Education and Training Monitor 2024

Download previous editions

2023 edition

EN
2022 edition

EN

Comparative report

Chapter 3. School education

3.1. Early school leaving

EU-level 2030 target: ‘The share of early leavers from education and training should be less than 9% by 2030.’

3.1.1. Upper secondary educational attainment for all

Across the EU, 9.5% of 18-24-year-olds had left education and training by 2023 without having attained upper secondary education, translating into about 3.1 million early school leavers⁽¹¹⁴⁾. The top performing countries are Croatia (2.0%), Poland (3.7%), and Greece (3.7%), whereas Romania (16.6%)⁽¹¹⁵⁾, Spain (13.7%)⁽¹¹⁶⁾, and Germany (12.8%)⁽¹¹⁷⁾ are at the bottom⁽¹¹⁸⁾ (Figure 12). More than half (16) of all EU countries have reached the EU-level 2030 target of less than 9%, and the EU remains well on track to reach it⁽¹¹⁹⁾.

Figure 12. Recent progress in reducing early school leaving has been uneven across the EU

Bar chart showing the level and change in the share of early leavers from education and training across the EU between 2021 and 2023. There is no clear pattern in the changes, rising by more than one percentage point in some countries (Romania, Finland, Portugal, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Slovenia) and decreasing by more than two percentage points in others (Italy, Bulgaria, Luxembourg and Poland). The share stands above 12% in Romania, Spain and Germany, whereas in Greece, Poland, and Croatia it is below 4%.

Download data Monitor Toolbox

While the latest figures continue the steady decline recorded over the last decade⁽¹²⁰⁾, recent progress has been much more uneven across countries. Indeed, the average -0.3 percentage point change in early school leaving between 2021 and 2023 masks just as many positive country-specific trends as negative ones⁽¹²¹⁾. Figure 13 captures this phenomenon more accurately. It looks at the dispersion index over the last decade, which is a measure of country variation relative to the EU average and relative to the EU-level 2030 target. After a long positive convergence among EU countries, in recent years their progress has been diverging. ⁽¹²²⁾.

After a long positive convergence in early school leaving, recent progress has been much more uneven across EU countries.

Figure 13. Years of convergence among EU countries have come at a standstill

Line chart showing the dispersion in early school leaving rates since 2014, with respect to the EU average and with respect to the EU-level 2030 target. There is a substantial decrease in the dispersion until 2021, when the trend is reversed, more clearly with respect to the EU average. Over time the space between the lines has become smaller as the country rates aproximate to the EU-level 2030 target.

Download data Monitor Toolbox

In some countries, large shares of young people have not reached the level of upper secondary educational attainment, despite being beyond the theoretical target age in most EU education systems⁽¹²³⁾. The share of upper secondary educational attainment among 20-24-year-olds reached 84.1% in 2023⁽¹²⁴⁾, with progress for 2021-2023 even more uneven than the figure observed for early school leaving⁽¹²⁵⁾. Countries with an improvement of 2 percentage points or more in 2021-2023 show a stable trend across time⁽¹²⁶⁾, whereas countries with an equivalent deterioration over the same period⁽¹²⁷⁾ include cases with striking fluctuations from year to year⁽¹²⁸⁾. Top performers in terms of upper secondary educational attainment are Croatia (97.3%), Greece (95.4%), and Ireland (95.0%), while the lowest-performing countries are Germany (71.4%), Denmark (75.3%), and Spain (79.0%).

Young people may not reach the threshold of upper secondary education because they do not complete the level or because they are not enrolled in the first place. Firstly, completion rates⁽¹²⁹⁾ tend to be higher in upper secondary programmes with a general rather than a vocational orientation⁽¹³⁰⁾. Among the 15 EU education systems with available data, 8 record completion rates in general tracks of 90% or more⁽¹³¹⁾, with another 5 coming in at 80% or more⁽¹³²⁾. Only the French community of Belgium (63.8%) and Latvia (78.9%) are falling behind. In the vocational tracks, 10 out of 14 EU education systems record completion rates below 80%, with the lowest shares in Lithuania (54.9%) and Spain (63.4%)⁽¹³³⁾.

Secondly, a substantial number of young people are not enrolled in education at all, even at mandatory schooling age⁽¹³⁴⁾. Variations in out-of-school rates are summarised in Figure 14 and cannot be explained away by data accuracy issues⁽¹³⁵⁾. At age 14, which is still a mandatory schooling age (MSA) across all EU countries⁽¹³⁶⁾, out-of-school rates average 2.5%, with clear outlier status observed for Romania (15.2%) and Bulgaria (11.9%). Harmonising the end of MSA for comparative purposes⁽¹³⁷⁾, the last year before MSA ends has an average out-of-school rate of 3.1%, which picks up dramatically 1 year later (5.0%) and especially 2 years later (8.2%). On average, out-of-school rates⁽¹³⁸⁾ for lower secondary education are 2.2%⁽¹³⁹⁾, whereas for upper secondary education they are 6.8%⁽¹⁴⁰⁾. This translates into an estimated 432 000 and 1.3 million young people, respectively.

Figure 14. The phenomenon of out-of-school rates hits Romania and Bulgaria in particular

Heatmap showing a variety of measures of out-of-school rates among the EU countries in 2022. The measures are available by educational level, by age, and by an additional indicator harmonising the rates according to the national mandatory schooling ages. Ireland, Croatia, and Lithuania have the lowest out of school rates, while Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania report the highest. In Portugal out-of-school rates are 0% for ages and education levels before the ending of mandatory schooling, but the shares of students having left in the year of MSA and the first year after MSA ends are among the highest.

Download data Monitor Toolbox

None of these phenomena are spread equally within EU countries⁽¹⁴¹⁾. Firstly, men (11.3%) face a higher risk of early school leaving than women (7.7%), to such an extent that women have already reached the EU-level 2030 target in no fewer than 20 EU countries⁽¹⁴²⁾. The gender gap is most pronounced in Italy (5.5 percentage points), Germany (4.8), and Spain (4.7), whereas it is negligible in Romania, Czechia, Greece, and Bulgaria. Upper secondary educational attainment (age 20-24) is less prevalent among men (81.6%) than it is among women (86.7%). Here, the gender gap is strongest in Denmark (9.6 percentage points), Malta (8.2), and Luxembourg (7.1), whereas men are at a slight advantage in Romania, Bulgaria, and Slovakia.

Secondly, having a disability has a substantial effect on the likelihood of leaving school before completing upper secondary education⁽¹⁴³⁾. Figures from 2022 suggest that early school leaving rates average 22.2% when 18-24-year-olds experience some or severe limitations in daily activities, compared to only 8.4% if they experience none⁽¹⁴⁴⁾. These figures remain higher for men (25.3% and 10.0%, respectively) than for women (19.5% and 6.6%)⁽¹⁴⁵⁾.

Thirdly, a young person’s migrant status continues to have a big impact on the risk of early school leaving, with an average early school leaving rate of 23.0% among (non-EU) migrants⁽¹⁴⁶⁾. Among men, one in every four migrants is an early school leaver (25.7%). This drops to 13.4% for men born in the reporting country but whose parents were born outside the EU. Among women, one in every five migrants is an early school leaver (20.2%), versus only 7.2% women born in the reporting country but whose parents were born outside the EU⁽¹⁴⁷⁾. On average, the longer it has been since these 18-24-year-olds arrived in the reporting country, the lower their risk of early school leaving⁽¹⁴⁸⁾. Many of these young people may have already left education and training in their country of origin.

Finally, socio-economic background remains underexplored in its relation to early school leaving and upper secondary educational attainment. Using a different source, upper secondary educational attainment rates can be broken down by levels of parental educational attainment⁽¹⁴⁹⁾. This confirms a strong intergenerational pattern observed on previous occasions⁽¹⁵⁰⁾. On average across the EU, 92.9% of 20-24-year-olds whose parents have a high level of education are reaching (at least) the upper secondary level themselves. This is in contrast with 88.3% of young people whose parents have a medium level of education, and only 64.1% of young people whose parents have a low level of education⁽¹⁵¹⁾.

3.1.2. Prevention, intervention, and compensation

Successful strategies to tackle early school leaving tend to combine prevention, intervention, and compensation measures comprehensively and over a long time⁽¹⁵²⁾. Apart from the German-speaking community of Belgium, Croatia, and Germany, all EU education systems have early warning systems or other monitoring actions in place to prevent early school leaving (Figure 15). Comprehensive early warning systems based on detailed student data only exist in 7 systems: Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Poland, and Romania. In other cases, education authorities mainly recommend monitoring school absences (11 systems) or monitoring risk factors through guidance and counselling services (8 systems).

Figure 15. Early warning systems to prevent early school leaving take different forms across the EU

Map showing EU countries coloured according to their policies on early warning systems to prevent early school leaving from education and training. Monitoring student's school absence is premodinant among northern countries, whereas policies promoting the use of detailed student data is observed in some countries in eastern and western Europe. No pattern is visible in central Europe.

Policies promote an early warning system based on detailed student data
- Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Poland, Romania
Policies mainly promote monitoring risk factors through school guidance and counselling services
- Belgium - French community, Cyprus, Czechia, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain
Policies mainly promote monitoring students’ school absence
- Austria, Belgium - Flemish community, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Slovenia, Sweden
No policy on early warning systems or other monitoring actions
- Belgium - German-speaking community, Croatia, Germany

Source: 2024 Eurydice system-level indicators

Monitor Toolbox

All EU countries have policies in place on individual education plans⁽¹⁵³⁾. If specific groups of learners are targeted in such policies, this mostly concerns students with disabilities or special educational needs⁽¹⁵⁴⁾. Students from refugee or migrant backgrounds are explicitly mentioned in 11 EU education systems⁽¹⁵⁵⁾. Here too, socio-economic background remains underemphasised. Learners from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds are only targeted in policies on individual education plans in 7 countries (Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain)⁽¹⁵⁶⁾.

Intervention efforts require the same whole-school approach that was emphasised in Chapter 1 as key to learning for sustainability⁽¹⁵⁷⁾. Two triggers for such intervention efforts are absenteeism (Box 7) and student wellbeing⁽¹⁵⁸⁾, proxied for instance by a sense of belonging at school⁽¹⁵⁹⁾. A positive school climate is important in this context⁽¹⁶⁰⁾. The previous edition of the Education and Training Monitor’s comparative report showed how most EU countries record policies on multidisciplinary support teams in and around schools. These teams commonly include numerous different professionals, such as psychologists, counsellors, and specialised teachers⁽¹⁶¹⁾. To gauge the accessibility of such multidisciplinary support teams, new data reveal whether learners’ access is monitored or evaluated by top-level authorities. This is the case in less than half of all EU education systems⁽¹⁶²⁾.

Box 7. Combating absenteeism

The notion of absenteeism among enrolled students includes several related concepts such as school refusal, school phobia, truancy, and absence from specific lessons. Factors leading to absenteeism can be student specific, family specific, school specific, or community specific⁽¹⁶³⁾. Long-term absenteeism refers to the situation where a student is absent from school for more than 3 consecutive months.

Recent evidence shows, that after the COVID-19 pandemic, the shares of long-term absenteeism were considerably higher among disadvantaged students (10.2% compared to 6.1% of advantaged students)⁽¹⁶⁴⁾. The most common reasons for not attending classes for several months are sickness (76.0%), boredom (22.7%), and feeling unsafe at school (19.2%)⁽¹⁶⁵⁾. Long-term absenteeism correlates with lower academic performance, higher probability of dropout, and behavioural issues. It also worsens the person’s later chances on the labour market leading to lower income and higher rates of unemployment. Strategies to tackle absenteeism and help the recovery of students’ learning include summer schools, the provision of online materials, wellbeing and mental health support, financial support for disadvantaged students, and targeted training of teachers⁽¹⁶⁶⁾.

Reaching out to and engaging early school leavers once they have left education and training poses a major challenge. This is why, alongside prevention and intervention measures, education and career guidance are important in secondary schools. It may be the only time many young people receive advice and learn about the various support mechanisms that are available to them should they ever need them. All EU education systems record policies on the topic of education and career guidance for when students are still in secondary school⁽¹⁶⁷⁾. Education and career guidance can be part of the compulsory curriculum in secondary education (20 systems) or promoted through work placements and job shadowing (16 systems)⁽¹⁶⁸⁾.

Figure 16. Early school leavers face obstacles in their return to education and training

Download data Monitor Toolbox

Once they have left education and training, over half of all early school leavers (53.7%) are not employed. Among them, only about one in two young people would like to work (56.9%)⁽¹⁶⁹⁾. Youth unemployment is more prevalent among young people without upper secondary educational attainment (18.6%) than it is on average (11.2%), and the risk of being neither in employment nor in education and training (NEET) is higher when a person lacks upper secondary educational attainment (12.9%) compared to the average (11.2%)⁽¹⁷⁰⁾.

Around a third (31.5%) of 18-24-year-olds without upper secondary educational attainment want to go back to education or training. Various perceived obstacles prevent them from doing so (Figure 16) and are markedly different from the ones identified by young people with (at least) upper secondary educational attainment. When it comes to reasons not to participate in education or training, young people without upper secondary educational attainment single out prerequisites, health, a lack of public services support, and negative previous learning experiences as obstacles much more than young people with upper secondary educational attainment do⁽¹⁷¹⁾. The lack of a suitable education or training offer is obstacle number four among both groups⁽¹⁷²⁾.

Main takeaway

Early school leaving is becoming less prevalent across the EU, though still affecting 9.5% of all 18-24-year-olds, or around 3.1 million young people. Country variation is increasing, and young people with disabilities (22.2%) and first-generation non-EU migrants (23.0%) remain at serious risk. The problem combines issues of school dropout (most evident in vocational tracks) and out-of-school rates (with an estimated 1.3 million young people in the target age range not enrolled in upper secondary education). Only 64.1% of young people whose parents have a low level of education reach the level of upper secondary education themselves. Most EU education systems promote monitoring actions to prevent early school leaving, accompanied by individual education plans that especially target learners with special educational needs or migrant backgrounds. Wellbeing and absenteeism have received particular attention since the COVID-19 pandemic.

3.2. Learning outcomes

3.2.1. Underachievement and top performance

EU-level 2030 target: ‘The share of underachievement in reading, mathematics, and science should be less than 15% by 2030.’

Underachievement⁽¹⁷³⁾ is on the rise for reading, mathematics, and science. The 2030 EU-level target of an underachievement share below 15% remains out of reach for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, top performance⁽¹⁷⁴⁾ is declining⁽¹⁷⁵⁾. This puts at risk not only the EU’s future competitiveness but also its societal resilience and preparedness. Figure 17 presents the latest results.

Underachievement in basic skills is at record-high levels, with the EU-level target out of reach for the foreseeable future.

The average underachievement rate in reading reached a record 26.2% in 2022. Only Ireland and Estonia meet the 2030 EU-level target of less than 15%⁽¹⁷⁶⁾. The gap between the best-performing (Ireland) and worst-performing (Cyprus) EU country is almost 50 percentage points. At EU level, the underachievement rate rose by 3.7 percentage points between 2018 and 2022. Top performance in reading, meanwhile, decreased from 8.1% in 2018 to 6.5% in 2022, now ranging from 1.4% in Cyprus to 10.6% in Estonia.

In all countries (except for Cyprus and Slovenia), the performance decline between 2018 and 2022 was even larger in mathematics than in reading. For the EU as whole, underachievement in mathematics increased by 6.6 percentage points between 2018 and 2022. The average proportion of underachievement in mathematics now stands at a record 29.5% and only Estonia reaches the 2030 EU-level target of less than 15%⁽¹⁷⁷⁾. The spread between the best- and worst-performing countries is widening, and the underachievement rate exceeds 45% in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Romania, and Greece. Top performance in mathematics decreased from 11.0% in 2018 to 7.9% in 2022, now ranging from 2.0% in Greece to 15.4% in the Netherlands.

The underachievement rate in science was somewhat lower than in the other two subjects tested in 2022, though still at a record 24.2% across the EU. Only Estonia meets the 2030 target⁽¹⁷⁸⁾. The size of the gap between the best-performing (Estonia) and the worst-performing (Cyprus) EU country is 41.7 percentage points. A relatively strong rise in underachievement in science already preceded the 2018 results⁽¹⁷⁹⁾ and continued between 2018 and 2022, increasing by another 2.0 percentage points at EU level⁽¹⁸⁰⁾. Top performance in science has remained comparatively stable, going from 6.3% in 2018 to 6.9% in 2022, and now ranges from 1.0% in Romania to 12.3% in Finland.

Figure 17. Underachievement in reading, mathematics, and science is up, while top performance is down

Select an option

Bar charts showing the share of students who underachieve and those who are among the top performers for the three domains assessed in PISA (reading, mathematics, and science) in 2022 and 2018 across the EU. Across all domains, Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Romania are the three countries with the highest underachievement and lowest share of top peformers. Conversely, Ireland and Estonia have the lowest underachievement in each domain, whereas in top performance there are more countries at similar or higher levels. All in all, the share of underachievers is significantly higher than the share of top performers.

Source: European Commission calculations, based on OECD PISA 2018 and 2022. Note: underachievement equals PISA competence level 1 or below; top performance equals level 5 or 6; Luxembourg is omitted as it did not participate in PISA 2022; caution is required when interpreting 2022 data for Denmark, Ireland, Latvia, and the Netherlands because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met.

Download data Monitor Toolbox

Gender gaps in underachievement are uneven across EU countries and subjects⁽¹⁸¹⁾. Differences are strongest in reading, with girls less likely to underachieve than boys by at least 5 percentage points and more likely to be among the top performers in all EU countries. Underachievement in mathematics shows no clear gender patterns, while top performance in mathematics is more prevalent among boys in all EU countries. Underachievement in science is slightly more common among boys than girls in all countries except Austria, but boys’ top performance rates are somewhat higher than those of girls in almost all countries.

Box 8. Responses to PISA 2022: examples from the 2024 Education and Training Monitor’s country reports

The OECD’s PISA 2022 findings have reverberated across EU countries. Responding to underachievement and the effects of socio-economic background, France aims to bring about a general mobilisation in education to raise the overall performance of pupils. The objective is to strengthen the targeted support in French and mathematics through additional measures, including: (i) the rollout, from September 2024, of certified manuals in French and mathematics in preschools and primary schools; and (ii) the implementation of differentiated groups in French and mathematics according to students’ needs within classes.

Responding to reports of bullying stemming from PISA 2022, Greece developed a national plan called ‘breaking the silence’ to tackle the increasing violence within educational establishments and bullying among pupils. The plan includes a special programme on school bullying and a national strategy against juvenile violence. A digital complaint platform for bullying incidents in schools has also been developed and will be used by students, parents, and teachers. A scientific board is currently working on establishing protocols for the evaluation, prevention, and handling of individual cases of school violence. There are also plans to increase the number of psychologists and to work on continuing professional development for staff.

Recent research at national level has shown that the COVID-19 pandemic worsened educational outcomes in many EU countries and that those pandemic-related learning losses are likely to persist without effective remedial policy action⁽¹⁸²⁾. The findings above are consistent with this research, suggesting that school closures may have played a role in the performance drop observed between 2018 and 2022. However, several countries were experiencing declining performance trends in one or more school subjects already before the pandemic. Further research and analysis are needed to identify the full set of causes for these results, considering the specific features of the different EU education systems.

Box 9. Other learning outcomes

Basic skills are not the only learning outcomes for which new comparative data are available or forthcoming. Firstly, multilingual skills continue to be strengthened, which is most evident in the younger cohorts⁽¹⁸³⁾. Two out of three 18-24-year-olds across the EU report a good or proficient level in a second language (64.1%)⁽¹⁸⁴⁾. Half of them (50.3%) report that they know a third language⁽¹⁸⁵⁾ in which a total of 19.7% report medium or high fluency. Proficiency in a second language is better when compared to the previous birth cohort, now 25-34-year-olds, among whom 56.9% consider they can speak it fluently⁽¹⁸⁶⁾, and 44.3% report knowing a third language (17.9% of the total at a good or proficient level). However, the progress is far from meeting the aim to equip all young people with competences in two additional languages before the end of upper secondary education⁽¹⁸⁷⁾.

Secondly, civic knowledge is a crucial predictor of future democratic citizenship attitudes and behaviours among young people⁽¹⁸⁸⁾. On average, more than 60% of eighth grade students achieve at least Level B on the civic knowledge scale, which means they can demonstrate a specific knowledge and understanding of the most pervasive civic institutions, systems, and concepts⁽¹⁸⁹⁾. Among the high performers are Croatia, Estonia, Denmark, Sweden, and Poland. On the other hand, countries such as Romania, Bulgaria, and Cyprus have lower percentages, with fewer than 50% of students reaching an adequate level of civic knowledge. The data reveal a varied landscape of civic knowledge across EU countries and underscore the importance of targeted educational policies to enhance civic knowledge and engagement among students across the EU.

Finally, the 2030 EU-level target of less than 15% underachievement in computer and information literacy is not covered in this edition of the Education and Training Monitor. This is because the underlying data were not available during the drafting phase. The data are from the International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) as conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). The online Monitor Toolbox features links to ICILS 2023 data and findings as published on 12 November 2024. These findings are important in the context of the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2017⁽¹⁹⁰⁾ and will be assessed further in the next edition of the Education and Training Monitor.

3.2.2. Equity in learning outcomes

In 2022, the European Commission started using a new indicator to capture equity in school education⁽¹⁹¹⁾. The indicator captures the outsized effect of learners’ socio-economic background⁽¹⁹²⁾ on one of the lowest thresholds in educational achievement: combined underachievement in reading and mathematics and science (here labelled ‘severe underachievement’)⁽¹⁹³⁾. Figure 18 illustrates the results for both 2018 and 2022.

At EU level, the severe underachievement rate grew from an average of 13.0% in 2018 to 16.1% in 2022, with substantial increases in Cyprus (14.6 percentage points), the Netherlands (9.4), and Bulgaria (6.4)⁽¹⁹⁴⁾. Severe underachievement increased disproportionately among young people from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, from 23.3% to 28.8%⁽¹⁹⁵⁾. More than half of all disadvantaged 15-year-olds now risk severe underachievement in Bulgaria (62.6%), Romania (57.8%), and Cyprus (55.3%) and more than a third in an additional 4 EU countries: Slovakia (46.7%), Greece (38.8%), Hungary (35.4%), and Malta (35.1%)⁽¹⁹⁶⁾. By contrast, severe underachievement among young people with advantaged socio-economic backgrounds barely changed, from an average of 4.2% in 2018 to 4.7% in 2022⁽¹⁹⁷⁾.

Inequity is increasing. The percentage point gap between young people with disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds and their peers with advantaged socio-economic backgrounds changed from 19.1 in 2018 to 24.1 in 2022. Put simply, the situation went from bad to worse: disadvantaged learners used to be at a 5.5 times higher risk of severe underachievement and are now at a 6.1 times higher risk when compared to their advantaged peers. The gap has increased by 8 percentage points or more in the Netherlands (10.9), Romania (9.8), Slovakia (9.1), and Sweden (8.1). The 2022 gap ranges from the worst-performers Romania (48.8 percentage points), Bulgaria (46.1), and Slovakia (40.0) to the best-performers Estonia (6.7 percentage points), Ireland (11.6), Croatia (14.9), and Denmark (14.9)⁽¹⁹⁸⁾.

Disadvantaged learners are at a 6.1 times higher risk of severe underachievement than their advantaged peers.

Figure 18. Inequity in learning outcomes has increased in most EU countries

Chart showing the share of students who underachieve in the three domains assessed in PISA simultaneously according to the socio-economic background in 2022 and 2018 across the EU. The gaps are largest in Romania, Slovakia, and Bulgaria and smallest in Ireland and Estonia. From 2018 to 2022 underachievement increased in all groups in almost all countries, with the changes being bigger for students with a disadvantaged socio-economic background than their advantaged peers. Consequently, the gaps between underachievement of students with low socio-economic status and those with high soio-economic status have widened.

Download data Monitor Toolbox

The OECD reports a clear association between equity in learning outcomes⁽¹⁹⁹⁾ and ‘educational stratification’, which refers to the various ways that schools and education systems organise instruction for students with different abilities, behaviour, interests, and pace of learning⁽²⁰⁰⁾. As one example, Figure 19 plots the equity indicator against a measure of school segregation that captures the likelihood of students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds being concentrated in the same schools⁽²⁰¹⁾. There is a clear correlation between the two indicators, and the 4 worst-performing countries in terms of equity in learning outcomes are also the worst-performing countries in terms of school segregation (Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Hungary)⁽²⁰²⁾.

Figure 19. School segregation is associated with higher likelihoods of inequity

Bubble chart showing the association between school segregation (horizontal axis) and the gap in severe underachievement between students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds and their peers from advantaged socio-economic backgrounds (vertical axis). There seems to be a significant positive correlation between both indicators, implying the gap is higher in countries with higher segregation. The size of the bubbles is proportional to the overall share of underachievement in the country. A positive association between overall underachievement and the gap is also visible, as bigger bubbles tend to be in the upper part of the chart.

Download data Monitor Toolbox

A lot of the measures to tackle inequities in school education, just like early school leaving, require the dedication and additional efforts of teachers, who already report heavy workloads across the EU (see Box 10). EU-wide, some 8 education systems do not report financial nor non-financial measures for teachers working in school with many disadvantaged students⁽²⁰³⁾. Additional allowances are provided in 12 EU countries⁽²⁰⁴⁾, and an increased basic salary exists only in 4 countries (Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, and Romania). Non-financial measures mainly concern better working conditions (which are supported in most EU education systems), while a preferential next assignment (3 systems⁽²⁰⁵⁾) and faster career progress (only in France) are less common.

Box 10. Supporting a more attractive teaching job

The 2023 Education and Training Monitor zoomed in on the EU-wide challenge of teacher shortages and the attractiveness of a teaching job. The European Commission, in cooperation with the Standing Group on Indicators and Benchmarks (SGIB), developed an online indicator dashboard on the attractiveness of the teaching profession. The dashboard can be a compass to navigate through system-wide challenges and needs, such as recruitment and retention, comprehensive and continuous training, and the creation of attractive career paths with fair remuneration. Its primary purpose is to offer policymakers and stakeholders a broad comparison of enabling factors and potential policy levers for an attractive teaching job.

The dashboard’s conceptual framework takes inspiration from a 2020 European Commission report⁽²⁰⁶⁾ , which emerged from a discussion on teacher and school leader careers that ran for over 18 months. The conceptual framework is built around the concepts of motivation, abilities, and opportunities, each with several policy-relevant indicators⁽²⁰⁷⁾. Looking at aspects that affect teachers’ motivation, ownership over one’s career looms large, but also factors such as a sense of control in the classroom, collegial leadership, and the value society attaches to teachers. The indicators for abilities focus on how prepared teachers are for their career, whether they receive the right training at the right time and whether they can fall back on support networks. Finally, for opportunities, the indicators give an indication of how accessible, flexible, and open teachers’ careers are.

Figure 20 shows the prevalence of teacher training on diversity as well as student activities contributing to equity in learning outcomes. Across EU countries with available data, teacher training in special educational needs is most common (85.0%), followed by programmes and courses for students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds (60.9%), teacher training in students’ tolerance towards diversity⁽²⁰⁸⁾ (55.6%), and teacher training for teaching students with diverse backgrounds⁽²⁰⁹⁾ (54.8%). Less common are courses on gender equity, gender stereotypes, and gender diversity (38.3%) and language courses for those who need them (23.3%).

Figure 20. Equity issues are targeted through teacher training and student courses

Bar chart showing the percentage of students at schools where principals report activities related to diversity and equity. These activities cover optional test language courses for students from diverse language backgrounds (23.3%), optional courses for students on gender issues (38.3%), teacher training activities on teaching students from diverse backgrounds (54.8%), teacher training activities on the promotion of students’ tolerance towards diversity (55.6%), remedial programmes for students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds (60.9%), and teacher training activities related to students with special education needs (85.0%).

Download data Monitor Toolbox

Finally, most countries provide additional funding from EU, national, or regional budgets to schools enrolling many disadvantaged students. Only Greece and Lithuania report no such additional funding⁽²¹⁰⁾. All remaining EU countries use national or regional budgets for this purpose⁽²¹¹⁾, and 13 education systems draw on the EU budget⁽²¹²⁾.

Main takeaway

Underachievement in basic skills is on the rise across the EU, with record-high rates for reading (26.2%), mathematics (29.5%), and science (24.2%). This is bound to pose a hardship for today’s youth and could jeopardise Europe’s competitiveness moving forward. School closures during COVID-19 may have played their part, even if a decline in performance was already under way for several EU education systems. Looking at a more severe measure of underachievement (in all three school subjects at the same time), the outsized effects of a student’s socio-economic background went from bad to worse. Disadvantaged learners used to be at a 5.5 times higher risk of severe underachievement and are now at a 6.1 times higher risk when compared to their advantaged peers. Inequity is most pronounced in Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Hungary, and is strongly linked to school segregation.

Previous Next

Notes

114.The indicator measures the share of the population aged 18-24 with at most lower secondary educational attainment and not in formal or non-formal education and training in the 4 weeks prior to the survey. The early school leaving rate is only 7.3% among 18-year-olds, increasing to 11.1% among 24-year-olds. Non-formal learning is low and uneven among 18-24-year-olds with at most lower secondary educational attainment, averaging 9.2% across the EU. Monitor Toolbox
115.Romanian figures are highest in the South-East (24.6%), Centre (21.0%), South-West Oltenia (19.5%), and South-Muntenia (17.3%) regions. Monitor Toolbox
116.Spanish figures are highest in Ceuta (21.2%) and Melilla (20.4%), but also in the regions of Murcia (19.2%) and Balearic Islands (18.0%). Monitor Toolbox
117.German figures are highest in the regions of Weser-Ems (17.9%), Schleswig-Holstein (17.4%), and Lüneburg (17.3%). Monitor Toolbox
118.Regional outliers outside of the bottom-performing countries include outermost regions like French Guiana (21.7%) and Portugal’s Azores (22.9%), but also the French island of Corsica (21.5%), Bulgaria’s South-East region (18.5%), the Hungarian region of North-Hungary (18.5%), and the Italian islands of Sardinia (17.3%) and Sicily (17.1%). Monitor Toolbox
119.The trajectory still matches the estimate made by the European Commission (Joint Research Centre) in 2023, based on pre-COVID-19 data. The estimate puts the EU average at 8.4% by 2030, albeit with a confidence interval of 4 percentage points.
120.The EU average early school leaving rate came down from 11.1% in 2014, albeit with a break in time series for 2021. Monitor Toolbox Regional and territorial disparities persist. See the 2024 European Commission Communication on a long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas; the 2024 European Commission report on economic, social, and territorial cohesion; the 2024 Eurostat regional yearbook; and the 2024 Eurofound report on the role of human capital inequalities in social cohesion and convergence.
121.A 2021-2023 decrease in early school leaving of 1 percentage point or more is recorded in Bulgaria (-2.7 percentage points), Luxembourg (-2.5), Italy (-2.2), Poland (-2.1), Slovakia (-1.4), and Sweden (-1.0). An equivalent increase over the same period is visible in Slovenia (2.3 percentage points), Finland (1.4), Portugal (1.7), Romania (1.3), the Netherlands (1.1), and Lithuania (1.1). Note that a break in time series is recorded for Bulgaria (2022), Slovakia (2022), and Slovenia (2023). Monitor Toolbox
122.For more information about convergence analysis, see Eurofound’s convergEU app and the 2024 European Commission report on employment and social developments in Europe.
123.See a 2023 Eurydice report on the structure of EU education systems.
124.More than half of all 20-24-year-olds have attained (at most) upper secondary education in its vocational tracks in Croatia (60.3%), Luxembourg (58.2%), Romania (57.5%), Czechia (53.0%), and Slovenia (52.8%). Tertiary educational attainment is less prevalent in this age bracket, yet still reaches over 25% in France (35.3%), Austria (30.0%), Cyprus (28.9%), Ireland (28.8%), Spain (28.1%), Belgium (26.1%), Malta (26.1%), and Portugal (26.1%). Monitor Toolbox
125.The share went down 0.9 percentage point between 2021 and 2022 across the EU on average and then back up again with 0.6 percentage point between 2022 and 2023. A break in time series is recorded for Cyprus (2023) and Slovenia (2023). Monitor Toolbox
126.Luxembourg (5.4 percentage points between 2021 and 2023), Sweden (4.8), Poland (2.3), Italy (2.2), and Bulgaria (2.1). Monitor Toolbox
127.Germany (-4.5 percentage points between 2021 and 2023), Slovenia (-3.8), Estonia (-2.6), Finland (-2.3), Malta (-2.2), and Romania (-2.0). Monitor Toolbox
128.In Germany, upper secondary educational attainment went down 5.8 percentage points between 2021 and 2022 and up again by 1.3 percentage points between 2022 and 2023. Monitor Toolbox
129.Data are reported in the OECD’s Education at a Glance 2023 and capture the share of entrants to upper secondary education completing the level by the end of its theoretical duration plus 2 years. As an alternative measure of completion rates, UNESCO captures the share of young people 3-5 years above the intended age for the last grade of primary, lower secondary, and upper secondary education.
130.See the 2023 Cedefop report ‘Stemming the tide: tackling early leaving from vocational education and training in times of crises’. Cedefop hosts the constantly updated VET toolkit for tackling early leaving and VET toolkit for empowering NEETs. Chapter 4 of this comparative report features a closer look at vocational education and training.
131.These 8 systems are France (95.8%), Slovenia (95.2%), the Flemish community of Belgium (94.1%), Estonia (93.3%), Finland (91.7%), Spain (90.7%), Luxembourg (90.7%), and Italy (90.4%). Monitor Toolbox
132.Lithuania (88.7%), Denmark (86.8%), Portugal (85.8%), Sweden (83.9%), and Austria (81.1%). Monitor Toolbox
133.Interestingly, the French community of Belgium, the worst performer in terms of completion rates in the general tracks (63.8%), is the best performer in terms of completion rates in the vocational tracks (91.1%). Only Slovenia (86.1%), France (81.0%), and the Flemish community of Belgium (80.6%) reach 80% as well. There is no information on completion rates in vocational tracks for Denmark. Monitor Toolbox
134.By comparison, looking at the 18-24 age bracket used for early school leaving, on average only 62.4% of young people are still in education and training. The average varies from a participation rate of 82.6% among 18-year-olds to 30.0% among 24-year-olds. Monitor Toolbox
135.Comparing enrolment and population data, the indicator may unintentionally reflect non-resident populations enrolled in domestic programmes and resident populations enrolled in non-domestic programmes.
136.Mandatory schooling most often ends at age 16 across the EU. Exceptions are the 7 countries were mandatory schooling ends at or around age 15 (Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Greece, Poland, and Slovenia), and the 6 countries where it ends at age 18 (Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Portugal, and Romania). In Germany, 4 federal states have a mandatory schooling age until age 19. See a 2023 Eurydice report on compulsory education in Europe.
137.This means that the end of the mandatory schooling age is standardised across EU countries as ‘year X’, the year before MSA ends as ‘year X-1’, and the year after MSA ended as ‘year X+1’. Monitor Toolbox
138.UNESCO also approximates out-of-school rates by level of education, measuring the share of young people not enrolled while in the official age range for primary education, lower secondary education, or upper secondary education. The latest calculations are from 2020 and cover all EU countries.
139.Including 15.9% in Romania and 11.1% in Bulgaria. Monitor Toolbox
140.Out-of-school rates at the level of upper secondary education are above 10% in Romania (25.0%), Bulgaria (16.5%), Luxembourg (13.9%), Hungary (11.1%), and Germany (10.8%). Monitor Toolbox
141.Geographically speaking, early school leaving rates are highest in the rural areas of Romania (27.5%), Bulgaria (18.8%), and Hungary (17.1%). Yet on average across the EU, suburban areas (10.6%) yield higher shares than rural areas (9.9%) or urban areas (8.6%). The countries with the highest early school leaving rates in suburban areas are Spain (15.0%), Cyprus (14.7%), and Germany (14.3%). Upper secondary educational attainment rates are lowest in the rural areas of Denmark (63.7%) and Romania (69.5%), as well as the suburban areas of Germany (67.4%). Across the EU, suburban areas average an 81.7% upper secondary educational attainment rate, compared to 84.7% recorded for rural areas and 85.5% for urban areas. Monitor Toolbox A forthcoming Eurofound report captures the role played by the degree of urbanisation over time and looks closer at early school leaving rates among jobless households in suburban and rural areas, magnifying these results even further.
142.Croatia (1.2%), Poland (2.4%), Ireland (2.9%), Greece (3.6%), Belgium (4.4%), Slovenia (4.9%), the Netherlands (5.2%), Latvia (5.5%), France (5.6%), Slovakia (6.0%), Lithuania (6.1%), Portugal (6.1%), Sweden (6.2%), Czechia (6.4%), Finland (7.3%), Italy (7.6%), Malta (7.6%), Austria (7.9%), and Estonia (8.0%). Luxembourg is included on the list despite no data for women in 2023 but below-9% rates in previous years. Monitor Toolbox
143.See also the work of WHO and UNESCO on health promoting schools. Schools for Health in Europe (SHE) aims to improve the health of children and young people in Europe, including reducing health inequalities.
144.The shares are even more dramatic when singling out the small group of young people with severe limitations due to health problems (42.0%). Monitor Toolbox
145.Monitor Toolbox
146.Monitor Toolbox
147.These figures compare with an early school leaving rate of 9.5% for men and 6.4% for women who were born, as were their parents, in the reporting country. Furthermore, upper secondary educational attainment among 20-24-year-olds drops from the overall EU average of 83.9% to 61.5% among first-generation migrants born outside the EU. Second-generation migrants whose parents were born outside the EU have the same likelihood of upper secondary educational attainment (78.8%) as young people whose parents were born in another EU country (78.9%). Monitor Toolbox
148.Monitor Toolbox The analysis by years since arrival in the reporting country concerns all 18-24-year-olds not born in the reporting country, whether coming from another EU country or from outside the EU. Instead of the EU Labour Force Survey 2023, the EU Adult Education Survey 2022 is
149.Instead of the EU Labour Force Survey 2023, the EU Adult Education Survey 2022 is used. This yields an EU average upper secondary educational attainment rate of 86.0%. Monitor Toolbox
150.For instance, the 2022 Education and Training Monitor’s comparative report showed that early school leaving is 9 times more likely among young people whose parents have a low level of education than it is among young people whose parents have a high level of education.
151.Monitor Toolbox Low educational attainment means below upper secondary level, medium educational attainment means below tertiary level, high educational attainment means tertiary level. The effects of socio-economic background are picked up again in Section 3.2.2.
152.Financial and non-financial measures for (teachers working in) schools with many disadvantaged students are likely to contribute towards tackling early school leavers too. See Section 3.2.
153.In Denmark, individual action plans are subject to local/school autonomy. See the 2024 Eurydice system-level indicators. Monitor Toolbox
154.Learners with disabilities or special educational needs are targeted in all EU education systems with policies on individual action plans apart from the French community of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden. See the 2024 Eurydice system-level indicators. Monitor Toolbox
155.The German-speaking community of Belgium, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. See the 2024 Eurydice system-level indicators. Monitor Toolbox
156.See the 2024 Eurydice system-level indicators. Monitor Toolbox
157.For more information, see a 2021 European Commission infographic on whole-school approaches to reduce early school leaving.
158.For more information about wellbeing and mental health at school, see 2024 guidelines for education policymakers; 2024 guidelines for school leaders, teachers, and educators; and a 2024 factsheet accompanying both publications. All were developed by the European Commission Expert Group on supportive learning environments for groups at risk of underachievement and for supporting wellbeing at school.
159.Results from OECD’s PISA show that students across the EU felt a stronger sense of belonging at school in 2022 (71.8%) compared to 2018 (65.2%). The broadest agreement is now reported by students in Spain (86.1%), while fewest students feel like they belong at school in Romania (49.5%). Monitor Toolbox A 2023 OECD report suggests that a strong sense of belonging is crucial for education systems’ resilience and corresponds to better mathematics performance, higher safety at school, supportive teachers, less long-term absenteeism, and fewer grade repetitions. Disadvantaged students and those experiencing bullying report a weaker sense of belonging at school.
160.More than 1 000 children were consulted about ‘feeling safe’ via the EU Children’s Participation Platform, to inform the preparation of the 2024 European Commission Recommendation on developing and strengthening integrated child protection systems in the best interests of the child. Children responses suggest that they consider schools safe when: (i) they feel listened to and respected; (ii) they receive appropriate educational provisions; and (iii) their (mental and physical) health and safety needs are met. Safety can be undermined by concerns about violence, in particular bullying. For further detail, see the recommendation’s accompanying Staff Working Document.
161.Findings came from a 2023 data collection by the Eurydice network. Five EU education systems (the German-speaking community of Belgium, Croatia, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Romania) did not record policies on multidisciplinary support teams at all.
162.The Flemish community of Belgium, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, and Sweden. See the 2024 Eurydice system-level indicators. Monitor Toolbox
163.See a 2024 OECD policy brief on evaluating post-pandemic education policies and combating student absenteeism beyond COVID-19.
164.The source is the OECD’s PISA 2022 and figures concern weighted averages of 22 EU countries: Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. Monitor Toolbox
165.The source is the OECD’s PISA 2022 and figures concern weighted averages of 19 EU countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Monitor Toolbox
166.See a 2024 OECD report on post-pandemic education policies and combating student absenteeism beyond COVID-19.
167.The Netherlands is the only EU country where the topic of education and career guidance is a matter of local autonomy, but additional funding is provided for guidance activities. See the 2024 Eurydice system-level indicators. Monitor Toolbox
168.See the 2024 Eurydice system-level indicators. Monitor Toolbox The topic of education and career guidance does exist in primary schools too, albeit less prevalent. Guidance is promoted through internal or external services in 18 systems, through the compulsory curriculum in 12 systems, and through work placements and job shadowing in five systems. The topic of education and career guidance is not promoted at the level of primary education in Croatia, Cyprus, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Slovenia.
169.Monitor Toolbox
170.The age bracket is 15-29. Monitor Toolbox The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan includes an objective to decrease the rate of NEETs to below 9% by 2030 by improving their employment prospects. For more data on NEETs, see the 2024 European Commission report on employment and social developments in Europe.
171.Conversely, young people with upper secondary educational attainment identify schedules or lack of employer support more than young people without upper secondary educational attainment do.
172.While personal reasons and costs feature in the top three reasons not to participate for both groups, young people without upper secondary educational attainment also identify prerequisites as an obstacle, whereas schedules complete the top three for those with (at least) upper secondary educational attainment.
173.This is the share of students not reaching competence level 2 in the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).
174.This is the share of students reaching at least PISA competence level 5.
175.For more information about PISA 2022 and its results for EU countries, see the 2024 European Commission report. Note that additional skills were assessed in PISA 2022, such as creative thinking and financial literacy.
176.Ireland is the only country where both girls and boys would meet the 2030 EU-level target on underachievement. In Estonia, girls would meet the target. Monitor Toolbox
177.The EU-level 2030 target on underachievement is only met by girls in Estonia (with Estonian boys performing slightly above the target level of 15%). Monitor Toolbox
178.Estonia is the only country where both girls and boys would meet the 2030 EU-level target on underachievement. Girls would also meet the target in Ireland, Slovenia, and Finland. Monitor Toolbox
179.An increase of 5.4 percentage points between 2012 and 2018. Monitor Toolbox
180.For a total of 7.4 percentage points between 2012 and 2022, comparable to reading and mathematics. Monitor Toolbox
181.Migrant background is also associated with underachievement in basic skills. For instance, the most common pattern of underachievement in mathematics shows a large gap between students born abroad and students with a non-migrant background, while native-born students with parents born abroad partially catch up. A similar pattern is visible for reading and science. Monitor Toolbox
182.See a 2023 analytical report from the European Expert Network on Economics of Education (EENEE) and a 2023 European Commission (Joint Research Centre) report on learning losses during and after the COVID 19 pandemic.
183.The source here is the Adult Education Survey (AES) 2022. Another source for self-reported multilingual skills is the 2024 Eurobarometer survey on Europeans and their languages.
184.The share over the total population cohort exceeds 85% in Slovenia, Luxembourg, Latvia, and Cyprus, and falls below 45% in Ireland and Malta. Monitor Toolbox
185.This shows substantial variation across countries, with shares of 90% in Luxembourg and more than 75% in Finland, Slovenia, Latvia, and Estonia, compared to less than 30% in Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Romania, and Malta. Monitor Toolbox
186.A similar trend is observed in this birth cohort, recording a progress of 6.7 percentage points when compared to the same age bracket in 2016. Monitor Toolbox
187.See the 2019 Council Recommendation on the teaching and learning of languages. Frequency and situations where other languages are used for social, learning and professional purposes, and other findings related to multilingualism are available in the results of the 2024 Eurobarometer survey.
188.The 2023 Council conclusions on the contribution of education and training to strengthening common European values and democratic citizenship recognise that education for democratic citizenship contributes significantly to enhancing Europe’s resilience during crises and periods of rapid and profound change. Furthermore, a 2023 issue paper from the European Commission’s Working Group on Equality and Values in Education and Training presents some of the major insights, findings, discussions, and inspirational practices that arose from its meetings and a peer learning activity in 2023.
189.The source is the IEA’s ICCS 2022 (see Chapter 1). Monitor Toolbox
190.Responding to the strategic priorities of the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027, two Council Recommendations were adopted in November 2023: one on the key enabling factors for successful digital education and training, and one on improving the provision of digital skills and competences in education and training. The first 2023 Council Recommendation promotes the necessary structural reforms at national level in the EU countries to enable significant progress in the digital transformation of education and training. It outlines a modern framework of governance, capacity-building, and investment for effective and inclusive digital education and training. The second 2023 Council Recommendation addresses the need to widen the provision of digital skills and articulates the steps needed to promote digital competence development from early on and at all stages of education and training.
191.The indicator, also using data from the OECD’s PISA, was introduced in the 2022 EEA Progress Report. It is further detailed in the report’s accompanying Staff Working Document and in the 2022 Education and Training Monitor’s comparative report.
192.In PISA, students’ socio-economic background is captured by the index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS). This is a composite index obtained by combining information about the education and occupation of the student’s parents, as well as the material, educational, and cultural resources possessed by the student’s family. The advantaged socio-economic background category comprises 25% of all students with the highest ESCS scores in the given country, whereas the disadvantaged socio-economic background category comprises 25% of all students with the lowest ESCS scores.
193.Even though socio-economic background is the single largest determinant of educational disadvantage, it is not the only one. Other determinants may or may not correlate with socio-economic background. These include gender, migrant status, language spoken at home, discrimination, and special educational needs, including disabilities. In addition, the equity indicator is itself an underestimation. Young people may not be in the PISA target population because of grade repetition, (very) early dropout, or are not enrolled in school in the first place. Others may be excluded from the PISA sample due to, for instance, insufficient proficiency in the assessment language or disabilities. An estimated 10.3% of all 15-year-olds in the EU are not covered by the assessment.
194.The change was not statistically significant in 6 EU countries (Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, and Malta) and negligible in 3 others (Estonia, Portugal, and Spain). Monitor Toolbox
195.The increase among young people with disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds is most pronounced in Cyprus (16.2 percentage points), the Netherlands (13.8), Slovakia (11.5), and Bulgaria (10.0). The change was not statistically significant in Malta, Lithuania, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Croatia, Estonia, and Hungary. Monitor Toolbox
196.The risk is below 20% only in Estonia (8.6%), Ireland (14.5%), Denmark (18.9%), Latvia (18.9%), and Finland (19.5%). Monitor Toolbox
197.The change between 2018 and 2022 in severe underachievement among students with advantaged socio-economic status was statistically significant only in Cyprus, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, and Slovakia.
198.There is no statistically significant difference between boys and girls in any EU country for the equity indicator. In other words, the effects of socio-economic status are comparable for both sexes. Nevertheless, severe underachievement is more prevalent among boys (18.0%) than girls (14.2%). This pattern is statistically significant in all EU countries apart from Belgium, Estonia, and Hungary in 2018, and Austria in 2022.
199.The OECD’s Education at a Glance 2024 includes a broader look at equity in education, all the way from early childhood education and care to tertiary education.
200.A key finding from PISA 2022 is that in ‘equitable and high-performing education systems, almost all students had attended pre-primary school; few students had repeated a grade; socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged students were not heavily concentrated in certain schools; students were tracked into different curricular programmes relatively late; and comparatively few students were grouped by ability between classes’. See a 2023 OECD report on learning during and from disruption.
201.This specific measure of school segregation is sometimes referred to as the isolation index or the normalised exposure index. It quantifies the probability that a student from a disadvantaged socio-economic background is at school with students who are also from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. The index is set between 0 (no segregation) and 1 (full segregation). Socio-economic segregation may be influenced by contextual factors such as residential segregation or the presence of streaming policies (often between general and vocational tracks) at age 15.
202.These countries do have regulations or recommendations in place on the socio-economic composition of schools and, in the case of Hungary, the possibility to adjust the school catchment area to diversify the school population. Policy response to educational segregation was captured by a 2023 data collection among the Eurydice network.
203.The German-speaking community of Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, and Malta. See the 2024 Eurydice system-level indicators. Monitor Toolbox
204.Austria, Bulgaria, France, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden. See the 2024 Eurydice system-level indicators. Monitor Toolbox
205.The French community of Belgium, France, and Spain. See the 2024 Eurydice system-level indicators. Monitor Toolbox
206.Developed by the Working Group on Schools as part of the previous strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET2020).
207.The Monitor Toolbox also features the dashboard’s underlying list of indicators and their sources. Avoiding placing additional administrative burdens on EU countries, the indicators are underpinned largely by pre-existing comparative data, which are inevitably outdated in some cases.
208.Such as dealing with negative feelings towards different cultures, languages, or ethnic groups, or towards gender, economic, and social differences.
209.Such training includes methods to differentiate instruction and to value students’ diversity, as well as the inclusion of multicultural components.
210.For further details, see the 2024 Eurydice system-level indicators. Monitor Toolbox
211.Additional funding from national or regional budgets goes to all schools with disadvantaged students in all but 6 of the remaining EU countries, which use it only for some schools (Cyprus, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, and Poland). See the 2024 Eurydice system-level indicators. Monitor Toolbox
212.Of these 13 systems, 4 use the EU budget for all schools with disadvantaged students (the French community of Belgium, Croatia, Czechia, and Latvia), while 9 use it for some schools (Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain). See the 2024 Eurydice system-level indicators. Monitor Toolbox

Previous Next