1. Key indicators

2. Highlights

3. A focus on digital education

A relatively high share of young people possess above basic digital skills. In Lithuania, 71% of individuals aged 16-19 reported in 2019 that they have above basic digital skills (EU-27 57%). Older age groups, however, report significantly lower shares, in line with EU averages¹. Pupils in primary and lower secondary schools also report higher confidence in their digital competences, as defined in the DigComp framework² compared to the European average (European Commission, 2019a). Compared to other EU countries, a relatively high share of lower secondary teachers (61.8% v EU 46.1%) report that they let students use ICT for projects or class work (OECD, 2019), which may help them increase their confidence but can have a negative impact on student achievement (Colmi, 2017). Ongoing curriculum reform aims to improve digital competences also at primary level – where they have not been previously addressed – update content and strengthen particular areas such as computer science, which will be taught beginning at primary level (see Box 1). This is a good basis for further fostering advanced digital competences needed in the labour market and in society, provided it is matched by effective classroom implementation.

Despite substantial investments from EU funds, a lack of high-quality digital infrastructure remains an obstacle for digital education. Lithuanian schools are less highly equipped and connected than the EU-28 average, particularly at lower secondary level where only 39% of schools have a high number of digital tools per number of students and a high broadband speed (EU-28 53%). Almost a third of school principals (29.8%) report a shortage and inadequacy of digital technology that hinders their school’s capacity to provide quality instruction (EU: 27.6%) (OECD, 2019a). A shortage of high-quality digital equipment and a lack of policies to improve digital learning resources (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019b) may hold back universal use of ICT in teaching practices.

Supporting and better preparing teachers is key to making the adoption of ICT beneficial for student learning. Research shows that student achievement does not benefit from simply increasing ICT availability and improving infrastructure. Instead, the effectiveness of ICT at school depends on the actual practices that teachers develop and on their ability to integrate them into teaching (Bulman et al., 2016; Comi, 2017). There is a need to ensure that teachers have the appropriate competences to avoid suboptimal use of digital resources, which may have a negative impact on learning outcomes, for instance by creating a distraction for pupils (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019b). More than half of Lithuanian lower secondary teachers (56.5% v 37.5% at EU level in 2017) perceive themselves as well prepared for the use of ICT in teaching (OECD, 2019a). However, of Lithuanian lower secondary teachers, 23.4% report a high need of professional development in ICT skills for teaching, compared to 18% at EU level (Figure 3). Furthermore, according to school heads, almost all students are enrolled in schools where teachers are provided with enough incentives to integrate digital devices into their teaching (Reimers and Schleicher, 2020). This evidence suggests that additional efforts are necessary to ensure that schools give teachers access to sufficient and relevant³ continuing professional development activities to meet the current challenges (European Commission, 2019b) providing them with guidance on how to effectively integrate computer-based teaching practices (Jevsikova, 2018). This is particularly important in the context of the current curriculum reform.

The COVID-19 crisis has put a strain on the education and training system. Initial efforts focused on ensuring that all schools and teachers were able to provide distance learning by using the existing platforms and sharing best practices. ICT coordinators were designated in each school to help teachers and students use the technology. During the lockdown, weekly video conferences on the use of IT platforms for teaching and consultations on distance learning were organised, also at tertiary level. On the initiative of the national Lithuanian television broadcaster and the Ministry of Education and of Culture, the programme `LRT pamokėlės´ was broadcast to pupils at pre- and primary levels. The project involved numerous partners, including the Lithuanian Subject Teachers’ Association. To help disadvantaged pupils having access to high-quality distance learning, 41 728 digital devices (36 100 tablets and 2 053 laptops⁴) were bought, and teacher training to enhance digital skills has been provided. Primary pupils were allowed to return to schools at the end of May, but the final decision was left to municipalities and schools. Only 10% of schools chose to organise some activities at school from that date. The main challenges of distance learning according to the pupils have been a higher workload, insufficient guidance on how to arrange educational activities themselves, and the use of uncommon platforms by teachers, which has made learning more difficult (MESS, 2020). The shift to distance learning could be a further opportunity for all school players, particularly teachers, to test different digital learning solutions and understand how technology can be used to foster student learning, and to support them in doing so.

4. Investing in education and training

Spending on education is represents a relatively high share of total general government expenditure. General government expenditure on education as a proportion of GDP in 2018 was at the EU average (4.6%), and above it as a proportion of total general government expenditure (13.4%; EU-27 9.9%), but on a downward trend (from 14.5% in 2015). Public spending remained stable (-0.1%) between 2017 and 2018, with a significant increase of 5.6% in tertiary education balanced by a decrease at secondary level. This may result in better allocation of resources across education levels, since they are currently more concentrated on secondary education (European Commission, 2019b). Teachers’ salaries represent 69% of education expenditure, but this share is expected to increase as the government has been introducing salary increases across all education levels since 2018 to foster the attractiveness of the profession⁵. This may require further steps towards higher efficiency in the education system to avoid expenditure increases. To boost economic recovery, government has launched a long-term investment plan with focus on human capital, innovation and digital economy and business⁶.

Effective reorganisation of the education network can help better address territorial disparities. One of the main objectives of the structural reform programme is the optimisation of education networks to face the challenges of demographic change. According to the latest results of national school rankings⁷, schools with a lower expenditure per pupil, which are located in urban areas, perform better than those in rural areas with higher expenditure per pupil. This confirms that there is room to improve efficiency and quality. As a result of the measures taken in 2018 (European Commission, 2019b), the number of schools with up to 120 pupils decreased by almost a quarter in 2019 compared to 2016-2017, and further decreases are anticipated in 2020 for vocational schools (from 61 to 55). Municipalities, which are in charge of the reorganisation and enjoy great autonomy in allocating resources, remain reluctant to close schools because of the social impact on rural communities. There is a lack of shared understanding of the objectives of the reorganisation between local and central levels which is holding back the development of a long-term strategy that tackles the challenges of rural education and ensures the conditions for high-quality learning in rural areas (Echazarra and Radinger, 2019). To mitigate the effect of the COVID-19 crisis on the construction sector and sustain the economy, the government plans to invest in education infrastructure between 2020 and 2021. These investments are planned to cover mostly repainting, refurbishing and increased energy efficiency; a small fraction will focus on improving teaching quality and digital learning. The mandatory shift to distance learning due to the COVID-19 outbreak could show how digital devices open up significant opportunities to improve the delivery of rural education by linking teachers and pupils who are separated geographically. Little progress on university consolidation has been made (see Section 7).

5. Modernising early childhood and school education

Demand for childcare services is not being met. Participation in early childhood education by children aged 4-6 remains below the EU average (91.0% v 94.8%) in 2018. 20.8% of children below 3 attended formal childcare facilities — a rise of 5.6 pps since 2016, yet still below the Barcelona target of 33% and the EU average of 34.7%. National statistics confirm the positive trend in all counties, though a gap of about 15 pps exists between Vilnius and Tauragė counties. Access to childcare facilities remain limited for children between 0 and 5⁸ as the number of places and free hours is insufficient to cover the high demand, particularly for children over 3 and in urban areas (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019a; National Statistics Office). Early childhood education is provided free for 20 hours per week. However, children spend on average 38 hours in kindergartens, and the cost of extra hours is covered by municipalities or families. Discussion with municipalities, which are in charge of approving the programme for the whole early childhood education phase, are ongoing, to lower the entry to pre-primary education (currently 6) by a year. This will also have an impact on trends in expenditure.

A quality assurance framework for early childhood education is being developed to address the challenge of uneven quality of service provision across municipalities. A system of quality assessment (external and internal) is being developed, as are methodologies for self-assessment and external evaluation of performance. Finalisation of the methodologies is planned for 2021⁹. This may also help put in place a mechanism, which is currently absent (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019a), to collect the results of individual evaluations run at municipal level to monitor and assess the whole early childhood education system. This could ensure that high quality is provided across the whole territory, taking into account that municipalities are responsible for quality as well as for regulation and evaluation procedures.

One in five pupils fails to reach a minimum proficiency level in basic skills. The latest results of the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2018 show that the proportion of underachieving pupils is above the EU average in mathematics and reading and has remained practically unchanged in these two domains since 2009. It has increased by 5.2 pps in science, and is now close to the average¹⁰. Lithuania’s mean performance is below the average in all three subjects and has remained practically unchanged since 2009 (OECD, 2019b). Work on the new competence-based curricula is going ahead. It should be piloted in 2021 and implemented from 2022, accompanied by new formative assessment practices. The new curriculum aims to introduce new pedagogies to better address students’ learning needs. It may help improve students’ performance in the medium term if matched with inclusive and continuous involvement of stakeholders and strong support to teachers who will need time and resources to develop new competences (see Box 2).

The COVID-19 outbreak may increase the risk that pupils from a disadvantaged background will lag behind. According to the latest PISA results, socio-economic background plays a significant role in determining student performance. About 40% of pupils in the bottom socio-economic quartile are underachievers in reading (EU 36.4%), compared to 11.2% in the top quartile (EU 9.5%). Moreover, although below the EU average (97 points), the gap in reading mean performance between the top and bottom quartile has increased by 5 points since 2009 (89 in 2018). Pupils in public schools and in rural areas perform worse than those in private schools (67 points) and urban areas (70 points). Echazarra and Radinger (2019) show that rural students would actually outperform students in urban areas if they, and their schools, had the same socio-economic profile, highlighting the significant role of socio-economic factors (Figure 4). PISA 2018 also shows that disadvantaged pupils are likely to be more concentrated in the same schools (OECD, 2019c), and thus less likely to be exposed to high-achieving students. Coupled with a lower share of teachers with a masters’ degree in disadvantaged schools¹², this social segregation across schools and municipalities could have a potential negative effect on student performance due to the lack of `peer effects´ (Sacerdote, 2011). This also points to the need for resource allocation that ensures higher quality for all. In particular, the provision of education in rural areas would require targeted responses to compensate for challenges related to distance and size, but also socio-economic factors. Compensation measures could be necessary to mitigate the long-term effects of the COVID-19 crisis, particularly on already disadvantaged learners.

Improving school climate could boost student performance and well-being. PISA 2018 shows that the share of 15 year-olds reporting that they are victims of bullying at least a few times a month has increased by 6.2 pps since 2015, up to 22.6%. This does not seem to have any impact on school drop-out as the rate of early school leavers remains the lowest in the EU in 2019 (4%; EU 10.2%). By contrast, exposure to bullying is associated with a significant drop in reading performance by 40 PISA points (EU: 23 points). To tackle this issue and meet the target set in the 2018-2021 structural reform programme¹³ to reduce the proportion of pupils subjected to bullying by 2021, several anti-bullying programmes have been implemented at pre-primary and school level since 2018 and an online platform has been launched to allow victims to get quick help. From 2018 schools have also been hiring psychologists to provide support (National Reform Programme, 2020). These actions could help improve student performance, particularly among those who are more likely to be bullied: disadvantaged (27.5% v 17.6% of advantaged) and low-achieving students (38.2% v 12.7% of high-achieving).

6. Modernising vocational education and training

The employment outcomes of recent VET graduates are relatively poor. The employment rate of recent VET graduates (20-34) in 2019 was 20.3 pps lower than of those with a tertiary qualification (EU:5.9 pps). Enrolment in upper secondary vocational education has continued to decline over the years; while the number grew at post-secondary non-tertiary level until 2017, a significant decline in enrolments was registered in 2018. According to the latest audit (National Audit Office, 2020), in 2018-2019 the percentage of initial VET students enrolled in apprenticeships was only around 1.9%, well below the 20% target set for 2020. With the number of pupils decreasing, that of institutions with fewer than 300 students increased. The anticipated reduction of VET institutions (see Section 4) is a good step towards higher efficiency. Due to COVID-19, final assessments of competences were not performed during the quarantine. For students who had completed less than half of the practical training, VET providers are recommended to allow them to complete the remainder of the practical training at another time, at their request.

Recent reviews of the VET system identified several challenges. PISA 2018 shows that Lithuania has one of the biggest reading performance gaps (about 103 points, equivalent to more than 2 scholastic years) between pupils in general and vocational programmes. Early leaving from VET is declining but is still much higher than from general education, although there is no clear understanding of the reasons behind school drop-out (National Audit Office, 2020; Cedefop ReferNet, 2020). An external quality assurance system is still in the process of being developed and four VET institutions did not have internal quality assurance systems. Data fragmentation is seen as a main barrier to efficient monitoring and assessment of the effectiveness of VET. This further negatively influences the quality of programmes and their relevance to labour market needs. Finally, lack of employer engagement (they are involved only in 15 out of 70 VET schools in 2018) is another important weakness (Cedefop ReferNet Lithuania, 2019; National Audit Office, 2020).

7. Modernising higher education

Measures to improve access to tertiary education have been announced. PISA 2018 shows that there is a significant gap between 15-year-olds from low (46.2%) and high (90.2%) socio-economic backgrounds in their expectations of completing tertiary education. Students from low socio-economic backgrounds tend to participate less in tertiary education and enrol in technical institutions (OECD, 2017). To increase equity and counterbalance the high share of upper secondary students who leave the country to study abroad (9.5% v 4.3% in 2018)¹⁴, the number of university scholarships and their value at bachelor level have been increased from the 2020/2021 academic year. Such measures could also help contain the effects of the COVID-19 crisis on the most vulnerable groups.

Improving quality of tertiary programmes remains a priority. Lithuania’s tertiary attainment rate (30-34) was the second highest in the EU (57.8% v 40.3%) and recent tertiary graduates had a high employment rate (87.6% v 85%) in 2019. The share of ICT graduates was around the EU average (5.3% v 3.8%) and increased (+3.5 pps) at the fastest rate in the EU in 2015-2018. The results of the first pilot of the Eurograduate survey show that only 50% of tertiary qualified people are employed in a job that matches their degree and field of qualification 5 years after graduation. Moreover, the share of those not working in the field they graduated from increases 5 years after graduation (from 7% to 17%), signalling that there is a misalignment between labour market needs and skills supply, also due to a lack of business-science interactions (European Commission, 2020b). The announcement that lower average marks in school exams will be required for entry to universities and technical institutes will increase participation – compensating for the shortfall in student enrolments – and funds for universities which are dependent on it. However, it may further reduce the quality of new entrants, make Lithuanian universities less attractive to foreign students and negatively impact on the balance between the teaching and research missions. Funding for the latter tends to significantly fluctuate depending on the cycles of EU funds. This provides strong incentives for universities to focus on maximising student numbers rather than increasing the scope and impact of research activities, (Martinaitis et al., 2020). To better equip Lithuanians with relevant skills, the Ministry is working on a skills strategy, with OECD support. Results are expected for 2021. At the same time, the number of tertiary programmes has not decreased and the plan for consolidating universities¹⁵ has been reviewed, and lags behind schedule.

8. Promoting adult learning

Adult participation in learning has slightly improved but remains significantly below the EU average. In 2019, 7% of adults reported having a recent learning experience, up from 5.9% in 2017, but still below the average participation rate in the EU (10.8% in 2019). This increase could partly be attributed to the appointment of regional coordinators of non-formal adult education at local level since 2016, even if with only a limited amount of funding. However, the lack of a centralised coordination of funding and limited ministerial actions and programmes keep the rates of participation in adult education rather low. It is notable that training of municipal non-formal adult education coordinators was the only action dedicated to adult education in the structural reform programme launched in 2018. A better coverage of the Active Labour Market policies and an increase in the funding system for upskilling and reskilling could foster participation. In 2017, the term of the Council of non-formal adult education ended and no new one has been appointed yet, despite its legal basis in the Law on Non-formal Adult Education and Continuing Education¹⁶.

9. References

Beblavý, M., Baiocco, S., Kilhoffer, Z., Akgüç, M. and Jacquot, M. (2019). Index of Readiness for Digital Lifelong Learning Changing How Europeans Upgrade Their Skills, CEPS – Centre for European Policy Studies in partnership with Grow with Google

Bulman, George; Fairlie, Robert W. (2016), Technology and Education: Computers, Software, and the Internet. NBER Working Paper No. 22237.

Cedefop ReferNet Lithuania (2019). 2018 VET status review – Establishing a monitoring system https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/news-and-press/news/lithuania-2018-vet-status-review-establishing-monitoring-system

Cedefop ReferNet (2020), Lithuania: 2020 update of VET policy developments in the deliverables agreed in the 2015 Riga conclusions. Unpublished

Comi, Simona Lorena et al. (2016), Is it the way they use it? Teachers, ICT and student achievement. In: Economics of Education Review (56) 2017, 24-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.11.007

Council of the European Union (2020), ‘Council Recommendation on the 2020 National Reform Programme of Lithuania and delivering a Council opinion on the 2020 Stability Programme of Lithuania’. http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9442-2018-INIT/en/pdf

Echazarra, A. and Radinger, T., (2019). Learning in rural schools: insights from PISA, TALIS and the literature. OECD Education Working Paper No. 196

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, (2019a). Key Data on Early Childhood Education and Care in Europe – 2019 Edition. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, (2019b). Digital Education at School in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

European Commission (2019a), 2nd survey of schools. ICT in education: Lithuania country report. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/2nd-survey-schools-ict-education

European Commission (2019b). Education and Training Monitor – Volume II. Lithuania

European Commission, (2020a). Country Report Lithuania, February 2020. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1584543810241&uri=CELEX%3A52020SC0514

European Commission, (2020b), EUROGRADUATE Pilot Survey, Design and implementation of a pilot European graduate survey. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/51f88c2e-a671-11ea-bb7a-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

European Commission, (2020d). Education and Training Monitor, Volume I

Jevsikova, T., (2018). Mokyklų potencialo ir pasirengimo įgyvendinti integruotą informatikos programą pradiniame ugdyme tyrimas. https://sodas.ugdome.lt/metodiniai-dokumentai/perziura/8500

Martinaitis, Z., Arregui-Pabollet, E., Stanionyte, L., (2020), Higher Education for Smart Specialisation in Lithuania, EUR 30253 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-19454-5, doi:10.2760/136769, JRC120527

MESS, Press release (21 April 2020) https://www.smm.lt/web/lt/pranesimai_spaudai/naujienos_1/ministerijos-atsakymai-i-moksleiviu-iskeltus-klausimus-del-brandos-egzaminu

National Audit Office, (2020). Quality of vocational training is ensured insufficiently, the number of students is decreasing, premises and equipment are used inefficiently. https://www.vkontrole.lt/pranesimas_spaudai_en.aspx?id=25035

OECD (2017), Education in Lithuania, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264281486-en

OECD (2019a), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.

OECD (2019b), PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.

OECD (2019c), PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en.

OECD (2019d), Working and Learning Together: Six policy approaches to support effective working environments in schools.

OECD (2020), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en.

Reimers F. M., Schleicher, A. (2020). A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=126_126988-t63lxosohs&title=A-framework-to-guide-an-education-response-to-the-Covid-19-Pandemic-of-2020

Sacerdote, B. (2011) Peer Effects in Education: How Might They Work, How Big Are They and How Much Do We Know Thus Far? Handbook of the Economics of Education, Volume 3.

Annex I: Key indicators sources

Annex II: Structure of the education system