Comparative report

Education systems have a great influence over young people’s trajectory when they leave school. For an individual’s personal and professional development, finishing compulsory education alone is however often not enough in today’s world of work where more and more jobs require a complex set of skills. Therefore, ensuring that young people enter the labour market having finished at least upper secondary education, either through a general or vocational programme, is a precondition for strengthening Europe’s human capital. Students who leave the education and training system without having achieved this minimum qualification are at a higher risk of unemployment and inactivity and less likely to participate in upskilling or reskilling. Moreover, not finishing upper secondary education is associated with lower lifetime earnings even when employed, more inequalities, linked to gender or other grounds of discrimination, less democratic participation, more social isolation, poorer health and shorter life expectancy. Moreover, without strong support for equity in education, these disadvantages are likely to be passed on to the next generation. This chapter looks at the latest evidence for creating pathways to success in school and increasing equity in school education.

4.1. Pathways to school success

4.1.1. Finishing upper secondary education

EU countries agree that it should, in principle, be feasible to attain an upper secondary education by age 24. Compulsory education ends at age 15 or 16 in most EU countries, and the official age for concluding upper secondary education is commonly 18. Enrolment in upper secondary education goes down rapidly after that age, though this drop occurs slightly later in vocational programmes (Figure 16). Across the EU, 54.3% of all 18-year-olds are still enrolled in upper secondary education, compared with 10.0% at age 20 and 2.5% at age 24. In terms of successful completion, by age 19, the share of people who have attained an upper secondary education or higher is 62.3% and goes up to 86.6% among 24-year-olds.

Across the EU, 85.1% of the 20-24 age group have achieved at least an upper secondary education, which is 2.9 percentage points higher than 10 years ago. Rates top 95% in Croatia (97.7%), Ireland (96.5%) and Greece (96.2%), and remain close to 75% in Denmark (76.2%) and Germany (76.0%). However, rates are lower, in rural areas in Estonia (73.0%), Romania (71.3%) and Denmark (63.9%), and in suburban areas in Luxembourg (73.6%), Germany (73.6%) and Denmark (69.5%). Low rates of upper secondary attainment can stem from high dropout rates and low levels of enrolment, often reinforced by early tracking. Progress over the last decade has been most pronounced in Portugal (12.1 percentage points), Luxembourg (12.0) and Spain (11.4). Overall, underperforming countries have been catching up, resulting in a positive convergence over time.

In many EU education systems, completion rates in upper secondary education are still relatively low within the theoretical duration of the programme. However, with two extra years, completion rates are above 80% in all EU education systems with available data, apart from Latvia (76.6%), Luxembourg (78.1%), Portugal (79.7%) and Italy (79.9%). Such completion rates two years beyond the theoretical duration are consistently lower among men than among women. They are also much lower in vocational programmes than in general programmes.

4.1.2. Confronting early school leaving

The decline in early school leaving in the EU in the past decades is a remarkable success story of EU education systems. Since monitoring began in 2002, the early school leaving rate fell from 16.9% to 9.4% in 2024. This translates into approximately 3.1 million 18-24-year-olds in the EU remaining disengaged from education and training without having attained at least an upper secondary education in 2024.

17 EU countries have achieved an early school leaving rate of below 9%. Progress over the last decade (Figure 17) has been most substantial in Spain (-7.0 percentage points), Portugal (-6.9), Malta (-6.7) and Bulgaria (-5.2). However, seven countries still have early school leaving rates above 10%, and recent trends are more mixed. Between 2015 and 2024, early school leaving increased in 8 EU countries, with the largest rises observed in Cyprus (+6.1 percentage points), Lithuania (+2.9), Germany (+2.8), and Denmark (+2.3). Focusing on the most recent period, the year-on-year change from 2023 and 2024 was significant in Lithuania (+2.0 percentage points), Estonia (+1.3) and Slovakia (+1.1). Moreover, less than half of today’s early school leavers are employed (47.8%) and research suggests that job insecurity is comparatively high even among those with a job. A return to learning is uncommon, and reaching out to these young people is difficult once they have left the education and training system. A concerted focus on prevention and intervention is therefore key.

Beyond differences between countries, early school leaving also varies significantly depending on the degree of urbanisation, migration background, and gender (Figure 18). On average, men (11.0%) are more likely to become early school leavers than women (7.7%), although female early school leaving rates skyrocket to 42.4% when there are children in the household. Cities (8.3%) have lower early school leaving rates than suburban (10.3) and rural areas (10.1%). However, the urban-rural divide is largely driven by remarkable differences in the rates in several countries, notably Romania (24.2 percentage points), Bulgaria (14.6), and Hungary (11.7). A migration background is associated with higher risks of early school leaving, with rates among migrants more than twice as high as those of native-born young people. Newly arrived migrants face the greatest challenge compared with those who arrived in the host country well before secondary education or native-born young people with parents born abroad . The scale of this challenge is comparable to that faced by young people with disabilities, who continue to experience disproportionate risks of early school leaving.

No single cause explains early school leaving – it is a complex, long-term process influenced by many factors. Disengagement can begin early and often goes unnoticed. A recent literature review identifies multiple, interacting drivers at the level of the individual, their family, the school and the system. These include socio-economic background and educational stratification (see Section 4.2), but also learning difficulties, health issues, migration background, unstable home environments, poor parental engagement, weak student-teacher relationships, lack of belonging and a poor school climate.

4.1.3. Preventing disengagement from school

Effective strategies to tackle early school leaving are cross-sectoral and multi-targeted, while also seeking the perspective of young people themselves. Moreover, all prevention and intervention efforts depend on a more contextual, intersectional focus on equity and reducing segregation in school education (Section 4.2). According to the literature, measures at school level are most promising for prevention and intervention efforts. Key measures at school level focus on teacher support, positive student-teacher relationships and an inclusive schooling (see Box 10).

At system level, effective measures include improving the attractiveness and flexibility of vocational pathways (see Chapter 5), prolonging mandatory schooling age, enriching competency frameworks for teacher education and training , guidance and counselling, and early warning systems. Early warning systems can help schools detect and respond to early signs of disengagement. Screening tools are required to detect not only behavioural but also emotional and cognitive signals, reaching all the way back to ECEC (see Chapter 3). No more than eight EU countries currently have policies in place promoting the implementation of such a system: Bulgaria, France, Italy, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland and Romania. However, new developments across EU education systems are promising.

Finally, the cross-sectoral and multi-targeted nature of effective prevention and intervention measures is illustrated by EU countries’ current responses to problems of absenteeism and young people who have left school. Apart from Ireland, all EU countries have policies in place to address absenteeism, which is one of the early signs of disengagement and a possible precursor to early school leaving. Most education systems enforce clear attendance policies (Figure 19), often accompanied by counselling and mentoring for students with high absenteeism rates (supportive interventions). Moreover, 21 systems report having health and wellbeing programmes. Measures to improve the school environment are equally common, focused on fostering a positive, inclusive school environment. Family and community engagement is reported for 20 EU education systems and includes collaborating with families and engaging with the community not only to discuss attendance patterns, but also to address underlying issues such as transportation challenges, family responsibilities or lack of support.

Reaching out to young people who are not enrolled in the education system in the first place is even more challenging. No less than six EU education systems report no measures at all to monitor or reach out to non-enrolled young people, although Hungary and Slovakia have the only education systems among the six with non-negligible out-of-school rates . The most frequently mentioned policy is youth mentorship programmes, although less than half of all systems (14) report having these programmes. Such programmes connect young people who have dropped out of school with mentors for guidance on education and career opportunities. Community outreach (11 systems) and community centres (11 systems) partner with local community organisations, NGOs or social workers to reach out, particularly in remote areas, to young people who are not in school.

4.2. Equity in school education

4.2.1 Helping disadvantaged students succeed

Socio-economic background is the single largest determinant of educational disadvantage. Factors like parents’ education, job and income still have an outsized influence on children’s success in school, dictating, among other things, access to the best schools, private tutoring, school trips and events, a proper breakfast before each school day, a nurturing learning environment at home and academic expectations. Conversely, a disadvantaged socio-economic background makes it very difficult for young talent to develop fully, which negatively impacts intergenerational mobility and economic growth. Particularly in times of substantial demographic ageing, it is up to education systems to maximise the human capital of tomorrow’s working-age population. Research shows that the education systems that aim to reduce inequality in learning conditions are also the ones that get better overall academic results and improve students’ wellbeing.

Across the EU no less than 28.8% of students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds experience severe underachievement in school, a rate six times higher than the 4.7% observed among students from advantaged backgrounds. These students underachieve not just in a single domain like reading, mathematics or science, but in all three domains at the same time. This section discusses how to move the needle on equity in education by learning from the performance and characteristics of the most equitable school education systems.

The share of students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds performing well in any domain, be it reading, mathematics or science, is a useful benchmark for decoupling educational achievement from socio-economic background and reflecting the pathways for upward educational mobility. Here, good achievement is defined as reaching at least level 4 on the OECD’s PISA scale, which is at least two levels higher than underachievement. This broad indicator of upward mobility captures strong performance without restricting the benchmark to top performers (level 5 and 6). Figure 20 shows that 16.3% of students reached this threshold in 2022 despite their disadvantaged socio-economic background, down from 20.8% in 2018 and 21.1% in 2015. This means that fewer disadvantaged students are reaching a good level of achievement. While performance declined for all students (see Chapter 2), more than three times as many students from an advantaged socio-economic background reached a good level of achievement in 2022.

Ten years ago, about half of all EU countries reported that at least 1 out of every 5 students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds performed well in at least one domain. According to the latest data, only four countries still manage to do the same (Estonia, Finland, Ireland and the Netherlands). The situation has worsened in most countries, with a particularly strong deterioration in Slovenia (10.4 percentage points), Germany (8.7) and Finland (8.3).

4.2.2. Supporting all learners to develop their talents

Education can play a substantial role in minimising the effect of socio-economic disadvantage on learning outcomes – and schools can serve as ‘hubs’ for cross-sectoral cooperation – but it cannot act as ‘great equaliser’ in isolation. Lasting progress can be achieved only through a holistic, cross-sectoral approach to deeply rooted inequalities. EU education systems use different approaches to reduce the link between educational achievement and socio-economic background.

Around half of all EU education systems have policies on the socio-economic composition of schools in place that aim to tackle segregation. School segregation based on socio-economic background risks a downward spiral of adverse learning conditions and fewer resources for disadvantaged students. Such school segregation is highest in Hungary (0.30), Bulgaria (0.29), Slovakia (0.28) and Romania (0.25).The lowest levels of segregation are found in Finland (0.09), Malta (0.11), and Sweden (0.13). Socio-economic segregation is influenced by contextual factors such as residential segregation, as well as by education policies including school choice and school admission criteria.

School segregation can also be the unintended result of streaming or tracking, often between general and vocational programmes. The earlier that streaming or tracking take place, the more students’ socio-economic backgrounds come into play, leading to larger gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged students and greater underachievement in basic skills. While early tracking has negative effects on equity and inclusion, research suggests there is no ‘optimal level of tracking’, but rather a need to strike the right balance between differentiation and tracking. Ensuring that pathways between the different tracks remain permeable, renders any level of differentiation and tracking less deterministic. 

Remedial policies are another way of decoupling educational achievement from socio-economic background and other sources of disadvantage. The 2022 Council Recommendation on pathways to school success advises that helping disadvantaged students succeed requires active inclusion policies, a positive learning climate and individualised provisions for at-risk learners. A 2025 Eurydice report records recent policy responses across the EU, revealing widespread changes to instruction time, curricula, assessment and learning support. Most EU education systems feature new or revised policy measures that help teachers to deliver inclusive and accessible education, whether through continuing professional development or teaching material, resources and guidance.

Research suggests that some remedial policies are effective, whereas others make matters even worse. Grade repetition is a costly example of the latter, as it further entrenches the effect of socio-economic background (Figure 21), risks disengagement and dropping out, and potentially diminishes the impact of more constructive remedial measures. Across the EU, 20.5% of disadvantaged students repeated a grade at least once, compared with 5.0% of advantaged students.

In contrast, identifying students at risk and providing individualised instruction are much more promising examples of remedial policies. All EU countries, apart from Ireland and the Netherlands, have policies that promote the use of individual education plans. These plans are personalised and comprehensive, and they outline the instruction, adaptations and support mechanisms to be provided in order to ensure learners’ progress and development. They are a tool that can contribute to inclusive education that addresses everyone’s needs. These plans most commonly target learners with special education needs or disabilities and learners from refugee or migrant backgrounds (see Box 11). Only seven countries (Spain, Italy, Lithuania, Hungary, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia) have policies on individual education plans that target learners from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. Finally, research suggests that regular one-to-one or small group tutoring provided by trained tutors during school days is particularly effective. Some EU education systems have started introducing such tutoring during the formal school day (12 systems) and/or outside the formal school day (10 systems) to address underachievement in basic skills.