenditure by education sector and category

The size of public expenditure on education in total public expenditure indicates the priority given by governments to education relative to other areas of investment, such as health care, social security, housing, defence or security. On average, in 2019, EU Member States directed 33.4% of public education expenditure to pre-primary and primary education. Secondary education accounted for an average of 38.7% of public education expenditure, while tertiary education totalled 16.2%. 11.7% was not attributable to one of the three main levels

²⁴⁴. The biggest difference across countries concern the resources devoted to pre-primary and primary education, which range from 20% of total education expenditure in Bulgaria and Lithuania to 63.7% in Sweden.

The sizeable differences between countries can be explained by many factors that have an impact on government education expenditure: involvement of the general government in the education system, including in supporting educational services²⁴⁵, enrolment, the duration of compulsory education, relative wages in the education sector, class size and student teacher ratios, instruction time, and the cost of teaching materials and facilities. At the tertiary level, tuition fees and support for students are also determining factors.

Enrolments in compulsory levels of education mostly depend on demographic developments. In other levels of education, enrolment rates are partly influenced by policy priorities, for example some countries invest public resources in near-universal education for children from 3 years of age and others emphasise broad access to tertiary education, or both. Some countries favour smaller classes for younger children at the pre-primary and primary level of education, which tend to increase the number of staff and associated expenditure. Enrolment rates in non-compulsory education may also depend on factors such as the economic cycle, with economic booms reducing incentives for students to remain in education and training.

Changes in the numbers of children born and the resulting shifts in the age structure of the population affect the number of school-age children and young populations in many countries, with implications for the organisation of schooling, e.g. when there are changes in the number of school-age children concentrated in certain areas, especially decreases in the number of children in rural areas. At the same time, intra-EU mobility, when families move across the EU, affects the number of children at various levels in the education system. Newly arrived refugee children and other immigrant children also push up the number of school-age children in specific communities, regions and countries.

Education systems typically adapt slowly to long-term demographic change and enrolment trends. Moreover, there is no simple relation between a decreasing student population and expenditure on education²⁴⁶, which may also be affected by measures to improve learning support for students, or innovative ways of teaching.

Differences in the types of services provided at each education level can vary significantly from country to country. At the primary level, for example, some countries provide transport to and from school or student meals (Sweden, Finland, Estonia).

For the EU as a whole, the main category of expenditure is “compensation of employees”, which is the total remuneration of employees: wages, salaries and employers' social contributions, for professors, teachers, assistants and other non-teaching staff such as school leaders or special educational support staff. Around 64% of public expenditure on education is in the form of “compensation of employees”. The second-largest category of public expenditure (14.8%) is in the form of “intermediate consumption”, meaning purchases of non-durable goods (e.g. teaching materials such as teaching manuals) and services needed to provide education (e.g. heating, electricity, cleaning and maintenance services). Gross capital formation (investment in acquiring fixed assets and durable goods, such as computers and buildings, and also including the depreciation of fixed assets) accounts for around 7.1% of education expenditure. The main remaining categories are social benefits, for example school transport (5.5% of public expenditure) and other current transfers, which includes for example payments to private schools (5.6% of public expenditure).

The quality of teachers and trainers is key to achieving quality outcomes and high inclusion. Teachers and trainers support students in their development and play an important role in stimulating or hampering student motivation and inspiration . Appropriate salaries can help school systems attract the best candidates to the teaching profession and underpin its social status²⁴⁸. Other conditions matter too, in particular high-quality initial teacher education and measures to maintain teachers’ motivation throughout their careers²⁴⁹. The physical environment in schools also has an influence on teaching methods and learning processes. Investing in effective learning environments and ensuring that the potential of learning spaces is used effectively are also determinants of quality education and training.

Another aspect worth highlighting is financial assistance to households or students, which may take a variety of different forms, including scholarships, public loans and allowances dependent on a student’s status. The share of public education expenditure that was used for financial aid to households and students ranged in 2018 from 0.2% in Greece and 1.5% in Luxembourg to 16.9% in Denmark; the highest share was recorded in Bulgaria (18.4%) – see Figure 74. The relative importance of financial support may also depend on the education level: compulsory education is generally free to students, even though there are a number of hidden costs²⁵⁰, while tertiary education may or may not be free.

Previous Section Next Section

3.4 Financing education and training in the context of COVID-19

With the COVID-19 pandemic and the physical closures of institutions at various levels of education, most EU countries suddenly needed online learning solutions, including online platforms, take-home packages, and other solutions such as television/radio or mobile phones. The situation differed over time, depending on the phase of the pandemic and across countries, ranging from school closures without any online learning, in some cases, or intense online learning, hybrid formulas (e.g. part-time on site education combined with online learning) and physically open schools (with some temporary closures). The disruption for higher education institutions was considerable with the closure of physical campuses, whereas the access of younger children to school tended to be prioritised.

This section draws entirely on the ad-hoc report on financing education in the context of COVID-19 prepared by the European Expert Network of Economics in Education²⁵¹. Teachers and students had to move abruptly to distance learning, though many were unprepared for this sudden change. For example, the 2018 PISA data suggest that the percentage of students in schools whose principal agreed or strongly agreed that teachers have the necessary technical and pedagogical skills to integrate digital devices in instruction ranged from 83% in Lithuania to lower than 50% in Ireland. Taking a global perspective, several non-EU countries are performing better than the best performers in the EU.

There was also a lack of ICT equipment and online learning support. According to the 2018 PISA data, in Luxembourg an effective online learning support platform was available for only 22% of students. Also in Romania (31%) and Germany (32%) availability was low before the COVID-19 pandemic. This contrasts with Denmark (91%), Sweden (80%) and Finland (80%) where effective online learning support platforms were more generally available.

Being suddenly required to learn from home, students need to have access to a quiet place to study. The 2018 PISA data show that in some EU education systems, e.g. the Netherlands or Austria, most students have access to a quiet place, while in other education systems, e.g. Bulgaria (20%) and Malta (15), a large group of students does not have access to a quiet place to study.

Finally, online instruction requires that students have a device, internet connection, technical equipment, the digital skills and the necessary technical experience to receive the course materials. The 2018 PISA data suggest that in many European countries students frequently did not use ICT outside school for homework. Particularly in Ireland, Belgium and Luxembourg, prior to the COVID-19 crisis ICT was rarely used for schoolwork outside school.

Countries took many measures to mitigate the pandemic’s negative impact on children and schools: providing subsidised devices (computers, tablets), improving access in remote areas, removing obstacles to internet access, providing support for students with disabilities and providing support for low-income households.

A partial overview of the initial policy response on additional education funding in a selection of Member States, up to 12 May 2021²⁵⁴ suggests an increase in investment to accelerate digitisation projects, e.g. access to laptops or tablets for children, better or more efficient internet access, increased capacity for digital learning platforms or upgrading ICT infrastructure in general. It also shows evidence of hiring additional teachers or providing for additional training of teachers, as well as additional funding for counselling and assistance for students, and bonuses for teachers. Some countries also compensate schools for additional prevention costs, e.g. for protective equipment, additional cleaning, or disinfection products.

Since regular public spending on education (i.e. not-COVID-19 related expenses) substantially differs between countries, additional spending per child is compared with the regular average spending per child in primary and secondary education. In this way, the percentage increase in public educational spending that can be attributed to COVID-19 can be calculated. The median increase in spending per child was approximately 3%, with a broad range from below 1% to 32%.

Overall, the results of the partial overview suggest that the funding concentrates on ICT provision and general, non-earmarked funding. Several countries realised that their ICT availability and competences were not suitable for organising distance learning effectively and decided to invest in upgrading ICT equipment and tools. For several countries, this may be an opportunity to embrace the potential advantages of digital learning tools and to use them to enhance learning.

For a number of countries, the increase in funding is either not earmarked or it is not clear whether the money should be dedicated to serve specific targets or not. Further, some countries specifically mention “hiring additional teachers” or “additional teacher training”. The spending categories of investment on better infrastructure or summer “bridging” programmes are mentioned in fewer countries.

Future availability of harmonised data on public spending on education in 2020 and 2021 would enable the new situation to be assessed, with the response to set up a Recovery and Resilience Facility. Together with the European Structural and Investment Funds, the increase in EU funds directed to education and training is much higher than in 2014-2020. It would open scope for comparison of the change in public expenditure with for example changes in learning outcomes, the number of days of school closure, availability of ICT at school or at home, or digital competences of teachers and children.

Previous Section Next Section

3.5 The Recovery and Resilience Facility

The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) is the centrepiece of NextGenerationEU, the European Union’s Recovery Instrument, under which up to €675 bn²⁵⁵ have been made available to Member States in grants (€312.5 bn) and in loans (€360 bn). The RRF supports sustainable and growth-enhancing reforms and investments to help recovery and build institutional capacity, essential to reduce inequalities and divergences in the EU. To benefit from the support under the Facility, Member States had to submit their Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRPs), including a comprehensive set of reforms and investments to be implemented by 2026. Reforms and investments fall under six pillars:

1. Green transition
2. Digital transformation
3. Smart, sustainable and inclusive growth
4. Social and territorial cohesion
5. Health and economic, social and institutional resilience; and
6. Policies for the next generation, children and youth.

Furthermore, at least 37% of total expenditure will be devoted to climate related investments and at least 20% to promoting the digital transition.

As of 15 October 2021, 26 Member States had submitted their RRP and the Commission adopted its final assessment and a proposal for a legally binding act for 22 plans, of which 19 were also adopted by the Council.

Investment in education and skills figure prominently in National RRPs. According to provisional calculations based on the 18 of the adopted plans education and skills related reforms and investments make up about 13% of the total RRF expenditure. In addition, Member States have also mobilised funding under the COVID-19 response investment initiative (CRII, CRII+) and are planning further investments under REACT-EU (also part of the NextGenerationEU package) and the Structural Funds (2021-2027). Negotiations on these programmes are still ongoing, and therefore an overview cannot be provided at this stage. However, education and skills will benefit in the next years from an unprecedented level of EU funding. This will facilitate large-scale investments with the potential to improve access to and quality of education and training in the medium to long-term in many countries. In particular, the RRF is expected to give a major boost to the transformation of education and training systems in light of the green and digital transitions. Investments will largely support the implementation of the Digital Education Action Plan (2021-27), which put forward a strategic vision to create a high-performing digital education ecosystem and enhance the digital skills and competences of the population.

Most countries²⁵⁶ will invest in the digital infrastructure and connectivity of schools often with a focus on reducing the digital divide. For instance, Slovakia aims to increase the share of schools with highly equipped and connected classrooms from 30% to at least 90%. Some Member States²⁵⁷ will equip learners and teachers with digital devices to reduce the digital divide. For instance, in Austria 80 000 students per year will receive digital equipment funded under the RRF.

Investments in digital infrastructure go hand in hand with measures to develop the digital competences of students and teachers. Such measures include the adaptation of the school curricula and the development of digital resources and content²⁵⁸, teacher training on digital education²⁵⁹, as well as modernising the training offer in VET institutions²⁶⁰. For instance, in Belgium, the Flemish Community has included in its plan an ambitious reform of digital school education, which provides for setting up a knowledge and support centre for digital school education.

The digital transition of higher education will improve quality and excellence and enhance the availability of digital skills in the labour market. Member States have planned a broad range of measures covering areas such as the development of digital infrastructure²⁶¹; digital teaching resources, adaptation of study courses and training²⁶²; digital training for academic staff²⁶³ and the development of online courses and strengthening of blended teaching²⁶⁴. For example, Italy is planning the creation of three Digital Education Hubs (DEH) targeting the digital transformation of higher education. Several countries will also further digitalise the education governance and administration .

To help everybody to adapt to the digitalisation transformation process accelerated by COVID-19, the majority of Member States²⁶⁶ plan measures to develop the adult population’s digital skills. For example, all employees in Latvia placed on short-time work scheme between January and March 2021 may have access to e-learning courses to improve digital skills, using vouchers worth up to €500. The RRF will support also some innovative measures, such as data literacy courses in Germany.

Investments in ECEC are expected to increase participation rates, in particular among disadvantaged groups, hence reducing inequalities. About half of the countries²⁶⁷ proposed investments to improve access to ECEC by expanding capacities-, while some countries²⁶⁸ will further develop the quality of provision. Some Member States have set ambitious targets. For example, Croatia plans to create 22 500 new places in ECEC and raise the participation for children between 3 years and the school age from 76.3% to 90% by 2026. Czechia aims to increase the number of childcare facilities by 40% until the end of 2025 with the support of RRF. Romania plans to use the RRF to build 110 crèches and to develop more than 400 complementary early childhood education and care services in disadvantaged areas. Germany will create 90 000 new places in early childhood education and care, while Spain intends to create 60 000 such places (for children aged 0-2) by building or upgrading publicly owned facilities. Slovakia will train at least 10 000 ECEC staff on inclusive approaches and will pilot early care for children from marginalised Roma communities.

Some of the investments in ECEC capacities are also supported by reforms aiming to improve access, inclusiveness and quality. For example, Cyprus plans to lower the age of compulsory pre-school education; Croatia and Slovakia will review the financing model; Portugal will reduce ECEC fees; Greece will improve early diagnosis and support for children with disability and special needs; Italy, Slovakia will review the recruitment system and support the professionalisation of ECEC staff. A legal entitlement to ECEC will be introduced in Croatia and Slovakia. Romania further envisages the development of an integrated ECEC framework and a large-scale teacher-training programme.

The majority of the countries²⁶⁹ will support reforms and investments to improve quality of school education. In some countries, the RRF will contribute to the implementation of comprehensive reform efforts. Planned measures include for example reforming teachers’ recruitment mechanisms in Italy; implementing curricular reforms in Slovakia; and improving external evaluation of schools in Lithuania. In Czechia, a reform of financing of schools is envisaged with the aim to reinforce support of disadvantaged schools. In Croatia, investments will contribute to the transition to single-shift schools, allowing whole-day schooling and increasing of the number of instruction hours. In Romania, schools will be equipped with laboratories for sciences with the support of RRF. Cyprus will address skills mismatches between education and training and the labour market, starting actions in schools.

While some Member States²⁷⁰ plan to undertake significant measures to promote the inclusiveness of school education, these are unlikely to meet the challenges which have been exacerbated by the pandemic. Some countries²⁷¹ plan targeted measures to compensate for the loss of learning during the pandemic and related school closures, however, these remain scattered and may not meet the high demand. For example in Belgium, 30 000 students from the French community will benefit from individualised support to overcome learning gaps and address the dropout risk resulting from the partial school closure; they will also receive mental and emotional support.

France will fund mentoring for over 180 000 students. Dedicated reforms or programmes to fight early school leaving will be funded in Belgium, France, Romania, Malta and Spain. Spain will also finance a programme for education orientation and support for low performing students under its RRP. Other measures aimed at enhancing equity and inclusiveness of education are improving special needs education in Greece and supporting desegregation in Slovakia.

Many Member States²⁷² will invest in VET to address skills mismatches, improve the labour-market relevance of education and training systems and equip employees for the digital and green transitions. Supported measures will include reforms in apprenticeship schemes or dual learning and large-scale reskilling programmes. For example, Austria will support the training of 94 000 people to address qualification mismatches with a focus on basic qualifications and some professions for which there is high demand on the labour market (ICT, social and care and environment). To support the planned reform of the VET sector in Romania, the RRF will invest in equipping VET high schools, including agricultural schools, with laboratories as well as with IT laboratories. In addition, the RRF will finance the development of 10 regional consortia involving local VET bodies and interest groups. In Portugal, the RRF will finance measures to modernise the VET offer regulated by the National Qualifications Catalogue (CNQ) based on the anticipation system of qualifications needs. Important investments are foreseen to modernise VET institutions by creating and modernising specialised technological centres in public secondary schools, and also broadening and modernising the network of professional training centres of the public employment service.

Many countries²⁷³ plan to use substantial resources for reforms in adult learning. This will include the definition and implementation of comprehensive strategies for lifelong learning, upskilling and reskilling, with specific measures for the development of digital skills and introducing or further developing schemes for individual learning accounts. For example, France plans to top up workers’ entitlements on the already existing individual learning accounts (“Compte personnel de formation”) with a €1 000 credit, which may be used for trainings linked to digital skills or digital careers. Greece plans to utilise Lifelong Skilling Accounts (LSAs) as one of the tools for continuous training, based on individualised needs. Lithuania plans to introduce a one-stop-shop model for lifelong learning that will consolidate the currently fragmented framework of adult skills development, including both VET and higher education.

Several countries will use the RRF to support the transformation in higher education²⁷⁴ to improve its labour market relevance, but also enhance access. Such measures will include modernising study programmes²⁷⁵, increasing the number of study places²⁷⁶; launching new study courses²⁷⁷ including micro-credentials²⁷⁸; reviewing the funding model²⁷⁹; developing quality assurance and governance mechanisms²⁸⁰; tracking graduates²⁸¹; internationalising higher education²⁸² and improving access²⁸³. For example, Slovakia will provide scholarships to improve access for domestic and international students. In France, 30 000 new study places will be created and 100 000 students will benefit from state-guaranteed student loans. Latvia is implementing a comprehensive higher education reform with support from the RRF, which envisages complex structural changes across three pillars: governance, funding, and human resources. Portugal will foster STEAM careers, while Finland will support a programme to attract and retain national and foreign talent. Romania will use the funds for digitalisation in higher education and preparation for the digital professions of the future; it will also allocate funding to student accommodation.

The majority of Member States plan to use the RRF to invest in education infrastructure to improve quality, equity and efficiency in education, as well as the green transitions. Investments aim to modernise buildings, build new facilities or improve energy efficiency. They cover all levels of education: early childhood education and care²⁸⁴, schools²⁸⁵, VET²⁸⁶ and higher education²⁸⁷. Student campuses at upper secondary or tertiary level will also be renovated, extended or built²⁸⁸. As a result of these infrastructure investments, 70% of pupils in primary and lower secondary education in Croatia will be able to attend single-shift schools, compared with the current 40%. Lithuania aims to complete the consolidation of its school network. Portugal plans to use RRP funding to increase the affordability of students housing and intends to double the capacity by providing 5 000 new places. In Cyprus, two model technical schools will be built. In Romania, 40% of places renovated or newly created will be allocated to students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Notes

²³⁴ The economic benefits of education to individuals include employability, higher lifetime earnings, or higher job satisfaction and at the macroeconomic level, education can spur long-run economic growth through accumulated human capital, see EENEE (2014). The Economic Case for Education. Greater educational attainment is also positively associated with a variety of social outcomes; for example data collected before the Covid-19 outbreak show that people with a tertiary degree are less likely to report suffering from depression and they are more likely to be in contact with their friends and family physically and through the Internet, see and OECD (2020). What role might the social outcomes of education play during the COVID-19 lockdown? In: Education Indicators in Focus, No. 75.

²³⁵ European Commission (2017). Investment in human capital – Assessing the Efficiency of Public Spending on Education. Technical note prepared by European Commission staff for the Eurogroup of 6 November 2017.

²³⁶ These countries have a share of low achievers in at least one of the three domains below 15%.

²³⁷ A more precise measure of the resources invested in this context could be the cumulated expenditure per student.

²³⁸ Belmonte, A., Bove, V., D’Inverno, G. and Modica, M. (2020). School infrastructure spending and educational outcomes: Evidence from the 2012 earthquake in Northern Italy. In: Economics of Education Review, Volume 75, April 2020. The study provides evidence of a positive impact of capital spending in improving the learning environment and performances of high school students, by analysing the impact of extra funding on school infrastructure after the 2012 Northern Italy earthquake. A stronger positive effect is found for lower-achieving students. The study reviews studies using US evidence, including the meta-analysis by Greenwald, R., Hedges, L.V., Laine, R.D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. in: Review of Educational Research, 66 (3), pp. 361-396 and the studies by Lafortune, Rothstein, and Schanzenbach (2018), School finance reform and the distribution of student achievement in: American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 10 (2) (2018), pp. 1-26 showing that school finance reforms, by increasing investment in low-income school districts, caused an important increase in students’ achievements and Hyman, J. (2017). Does money matter in the long run? Effects of school spending on educational attainment. in: American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 9 (4) and (2017) showing that school funding can boost students’ college enrolment and the likelihood to earn a postsecondary degree.

²³⁹ De Witte et al (2021). Presentation to the Flemish Parliament: How can we reverse the learning deficit? and Highlight Tutoring Among Post-Covid Solutions.

²⁴⁰ Council Resolution on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training towards the European Education Area and beyond (2021-2030), OJ 2021/C 66/01.

²⁴¹ Private sources other than households include enterprises, non-profit organisations and religious institutions, with a relatively small role of international organisations such as the United Nations or the World Bank. For more details, please see Eurostat (2021). Educational expenditure statistics - Statistics Explained.

²⁴² Some government expenditure relates to payments and transfers for education to the non-educational private sector — this includes subsidies to households and students as well as payments to other non-educational private entities.

²⁴³ Eurostat collects data on general government expenditure by economic function according to the international Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG). In this classification in use in national accounts, expenditure on “education” is divided into groups based on the ISCED 1997 classification, which means that expenditure in pre-primary and primary education cannot be distinguished. The following COFOG groups form the education division: “pre-primary and primary education”, “secondary education”, “post-secondary non-tertiary education”, “tertiary education”, “education not definable by level”, “subsidiary services to education”, e.g. expenditure on providing school busses, “R&D education”, i.e. R&D related to education not all R&D undertaken for example in universities and “education not elsewhere classified”.

²⁴⁴ It included “education not definable by level”, “subsidiary services to education”, e.g. expenditure on providing school busses, “R&D education”, i.e. R&D related to education not all R&D undertaken for example in universities and “education not elsewhere classified”.

²⁴⁵ These are peripheral to the main education services, including for example meals, school health services, and transport to and from school.

²⁴⁶ For example, in BG and CZ where the increases in the share of education in total public expenditure were the largest, the number of students in all education levels (excluding early childhood education development) actually decreased over the period between 2013 and 2019 (-8.3% in BG and -2.1% in CZ). Conversely, the share of education in total public expenditure decreased in CY, while the number of students increased by 11.1%. Source: educ_uoe_enra01.

²⁴⁷ European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2021). Teachers in Europe: Careers, Development and Well-being. A Eurydice report.

²⁴⁸ Thum-Thysen, A., Cravetto, R., Varchola, J. (2021). Investing in People’s Competences: A Cornerstone for Growth and Wellbeing in the EU. A European Commission Discussion Paper.

²⁴⁹ European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2021). Teachers in Europe: Careers, Development and Well-being. A Eurydice report.

²⁵⁰ There is a distinction between core educational expenditure, such as expenditure on teachers, maintenance of school buildings etc. and related expenditure, such as school meals and health services, transportation to and from school or school trips. The latter is relevant when assessing the affordability of compulsory education for families.

²⁵¹ De Witte, K et al (2021). Financing education in the context of COVID-19, EENEE Ad hoc Report 3, 2021.

²⁵² Irish Department of Education (2021). Minister Foley announces new measures to tackle educational disadvantage, DES, 1 March 2021.

²⁵² Cf. the website of the DEIS action plan.

²⁵⁴ Cf. footnote 252 for the reference. Given the ad-hoc national responses, it is challenging to find comparable information on the impact of COVID-19 on educational spending. The amounts of additional spending reported are compiled from a variety of sources, including official governmental communication and newspaper articles, and are probably not exhaustive. Some measures and amounts may be missing in various countries and, in other countries the same measures may be included in several announcements or measures already decided but implemented after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is often unclear whether amounts mentioned in successive government announcements overlap or can be considered as cumulative or what is the time horizon (e.g. are expenses one-shot or recurring, are expenses spread over multiple years or not). A distinction between calendar years versus school years is sometimes missing which makes it difficult to correctly allocate the additional budget. Lastly, a clear distinction between national and regional levels is not always available.

²⁵⁵ in 2018 prices

²⁵⁶ e.g. BE, CY,CZ, EL, ES, FR, IE, IT, RO, PO, SI, SK.

²⁵⁷ e.g. AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FR, IE, IT, LV, PT.

²⁵⁸ e.g. AT, BE , CZ, EL, CY , LT, PT, RO, SI, SK.

²⁵⁹ e.g. AT, BE, , CY,CZ, DE, EL, ES, FR, IT, LT, , RO, SI, SK.

²⁶⁰ e.g. IE, IT, PT.

²⁶¹ e.g. CZ, FI, HR, RO, SI.

²⁶² e.g. BE, CZ, ES, FI, HR, IE, RO, SI.

²⁶³ e.g. BE, CZ, ES, FR.

²⁶⁴ e.g. FR, LT.

²⁶⁵ e.g. FR, EL, HR, IT, PT, RO, SI, SK.

²⁶⁶ BE, CY,CZ, DK, EE, ES, FR, HR, IE LV, LT, LU, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI.

²⁶⁷ e.g. AT,BE, CY ,CZ, DE, EL, ES, HR, IT, PT, RO, SK.

²⁶⁸ e.g. EL, RO, SK.

²⁶⁹ e.g. CY, EL, ES, HR, IT, LT, RO, SK.

²⁷⁰ e.g. AT, BE, CZ, EL, ES, FR, IT, CY, PT, RO, SK.

²⁷¹ e.g. AT, CZ, DE, FR, SK.

²⁷² e.g. CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, PT, RO and SI.

²⁷³ e.g. AT, BE, CY, CZ, EL, ES, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, PT.

²⁷⁴ e.g. BE, CZ, EL, ES, FR, HR, IE, CY, LV, LT, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI.

²⁷⁵ e.g. BE, CZ, EE, HR, IT, IE, SI.

²⁷⁶ e.g. FR, FI.

²⁷⁷ e.g. BE, CZ.

²⁷⁸ e.g. BE, CZ, EE.

²⁷⁹ e.g. LV, LT, SK.

²⁸⁰ e.g. SI, SK.

²⁸¹ e.g. EL, CY.

²⁸² e.g. EL, LT, SK.

²⁸³ e.g. FR, IT, PT, SK.

²⁸⁴ e.g. AT,BE, CZ, DE, EL, ES, HR, IT, CY, PT, RO, SK.

²⁸⁵ e.g. AT,BE, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, MT, PT, RO, SI, SK.

²⁸⁶ e.g. BE, CY, MT, PT, SI.

²⁸⁷ e.g. BE, CZ, ES FR, HR, LT, PT, RO, SI, SK.

²⁸⁸ e.g. CY,CZ, EL, ES, FR, PT, RO, SK.