EU support for the digitalisation of schools Significant investments, but a lack of strategic focus in the use of EU financing by member states

Executive summary

I In the EU, member states have full responsibility for designing education policy and the organisation of their schools. The EU supplements and supports actions by member states, and provides significant financial support for the digitalisation of schools. To this end, it uses various instruments such as Cohesion Policy funds, the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and the Erasmus+ programme. Significant amounts have been or will be disbursed between 2014 and 2026 through one of these programmes with a view to strengthening digital education.

II In this audit, we assessed actions financed from the EU budget in support of digital education in schools. We examined whether the Commission’s actions supported the digitalisation of schools well. We also considered whether national, regional and local authorities in the member states used available EU funding as intended to support the digitalisation of schools, and whether schools were sufficiently connected to gigabit internet to achieve EU targets. Our report aims to help the Commission and the member states’ national and regional authorities to address the challenges of the digitalisation of schools during the 2021‑2027 period more effectively. We conclude that, overall, these measures helped schools in their digitalisation efforts, but that member states lacked strategic focus in the use of EU financing.

III In 2018, the Commission adopted a Digital Education Action Plan to support member states in addressing challenges for digital education. This Plan included schools. However, the member states we visited had either not translated the Action Plan objectives into their national (or regional) strategies, had not updated their strategies for the 2021‑2027 period, or had not formulated dedicated strategies for the digitalisation of their schools. We also found that EU-financed actions were not always well embedded in national or regional strategies for the digitalisation of schools, even though this could have reduced the risk of fragmented interventions financed from the EU budget and helped to achieve greater impact.

IV In most cases, the EU-financed projects delivered their intended outputs but there were still factors that prevented the schools from making the best use of EU-financing. For measures to be financed from the Recovery and Resilience Facility, there were shortcomings in how milestones and targets to be fulfilled by member states were defined, in particular for the results to be achieved in terms of improving digital education. We found that cost estimates accepted by the Commission during the negotiations of the national plans for two measures examined for this audit did significantly differ from the actual costs incurred during implementation. Moreover, schools were not sufficiently involved in establishing needs.

V Nearly all students now use digital devices, but many schools still report insufficient equipment, or further training needs for teachers. We also found that a formal approach towards the use of ICT in class is often lacking, thus preventing schools from exploiting the full potential of digitalisation.

VI The Commission has no comprehensive data on the overall amounts of EU funding spent for the digitalisation of schools. Only a few member states assess the results they have achieved with EU financial support for improving digital education in schools. Programme-specific indicators were not informative, and only two of the six member states we visited had approaches for systematically monitoring the progress that schools had made in terms of digitalisation as a result of EU financial support.

VII In 2016, the Commission set targets for the member states to connect schools to gigabit internet by 2025 and to enable them to use state‑of‑the‑art IT equipment and adopt innovative ways of teaching and learning. However, in 2022, only a small number of schools can actually use gigabit connections. Member states had varying approaches to promoting the connection of schools varied but a lack of stringent strategic planning, together with delays in implementing dedicated programmes increases the risk that the EU will not achieve the 2025 target for gigabit internet.

VIII On the basis of these conclusions, we recommend that the Commission should:

• promote EU actions under the Digital Education Action Plan more actively in order to enhance their impact;
• take action to strengthen the link between objectives of the digital education action plan, national or regional strategies, and EU funding for schools; and
• monitor and encourage the achievement of the target of being connected to gigabit internet by 2025 for all schools.

Introduction

Digital education and the digitalisation of schools

01 Digital education aims to enable students to thrive in life, become engaged citizens, and integrate better into the job market in an ever more digitalised world¹. In its school surveys conducted in 2013 and 2018, the Commission had already observed that specific policies and support measures at school level – such as better equipment or the professional development of teachers – could contribute to better learning results but also that the use of information technology and access to fast internet varied significantly between schools². A study conducted in 2018 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) highlighted that students in schools that were well equipped with computers and connected to the internet could achieve better learning results³.

02 Digital competences and skills, and the availability of digital infrastructure and equipment, have become all the more relevant at all education levels since the outbreak of the COVID‑19 pandemic. The pandemic brought to light that school systems in almost all member states had not been well prepared for distance teaching, because schools were not well connected to the internet and suitable digital equipment for students and teachers was lacking⁴. There was also a need for teachers to be confident and skilled in using digital technology to support their teaching, coupled with innovative teaching methods, and to ensure that all students could participate in digital education.

03 In the EU, member states are responsible for designing education policy, equipping schools, overseeing the content of teaching, and training teachers and students. Moreover, within member states, responsibilities can be allocated at different levels (i.e. national, regional or local). Any cross-border cooperation between member states in the field of education is voluntary, and is not necessarily linked to the use of EU funds. Meanwhile, the EU can support and supplement the member states’ actions⁵.

04 The Commission’s role in the digitalisation of schools is to supplement and support actions by member states, while fully respecting their responsibility for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems.

05 Making digital education a success also requires the digitalisation of schools: providing schools with high-speed internet, and equipping classrooms, teachers and students with hardware such as laptops or tablets; ensuring that teachers and other school staff have the digital skills they need; providing adequate digital learning material and secure platforms; and using up‑to‑date curricula and learning approaches.

06 In 2020, there were more than 65 million registered students and teachers in more than 200 000 primary and secondary schools in the 27 member states⁶.

The Commission’s Digital Education Action Plan

07 In November 2017, at the Gothenburg Summit, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission proclaimed in the European Pillar of Social Rights that everyone has the right to quality and inclusive education, training and life-long learning in order to maintain and acquire skills that enable them to participate fully in society and successfully manage transitions in the labour market⁷. The Commission contributed to these discussions by setting out its vision for a European Education Area to harness the full potential of education and culture as drivers for jobs, social fairness, and active citizenship, as well as providing a means to experience European identity in all its diversity⁸. The Commission and the member states identified innovation and digital technologies as a key factor for better education, an area where Europe was perceived to be lagging behind other regions.

08 In January 2018, the Commission issued its first Digital Education Action Plan (henceforth “Action Plan”), as announced in its contribution to the Gothenburg summit⁹. The Plan contains a number of actions in three priority areas, by means of which the Commission intended to support member states’ overall education and training systems in all sectors of education by exchanging best practices, and to stimulate and scale up the purposeful use of digital and innovative education practices (see Figure 1).

09 The Commission updated its Action Plan in September 2020. The updated Plan offers a long‑term strategic vision covering the 2021‑2027 period. It continues with the main elements of the initial Action Plan, but also takes account of the latest developments in digital education. It focuses on two priority areas and key actions to be pursued in the years to come, which are relevant not only for schools but also for post‑secondary education (for example at universities) or vocational training (see Figure 2).

10 The Commission regards the Action Plan as a key enabler for improving digital literacy, skills and capacity at all levels of education and training, and for all levels of digital skills. It also uses the Plan as a reference document for the European Semester, the EU’s cycle of economic, fiscal, labour and social policy coordination between member states’ budgetary and economic policies. In this framework, based on Commission proposals, the Council made annual country‑specific recommendations (CSRs) in the area of education and training. Figure 3 shows the member states where the Council recommendations referred to investments in the digitalisation of schools either in 2019 or 2020.

The EU’s connectivity target for schools of one gigabit per second by 2025

11 As new data services and applications require networks of ever-higher capacity, the Commission set strategic connectivity targets in 2016 for all main socio‑economic drivers such as schools. According to these targets, all schools should have a high‑speed broadband connection by 2025, which means access to internet connections offering downlink and uplink speeds of at least one gigabit per second¹⁰. Connecting schools to high‑speed broadband would facilitate innovative ways of teaching and learning, allow teachers and students to benefit from up‑to‑date learning materials, and thus enhance digital skills. These targets followed the Digital Agenda for Europe adopted in 2010, where the Commission stated that all EU citizens should have access to broadband at 30 Mbps by 2020¹¹.

The EU’s financial support

12 Member states can use EU financial support for the digitalisation of schools through various instruments, each with its specific objectives and characteristics:

• Cohesion Policy Funds:

•  For the 2014‑2020 period, investments in enhancing access to and improving the use and quality of information and communication technology (ICT), and of education and training, were thematic objectives of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF), two of the Cohesion Policy Funds (also known as the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). The EU uses these funds to co-finance investments in areas such as the balanced development of regions and the development of workers, young people and all those seeking a job¹². For the 2014‑2020 programming period, the total budget for the ERDF and ESF was €329 billion, an estimated €44.6 billion of which was allocated to these two thematic objectives. The digitalisation of schools was not, however, a specific objective of the Funds. This is why member states do not have to provide detailed information on the amounts spent for this purpose (see paragraph 71).
•  For the years 2020 to 2022, the Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe (REACT-EU) has been set up under the NextGenerationEU (NGEU) initiative, within the framework of the 2014‑2020 Cohesion Policy Funds¹³. Out of a total budget of €44.5 billion, member states could use funds to support the digitalisation of schools. Member states could request REACT‑EU measures to be fully financed from the EU budget.
•  For the 2021‑2027 period, member states can also use Cohesion Policy funds for the digitalisation of their schools, mainly for investments in access infrastructure¹⁴ and to support the acquisition of digital skills¹⁵.

• The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)¹⁶:

The RRF is a temporary instrument under NGEU, which aims to mitigate the economic and social impact of the COVID‑19 pandemic. It is managed directly by the Commission. Until the end of 2026, member states will receive EU support on condition that they achieve certain performance targets and milestones for investments and reforms defined in the National Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRPs). Member states can use the EU support to finance investments in the development of digital skills and the digital transition of schools. Out of a total budget of €723.8 billion (at current prices) available for the RRF, we identified 21 member states that, according to their RRPs, chose to invest more than €11 billion in measures supporting the digitalisation of their schools¹⁷.

• The Erasmus+ programme¹⁸:

Among other things, this programme supports ICT-based teaching, open education and innovative practices in the digital era, and also addresses digital transformation by developing digital readiness, resilience and capacity:

•  For the 2014‑2020 period, the programme had a total budget of €14.9 billion, around €1.6 billion of which was allocated to transnational strategic partnership projects for school education, with €100 million specifically dedicated to projects for enhancing the use of ICT in teaching and learning. The Commission also used the programme to finance actions under the 2018 Action Plan.
•  For the 2021‑2027 period, the scope of the programme has been enlarged to support activities and projects to deliver on the updated Action Plan and the digital transformation of schools¹⁹. The programme has a total budget of €26.2 billion. There is no specific allocation for digitalisation but funds can be used to support 2021‑2027 actions under the Action Plan and for strategic innovation partnerships, including projects for digital education in schools. Digital transition is one of the four cross-cutting priorities of the programme.

• The Connecting Europe Facility

In the 2021-2027 period, the digital part of the Connecting Europe Facility²⁰, an EU instrument directly managed by the Commission providing financial support for the creation of sustainable interconnected infrastructure, provides a budget of more than €2 billion to support among other things the deployment of 5G systems in so called 5G Communities, and which can be used for connecting schools.

Management and use of EU Funds

13 For the Cohesion Policy programmes, national or regional authorities in the member states are in charge of selecting and monitoring projects within the operational programmes and paying support. The Commission co-finances the project related costs in accordance with the conditions laid down in the applicable general rules and those of the respective programmes.

14 Under the RRF, member states put in place the measures defined in the national RRPs. Each RRP is allocated support in line with the estimated costs of the measures it contains, up to a maximum amount stipulated by the RRF Regulation. Unlike for the Cohesion Policy programmes, EU financing is not related to the actual costs incurred, but the Commission disburses the amounts allocated to the RRPs once the member state has achieved the relevant pre-defined sets of milestones and targets. Milestones are qualitative achievements such as the entry into force of funding guidelines. Targets are quantitative achievements such as the acquisition of a defined number of digital devices for schools. Annex IV provides an overview of the targets and milestones for the measures supporting the digitalisation of schools in the member states we visited.

15 Typically, member states use the Cohesion Policy Funds and the RRF to support ICT infrastructure and equipment in schools, provide training for teachers, or develop education material (see Box 1).

16 Commission actions to support the digitalisation of schools, including those supporting the Action Plan, are mainly financed by the Erasmus+ programme, which the Commission manages directly (see Box 2).

Audit scope and approach

17 In this audit, we assessed actions in support of digital education in schools. We specifically examined whether:

• the Commission’s actions, in particular under the Erasmus+ programme supported the digitalisation of schools well;
• national, regional and local authorities in the member states used available EU funding under the Cohesion Policy as intended;
• in view of the ongoing implementation of the RRF by 2026, member states addressed the digitalisation of schools well in their RRPs; and
• member states had translated the Commission’s 2025 strategic target²¹ into national strategies or approaches for connecting schools to gigabit internet, and whether the actual connectivity of schools is well on track to achieve that target.

18 To this end, we selected six member states: Germany, Greece, Croatia, Italy, Austria, and Poland. For Germany, where the regions (Bundesländer) have exclusive responsibility for education policy, we selected the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, which is the region with the largest population of schools and students. In the 2014‑2020 period, these member states had either spent significant amounts of Cohesion Policy funding (ESIF) on the digitalisation of their schools, currently use support from REACT-EU for that purpose, or had included dedicated measures in their RRPs to be financed from the RRF until the end of 2026. By the end of 2021, around €2.6 billion in Cohesion Policy funding had been paid or committed for the digitalisation of schools. Another €1.1 billion is currently available under REACT‑EU. In addition, more than €7 billion will be disbursed by 2026 to the four of these member states, which choose to use the RRF for the same purpose, under the condition that they satisfactorily fulfil the milestones and targets defined in the RRPs (see Figure 4).

19 In all six member states, we reviewed the strategies and approaches for the digitalisation of schools. In addition, we examined a sample of 61 actions or projects that have been or will be financed from the ERDF, the ESF, the RRF, and the Erasmus+ programme, which all aimed to support the digitalisation of schools. We selected these projects either because of their financial significance, or because of their relevance for digital education in schools. The focus of our work was on how well these projects were embedded in national strategies for the digitalisation of schools. We also assessed how effective they had been at enhancing digital education in schools. In addition, we visited 35 schools that had benefited in one way or another from EU support granted within the audited projects (see Annex II).

20 In cooperation with the relevant national and regional authorities, we also conducted an online survey of more than 49 000 primary and secondary schools in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany), Greece, Croatia, Italy, and Poland. This survey covered around a quarter of the schools in the EU. Its purpose was to obtain up‑to‑date information which was otherwise unavailable on the actual gigabit connectivity of schools, the role of digital education, and the use of EU tools and actions in this area (see explanation in Annex III). We did not survey Austrian schools, because the national authorities decided not to support us in forwarding our questionnaires to schools.

21 Lastly, we drew on findings from our previous special reports, such as on high-speed broadband infrastructure in urban and rural areas²², and on the Commission’s assessment of national recovery and resilience plans²³.

22 We carried out our audit in 2021 and 2022 and covered the period from 2015 to 2021. We did not cover the use of 2021‑2027 Cohesion Policy Funds, as the Commission had not yet completed its assessment of the draft programmes for most member states by the end of our audit fieldwork in June 2022.

23 We decided to conduct this audit in view of the Commission’s increased efforts of to support member states in the digitalisation of schools and the significant amounts of EU support available to member states for that purpose, in particular in response to the COVID‑19 pandemic.

24 This audit aims to help the Commission and the member states’ national and regional authorities to address the challenges of the digitalisation of schools during the 2021‑2027 period more effectively.

Observations

Member states have made only limited use of the Commission’s support for the digitalisation of their schools

In most member states there were dedicated strategies for the digitalisation of schools

25 The Action Plan aims to support member states in addressing challenges for digital education by providing tools to help educators and trainers make better use of technology. This includes developing relevant digital skills, and better evidence and analysis. The 2020 update of Plan reinforced these ambitions (see Figure 2). We examined whether the member states we visited had adopted or updated their own strategies to support the digitalisation of their schools and whether they had incorporated elements of the Action Plan addressed to schools into their strategies since the Plan was adopted in 2018.

26 During the 2014‑2020 period, Greece and Croatia had no dedicated strategy for the digitalisation of schools. In Greece, the 2016 national digitalisation strategy mentioned the digitalisation of schools as one of several priorities and referred to the role of EU‑support in this process. However, it did not set a clear timeframe for implementation. Croatia had several national strategies for connectivity and education which also included schools, and a dedicated project for the digitalisation of schools that was based on the 2014 Strategy for Education, Science and Technology (see paragraph 59).

27 For the 2014‑2020 period, Italy had already set out its strategy for the digitalisation of schools in the “National Plan for the Digitalisation of Schools”. In 2020, it adopted a national strategy for digital competences, which also covered schools.

28 Poland had developed several general strategies and overarching projects with relevance for the digitalisation of schools. However, by 2022, a targeted strategy for the digitalisation of education (including schools) was yet to be developed, as was the plan to implement the RRP.

29 In 2019, Germany had set up a dedicated national support programme for the digitalisation of schools (the DigitalPakt Schule 2019‑2024). In addition, at regional level, North Rhine-Westphalia adopted a dedicated strategy for schools (Digitalstrategie Schule NRW – Lehren und Lernen in der digitalen Welt) in 2020, when Austria also adopted its own strategy (8-Punkte-Plan).

Only a few member states had incorporated elements of the Action Plan into their strategies

30 Only Italy referred to the Action Plan in the relevant strategy. The relevant ministry had already supported each of the actions of the 2018 Plan with its own actions, and intended to do so when implementing the national strategy for digital competences.

31 In Germany, the regions had agreed on a guidance framework for digital education which referred to DigComp, a European digital competence framework for citizens. This describes the most important skills that people need in order to participate in the digital world, and is also relevant for schools. However, no other elements of the Action Plan had been explicitly taken up in the strategy of the region we visited.

32 In Greece, by the end of 2022, none of the strategies referred to the Action Plan, while in Croatia, the authorities considered the updated Plan as a starting point for preparing their National Education System Development Plan for the 2022 to 2027 period but had not defined concrete actions by the end of 2022.

33 In Austria, the Action Plan was not explicitly taken into account when preparing the national strategy, primarily because its main pillars were designed before the Plan was published in 2018. In Poland, none of the strategies referred to – or clearly incorporated elements of the Action Plan – although our audit visit showed that some projects did address a few of its priority actions.

Many schools were not aware of Commission actions relevant for the digitalisation of schools

34 By means of Action Plan, the Commission directly supports the digitalisation of schools with free online tools and actions available to all schools. The most relevant of these were SELFIE, EU Code Week, and eTwinning (see Box 2). We therefore examined how effective the Commission was at reaching schools in member states with these actions.

35 The Commission informed us that, overall, several million students and other persons in many member states, as well as outside the EU, had made use of SELFIE, EU Code Week and eTwinning. For example, by the end of 2022, SELFIE had more than 3 million registered students and teachers in more than 20 000 schools in the EU. However, when we asked the schools in our survey about these tools, most said they were either unfamiliar with them or had not used them. Our survey also confirmed that SELFIE – the newest initiative – was by far the tool with which schools were least familiar, followed by EU Code Week. By contrast, only very few schools in Greece, Croatia, and Italy were not aware of eTwinning (see Figure 5).

36 Our analysis of Commission data and Eurostat school statistics for 2020 covering all member states also shows that there were significant differences between member states in terms of the share of students and teachers using SELFIE. Spain and Portugal were in the lead, while in other member states hardly any schools used the tool (see Figure 6).

37 In the member states we visited, we found that the main reason for not using SELFIE was individual schools’ lack of awareness about the tool, and the fact that it had not been integrated into national or regional digital education strategies. In Croatia and Austria schools used national tools with similar features that had been developed prior to SELFIE. We note that the overall aim of SELFIE might be jeopardised if it has to compete with tools and processes that schools are already using. The Commission explained the high number of registered users in Spain and Portugal (which were not part of our selection of member states) by the fact that national ministries of education actively promoted the use of SELFIE in schools.

38 Similarly, the use of actions under eTwinning varied significantly between the member states we visited. For example, in Italy, the relevant ministry had organised specific training to support teachers in using the tool and to promote the initiative in schools. In other member states, national or regional education ministries had not specifically encouraged schools to participate in EU activities, or had not integrated them into the curriculum.

Digitalisation did not have priority in strategic partnership projects for schools

39 With strategic partnerships involving schools and other organisations active in the field of education, the Commissions aims to support the development, transfer and/or implementation of innovative practices at organisational, local, regional, national or European levels. Even though digitalisation was not an explicit objective of the Erasmus+ programme in the 2014‑2020 period, the Commission’s guidelines encouraged schools to apply with projects for ICT-based teaching, open education and innovative practices in a digital era. Since 2020, the guidelines have further emphasised the development of high-performing digital education ecosystems and better use of digital technologies for teaching and learning. We thus examined the extent to which Erasmus+ has helped schools in their digitalisation efforts.

40 In the context of the Erasmus+ programme, we found that the Commission had not defined “digitalisation” further, and had not clarified the impact to be achieved with the funding. The selection criteria for projects had not particularly emphasised ICT related projects or the digitalisation of schools. Before the COVID‑19 pandemic, there were more than 8 700 projects for school partnerships and strategic partnerships between schools and other organisations, which the Commission had approved since 2015. We estimate that only a negligible share of projects in the member states we visited aimed to increase digital competences or the adoption of new ICT based learning methods in schools. In August 2020, in response to the COVID‑19 pandemic, the Commission launched an additional call whereby it provided an additional €100 million to promote digital education readiness, which was directed at schools and other education entities²⁴. However, by 2022, projects financially supported under the call were still ongoing and results were not yet available.

41 In our sample of 10 projects for strategic partnerships which involved elements of digitalisation and had started before 2020, we found that, where they were not delayed by the COVID‑19 pandemic, the projects in question had achieved the intended outputs and supported participants with innovative learning and teaching solutions. However, their impact was mostly limited to participants. They were not embedded in or linked to national or regional digitalisation strategies, and coordination with other EU-financed or nationally-financed actions was not a requirement. Only in two of the projects we audited had new learning approaches become an integral part of the school’s curriculum. However, for these projects too, there was no information available about whether the approaches had been disseminated to schools that had not participated in the project.

EU financial support contributed to the digitalisation of schools but there were weaknesses in the allocation of funding

EU-financed actions were not always well embedded in national strategies for the digitalisation of schools

42 A strategic and coordinated approach within the member states or regions for investments in school infrastructure, the professional development of teachers, and the availability of e-content and concepts for digital teaching promises a greater impact on mainstreaming digital education in schools. Against this background, we examined whether EU‑financed actions in the member states we visited were at least well embedded in up-to-date national or regional strategies for the digitalisation of schools.

43 We found that EU‑financed actions were not always well embedded into national strategies for the digitalisation of schools. This is also explained by the fact that no such legal requirement exists in EU (or national) legislation. Given this context, we note that smart specialisation strategies, which were a pre-condition for member states or regions to receive Cohesion Policy funds for investments in the areas of research, technological development and innovation’ did not explicitly require actions aimed at the digitalisation of schools²⁵.

44 In Germany (North Rhine-Westphalia), the Digitalstrategie Schule NRW included loan devices for teachers (ultimately financed from the RRF) and students (financed under REACT-EU). However, both the planned national education platform and the support for centres of educational excellence (see Box 1), were not embedded in any digitalisation strategy. By mid of 2022, they remained isolated measures for supporting digitalisation in schools, because there was no governance framework to ensure that the Länder, which are the main players in education in Germany, and which have exclusive responsibility for school education, use the planned services for their schools. In our opinion, this may significantly reduce their added value for schools.

45 In Greece and Poland, EU‑funded projects such as the acquisition of devices were not embedded in a dedicated strategy for the digitalisation of schools in the 2014‑2020 period. As part of a general strategy to develop and expand the use of modern ICT‑based teaching methods for all levels and types of education, Croatia had incorporated the digitalisation of schools into a single project starting in 2015, thus enabling it to take a largely holistic approach to the digitalisation of its schools. In the Austrian strategy for supporting the digitalisation of schools, EU-financed actions played a central role in so far as the provision of devices to students was its financially most important element.

46 Although in Italy some actions financed from the 2014‑2020 Cohesion Policy programmes were well embedded in the National Plan for the Digitalisation of Schools (see paragraph 27), a new action plan supporting the new general strategy on digital competences referred to actions for the digitalisation of schools only insofar as these were to be financed from the RRF. However, although Italy had adopted the School 4.0 plan for equipping schools with innovative classrooms in June 2022, it had not updated its specific strategy for the digitalisation of schools. As a result, there is a lack of specification how the actions financed from the RRF will be complemented by other EU-actions financed by the 2021‑2027 Cohesion Policy programmes, or by nationally financed actions that were needed to ensure that the RRF-funded actions were fully effective.

47 Greece, which plans substantive investments in the digitalisation of schools to be financed from the RRF until 2025 (see Annex I), presented an overarching strategy in 2021 for the digital transformation of society and the economy (the “Bible for Digital Transformation 2020‑25”), which also covers education and schools. However, by 2022, there was only a rough estimate of the budget needed for actions to complement the RRF‑financed measures, and the relevant ministry had not translated priorities in the education sector into concrete action plans.

48 As, in the member states we visited, EU-financed actions were usually (with the exception of Croatia) single interventions, such as the acquisition of devices for teachers or students, or training for teachers, a lack of integration in relevant national or regional strategies raises the risk of fragmented use of EU funds, thus negatively affecting their potential impact.

EU financing enabled member states to support the digitalisation of schools, but sometimes merely replaced national funding that had already been allocated

49 Both, the Cohesion Policy funds for 2014‑2020 and support from the RRF are subject to the condition that they do not replace public or equivalent structural expenditure by a member state, do not substitute recurring national budgetary expenditure, and are additional to the support provided under other EU programmes and instruments (the principle of additionality)²⁶. We therefore examined whether EU‑financed actions for the digitalisation of schools were in line with this principle.

50 In our sample, we found actions for the digitalisation of schools in Germany (North Rhine-Westphalia) which were retroactively included in the German RRP: early in 2020, the regional authorities had already decided to finance the respective devices for teachers from the regional budget. This measure will now be re‑financed from the RRF. This approach was in line with the applicable rules and therefore accepted by the Commission during the negotiations of the German RRP. However, while it formally complies with the principle of additionality and the possibility of retroactivity as set out in the relevant legislation²⁷, we consider that there is no intrinsic added value of EU financing through the RRF in such a case.

EU‑financed actions contributed to the digitalisation of schools but the expected results of measures to be financed from the RRF have not been clearly defined

51 In the member states which used Cohesion Policy Funds for the digitalisation of schools, we examined whether the projects responded to the schools’ actual needs and whether they had achieved their intended outputs. As in 2022 most of the measures supported from the RRF were only about to start in the member states we visited, we assessed how clearly milestones and targets had been defined to mark progress. We also assessed which results were expected from the investments. In addition, we assessed individual measures in Germany (devices for teachers) and Austria (devices for students) in the schools which had already benefited from them.

52 Under the Cohesion Policy Funds, the EU-financed projects which we reviewed usually involved individual aspects of digitalisation, such as purchasing ICT equipment, training teachers, or providing digital learning material to the schools via dedicated platforms. Our analysis found that projects achieved their intended output in most cases, but we identified several factors that prevented the schools we visited from making the best use of the EU support (see Box 3).

53 Where member states use the RRF for the digitalisation of schools, milestones and targets which they have to satisfactorily fulfil for the disbursement of RRF support usually mention inputs or outputs such as amounts invested, devices acquired, or number of teachers trained. Another of our audits had already found that some milestones and targets lacked clarity, that not all key stages were covered, and that they measure output rather than impact²⁸. Impact indicators have by definition a longer time horizon, which may not be well suited to the limited timeframe for implementing the RRF. Avoiding impact indicators, however, considerably limits the possibility of assessing the performance of measures. Also in the present audit we found examples of weaknesses in the definition of milestones and targets, which did not refer to expected results for the digitalisation of schools. Consequently, full disbursement of funds to member states can take place, even if at that stage only poor results or no results have been achieved in schools (see Box 4).

54 Under the RRF, EU support is disbursed when a member state satisfactorily fulfils the targets and milestones defined in the Implementing Decision on the national RRP as adopted by the Council. For RRF-financed investments in the digitalisation of schools, member states had usually estimated the amounts included in the RRP by using data from similar actions in the past where such data were available, albeit – due to the urgency of the instrument – without conducting any cost-benefit analyses prior to their inclusion in the RRP. During the negotiations for the national RRPs, these estimates were then checked and validated by the Commission²⁹.

55 In contrast to other forms of EU support, under the RRF the actual costs of the measures borne by the member states can be higher or lower than the amounts included in the national RRP³⁰. In two member states, we found that the cost estimates for two measures already being implemented had been significantly higher than the actual costs incurred during implementation (see Box 5). The Commission uses these cost estimates to set the financial contribution to the member state³¹.

Schools were not sufficiently involved in establishing needs thus reducing the impact of EU funding

56 National or regional strategies for the digitalisation of schools can only serve as a starting point for defining what should be achieved by schools and what those schools specifically need. It is thus important that the needs of schools should be determined at an appropriate level, and with a view to improved learning outcomes for students. To this end, we examined how well the member states we visited had taken the needs of schools on board when defining the EU-funded projects.

57 The way schools can express their needs for digitalisation varies significantly in the member states we visited. For example, in Germany, local school authorities are responsible for connecting their schools and equipping them with devices, while the respective Land defines education policy, pays teachers’ salaries, and provides them with training. In Croatia, a single public entity is responsible for infrastructure, as well as for training teachers in ICT and providing software for digital learning material in public schools. In Italy, schools have a degree of autonomy in buying equipment and services, while the Ministry of Education is responsible for organising training for teachers and other support.

58 We found that schools were not always sufficiently involved in the acquisition process to express their needs, or could not take a strategic approach to digital education. EU-financed projects may thus achieve their targets and contribute to the digital development of schools, but they remain fragmented and have no significant impact on the digitalisation of schools as a whole (see Box 6).

59 For Cohesion Policy funds, and in the member states we visited, only Croatia had taken an approach using EU support within a single action to coordinate investments in ICT equipment, teachers’ professional development and e-content in order to enable all schools to use modern teaching methods and techniques, and innovative teaching and learning practices in a systematic manner. The other member states usually explained the overall need for support by the below-average connectivity of schools and digital skills, as demonstrated by national or international studies or evaluations. Sometimes, the operational programmes also referred to higher-level objectives such as reducing the number of early school-leavers, or improving the skills of teachers and students in general. In such cases, actions to support digitalisation were often complemented by actions not related to digitalisation, and it was not clear what specific results schools were expected to achieve with their digitalisation efforts.

Many schools do not yet exploit the potential of digitalisation

60 A key driver of the adoption of digital technologies in schools is appropriate curricula and training plans that encourage teachers and students to adopt new technologies across all school subjects. The availability and quality of instructional materials are themselves a condition for the digitalisation of schools, but they do not guarantee better learning. Schools and teachers must thus be able to use these resources to enhance learning and teaching, in particular with regard to ICT in education³².

61 In order to integrate ICT into daily school life on as broad a basis as possible, schools also need an approach that supports the use of digital education in class. Such support can be informal, for example by advising teachers about the benefits of digital education and training in general, or by formal strategies or written statements such as an “e‑policy” adopted at school level. This could also help schools to establish their own needs better.

62 In our survey, we asked schools about the equipment that was available, their view of teachers’ skills at using digital technologies in learning and teaching, and where they still saw the greatest need for action. According to the replies we received, nearly all respondent schools use digital devices in one way or another. However, the replies suggest that there are still significant differences in the quantity and quality of equipment available to schools, how well teachers are seen as being prepared for digital teaching, and how often and where digital teaching is actually used (see Annex III).

63 Although the member states we visited had introduced mandatory ICT lessons for certain classes, or were at least planning to do so, many schools that responded to our survey said that, outside dedicated ICT lessons, less than one third of students use a digital device for learning at school at least once a week. This means that in many schools the use of ICT is not yet common in all subjects (see Figure 7).

64 Neither the 2014‑2020 operational programmes nor the national RRPs we examined required schools benefiting from EU support to have strategies or concepts in place to ensure the broad use of digital technologies for teaching purposes.

65 In the member states we visited, only Austria legally requires schools, which had participated in the RRF-financed measure for equipping their students with digital devices, to establish a development and implementation plan to support education by using ICT and digital media to define short-, medium- and long-term objectives and actions³³. However, the relevant ministry had no up-to-date information about how many schools had actually complied with this legal requirement.

66 In Germany, the regional ministry of education in the Land of North Rhine‑Westphalia provided schools with a reference framework for school quality, and had made digital media concepts mandatory in schools in 2018 with a view to mainstreaming the adoption of digital teaching methods. In Italy, mainly due to the impact of the COVID‑19 pandemic on schools, the Ministry of Education asked schools in 2020 to adopt a plan for integrated digital teaching. In Greece, schools could opt to incorporate digital skills into their development plans on a voluntary basis.

67 We therefore asked schools if they had a formal strategy (or concept) for using digital technologies for teaching purposes. Such concepts may involve existing and desired school IT infrastructure, continuous ICT training for teachers, consciously using digital devices, using platforms and digital learning material for teaching purposes, or cyber security. At least half of the schools that responded to our survey did have such concepts in place (see Figure 8).

68 Our analysis of the survey replies also indicates that schools which have no e-policy in place use ICT less in the course of their teaching. In our opinion, this underlines the importance of formal approaches by schools to using the potential of digitalisation in the most effective manner.

Only a few member states assess the results achieved with EU support for the digitalisation of schools

69 The digitalisation of schools is not an end in itself, but an open process for supporting the development of students’ skills and improving learning outcomes. The acquisition of devices or the training of teachers are thus a pre‑requisite for the effective digitalisation of schools, but they are not in themselves indicative of the quality of digital education in schools. Monitoring the digitalisation process makes it easier to establish whether the resources employed are effective at achieving results for students. Monitoring and evaluation are also relevant for assessing the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of EU support³⁴. For this reason, we examined whether the Commission and the member states we visited had procedures for monitoring and evaluating the progress that schools had made in digital education with the aid of EU funds.

70 Since 2013, the Commission has supported the International Computer and Information Literacy Study, which assesses the ICT knowledge of students and teachers in selected countries worldwide every five years. The EU member states that participated in the latest available study (2018) were Denmark, the Czech Republic, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Portugal and Finland. The next study will be carried out in 2023.

71 Meanwhile, the Commission has no comprehensive data on the overall amounts spent for the digitalisation of schools. As digital education or the digitalisation of schools were not an explicit thematic objective of the Cohesion Policy Funds in the 2014‑2020 period, member states were not obliged to collect and report such data to the Commission. In addition, the Commission does not specifically monitor the contribution of EU funding to digital education.

72 There was also no requirement for those member states using EU funds for the digitalisation of schools to conduct specific assessments of the progress that schools have made in digital education with the aid of EU funds. The indicators which the member states were required to define for the purpose of monitoring the output and results of operational programmes under the Cohesion Policy Funds³⁵ focused on the investment priority as a whole. These indicators were either at too high a level to provide information about the progress schools had made in terms of digitalisation, or were limited to single actions such as the percentage of teachers who had completed training courses to improve their digital skills.

73 Similarly, due to the temporary nature of the RRF, the Commission did not ask member states that were using it to include monitoring and evaluation milestones in their RRPs or for evaluating the measures to support the digitalisation of schools. There is thus generally no requirement for the member states to assess whether the measures financed from the RRF have resulted in actual improvements in digital education.

74 We found in the member states we visited that only Croatia and Italy had approaches in place for systematically monitoring the progress of digitalisation of schools in receipt of EU support (see Box 7).

75 In the other member states, results were generally monitored only for individual projects, and no arrangements existed for regularly evaluating the impact of the EU‑financed measures on digital education. This makes it challenging to assess the extent to which EU support has improved the digitalisation of schools.

Only a few schools can use gigabit connectivity

The actual connectivity of many schools is still low

76 The availability of fast internet connections and networks in schools is a pre‑requisite for being able to use state‑of‑the‑art IT equipment. We thus examined whether the member states we visited had translated the 2025 strategic target for gigabit connectivity set by the Commission into national strategies or approaches for connecting all their schools by 2025, and whether the schools’ actual connectivity enables them to make good use of ICT.

77 While the Commission monitors general progress towards connectivity targets for households at EU level via the Digital Economy and Society Index, it has only limited information on the actual connectivity of schools, and does not specifically monitor it. All the member states we visited monitored overall progress on the connectivity of their schools, but we noted some difficulties in assessing actual connectivity in Germany, Austria and Poland. In Germany (North Rhine‑Westphalia), information on actual connectivity was contradictory. The regional ministry surveyed schools regularly, but its data deviated significantly from the data collected at federal level from telecommunications service providers. In Austria, the authorities only had outdated information, because they had not surveyed the schools since the start of the COVID‑19 pandemic. There were also technical difficulties in matching school addresses with the data in the national broadband atlas, the key source of information for gigabit availability. In Poland, monitoring already covered more than 85 % of schools, and was increasing with the progress made on connecting schools.

78 The Commission’s 2025 targets aim only at the availability of gigabit connections, not at the actual uptake of services by schools. In the member states covered by our audit, the contracts with telecommunications providers showed that only a small proportion of the surveyed schools actually use gigabit broadband connections and are thus able to make best use of the potential of ICT in digital education (see Figure 9).

79 In all the member states we visited we also observed that inadequate infrastructure prevents many schools from making the best use of available connections for teaching. Many school buildings are old and need to be upgraded with proper network cabling and Wi-Fi in classrooms.

Some member states may not achieve the 2025 gigabit target

80 We found that member states had varying approaches in the way they promoted the gigabit connectivity of their schools. In Germany (North Rhine‑Westphalia) the regional government aimed to connect all schools by the end of 2022. Austria planned to connect only its federal schools by the end of 2023, i.e. only 10 % of all schools. Responsibility for connecting other schools lies with local school authorities, which may – or may not – strive for fast connections for the schools within their remit. Croatia and Italy are aiming to connect school buildings by 2025, but their procurement processes set targets for the completion of works only for mid‑2026. Greece envisages connecting public administrations – including all schools – by 2027 (see Figure 10).

81 According to the latest update of a Commission study on National Broadband Plans in the EU‑27, only a few member states are close to reaching – or have already reached – even the Digital Agenda for Europe 2020 targets, which were less ambitious than the Gigabit Society target³⁶. The study did not specifically focus on schools, but concluded that member states have to intensify their efforts in order to reach – or get close to reaching – the Gigabit Society targets by 2025. In our opinion, the lack of stringent strategic planning in the member states and of dedicated programmes for connecting schools, combined with delays in the implementation of such programmes, make it unlikely that all schools in the EU will be connected to gigabit internet by 2025.

82 Only four of the six member states we visited (Germany, Italy, Austria, and Poland) had adopted dedicated support programmes to accelerate the connection of schools, for which Poland had already used EU financing before 2021. However, in Italy, despite a significant increase in the number of school buildings connected since the start of the programme in 2020, there were already significant delays in implementing the programme in some regions, thus putting the overall achievement of the 2025 target at risk.

Conclusions and recommendations

83 We conclude that EU supported actions helped schools in their digitalisation efforts, but that member states lacked strategic focus in the use of EU financing.

84 The Commission’s Digital Education Action Plan aims to support member states in addressing challenges for digital education by providing tools to help educators and trainers make better use of technology, for example by developing relevant digital skills and providing better evidence and analysis. However, by 2022, not all the member states we visited had dedicated strategies for the digitalisation of their schools, and most of them had not translated the action plan objectives into their strategies (see paragraphs 25-29).

85 While schools in some member states have been successful in adopting some important elements of the action plan, such aspects were still largely unknown to many schools in other member states. Until the outbreak of COVID‑19, digitalisation had not been a priority in the strategic partnership projects of schools financed under the Erasmus+ programme: only a few projects supported digitalisation, and their results were mostly limited to direct participants in the project (see paragraphs 30-41).

Recommendation 1 – Promote EU actions under the Digital Education Action Plan more actively and enhance impact of strategic partnerships

The Commission should more actively promote their own actions, such as SELFIE and EU Code Week, under the Digital Education Action Plan, for example by a closer cooperation with schools, and enhance the impact of strategic partnership actions on the digitalisation of schools.

Timeframe: by the end of 2024

86 Member states were not always successful at including EU-financed actions in national or regional strategies for the digitalisation of schools, something which could have reduced the risk of fragmented interventions financed from the EU budget and helped to achieve greater impact. There were also some member states which had not updated their strategies for the 2021‑2027 period, and where it was unclear how actions complementing EU-financed measures would be funded (see paragraphs 42-48).

87 EU‑financed actions examined for this audit formally complied with the principle of additionality. However, we also found instances where a member state retroactively included a measure in the national Recovery and Resilience Plan, which replaced national funding that had already been allocated before the Recovery and Resilience Facility came into being. While this is in line with the legislation, there is no intrinsic added value in financing such a case (see paragraphs 49 and 50).

88 In most cases, the EU-financed projects examined during this audit delivered their intended outputs but there were still factors that prevented the schools we visited from making the best use of EU financing. For measures supported by the Recovery and Resilience Facility we identified shortcomings in how milestones and targets were defined. In particular, none of the targets and milestones referred to expected results that the measures were supposed to achieve in terms of improving digital education. Moreover, cost estimates accepted by the Commission during the negotiations of the national plans for two measures examined for this audit did significantly differ from the actual costs incurred during implementation, resulting in excess amounts that constitute de facto budget support for member states. Finally, schools were often not sufficiently involved in establishing their own needs, which can reduce the impact of EU support (see paragraphs 51-59).

89 Nearly all schools now use digital devices but the availability of ICT equipment for schools or dedicated training for teachers does not guarantee better learning on a broad basis if schools have no approach for supporting the use of digital education in class. Many schools still report insufficient equipment, or further needs for the training of teachers, and there are also many which have still not adopted a formal approach to using ICT in class. This may prevent them from exploiting the full potential of digitalisation (see paragraphs 60-68).

90 The Commission still lacks comprehensive data on the overall amounts spent for the digitalisation of schools. Only a few member states assess the results they have achieved with EU financial support for improving digital education in schools, as there was no such requirement. Programme-specific indicators were not informative, and only two of the six member states we visited had approaches for systematically monitoring the progress schools had made in terms of digitalisation as a result of EU financial support (see paragraphs 69-75).

Recommendation 2 – Link EU funding more closely to objectives, needs and expected outcomes for schools

The Commission should take action, where appropriate in close cooperation with the member states, to strengthen the link:

1. between the objectives of the Digital Education Action Plan, EU support, and national or regional strategies for the digitalisation of schools;
2. between EU support for the digitalisation of schools and clearly defined objectives, needs and scalable outcomes for schools.

Timeframe: by the end of 2027

91 In 2016, the Commission set targets for the member states to connect schools to gigabit internet by 2025 and enable them to use state‑of‑the‑art IT equipment and adopt innovative ways of teaching and learning. The Commission has only limited information on the actual connectivity of schools and does not specifically monitor it. Only a small number of schools can actually use gigabit connections, and thus make best use of the potential of ICT in digital education (see paragraphs 76-79).

92 Member states had varying approaches to promoting the connection of schools: some had dedicated national support programmes while others had no specific strategy. A lack of stringent strategic planning and delays in implementing dedicated programmes make it unlikely that all schools in the EU will achieve the 2025 target for gigabit internet (see paragraphs 80-82).

Recommendation 3 – Monitor and encourage achievement of connectivity targets for all schools

In close cooperation with member states and regions, the Commission should:

1. set up a mechanism to periodically collect up-to-date data for monitoring the actual connectivity of schools, and report on the outcome; and
2. encourage member states to connect all schools to gigabit internet by 2025.

Target implementation date: by the end of 2025

This Report was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mrs Annemie Turtelboom, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 15 March 2023.

Annexes

Annex I – RRF financed measures for the digitalisation of schools

Annex II – Schools and projects visited for this audit

Source: Eurostat Maps.

Annex III – ECA School Survey

Purpose

The purpose of our survey was to obtain representative up-to-date information on the actual connectivity of schools, the role of digital education, and the use of EU tools and actions in this area, which was not otherwise available.

Conduct of the survey

We conducted the online survey between February and May 2022 using EUSurvey, a tool provided by the Commission for online surveys. The questionnaire was sent to the principals of 49 512 schools in five member states with training for levels 1‑3 of the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), i.e. to primary and lower and upper secondary education. ISCED is the benchmark international classification for organising education programmes and related qualifications by levels and fields developed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Participation in the survey was voluntary and no personal data were collected or evaluated.

We invited the ministries of the member states concerned by this audit to notify the schools of the upcoming publication of the survey. The authorities in Germany (North Rhine-Westphalia), Greece, Croatia, Italy, and Poland had informed schools about the survey beforehand, and encouraged participation.

Austrian schools were not covered by this survey as the national authorities decided not to support us in sending our questionnaires to their schools.

Response rate

In total, we received valid answers from 16 142 schools, i.e. an overall response rate of around 33 %. The response rate was highest in Croatia (around 49 %) and lowest in Italy (around 26 %).

Main survey questions

1. What is the download speed at your school according to the contract with the telecom provider?
   

   

2. Does your school have a formal strategy (concept) for the use of digital technologies for teaching purposes?
   

   

3. Which of these digital devices are used by your students for teaching purposes at school?
   

   

4. Can students bring entirely privately financed laptops or tablets to school lessons?
   

   

5. How many of your students use entirely privately financed laptops or tablets at least once a week during school lessons?
   

   

6. To what extent do you agree that the number of digital devices available to students at your school for teaching purposes is sufficient?
   

   

7. To what extent do you agree that the quality of digital devices available to students at your school for teaching purposes is sufficient?
   

   

8. How many of your students use a digital device (desktop computer, laptop, tablet etc.) at least once a week for learning at school, apart from usage during dedicated ICT lessons?
   

   

9. How often are the following digital learning activities undertaken during lessons?
   
   1. Search the internet to collect information
      

      

   2. Use a word processing, spreadsheet or presentation programme (e.g. Word, Excel, PowerPoint)
      

      

   3. Code/programming apps, programmes and/or robots
      

      

   4. Use digital technologies and devices when working on projects
      

      

   5. Learning with online training programmes, games, apps and quizzes
      

      

   6. Communication between teachers and students, and among students
      

      

   7. Use of online educational software and platforms
      

      

10. What percentage of teachers use entirely privately financed devices for teaching purposes at your school?
    

    

11. To what extent do you agree that the number of digital devices available to teachers for teaching purposes is sufficient at your school?
    

    

12. To what extent do you agree that the quality of digital devices available to teachers for teaching purposes is sufficient at your school?
    

    

13. To what extent do you agree that the majority of teachers at your school have the necessary skills and confidence in the effective use of digital technologies for learning and teaching?
    

    

14. How many of your teachers have attended training on using digital technologies in class in the last two school years (2019/20 and 2020/21)?
    

    

15. On average, how many hours of training did teachers receive on using digital technologies in class in the last two school years (2019/20 and 2020/21)?
    

    

16. Where do you see the greatest need for action?
    
    1. Improvement of the school’s internet speed
       

       

    2. Improvement of the school’s wireless LAN/Wi-Fi (untethered/wireless)
       

       

    3. Acquisition of digital devices for students (desktop computers, laptops, tablets)
       

       

    4. Acquisition of digital devices for teachers (desktop computers, laptops, tablets)
       

       

    5. Acquisition of interactive whiteboards and/or other classroom equipment
       

       

    6. Development of digital learning content, user-friendly tools and secure platforms
       

       

    7. Training for teachers to be digitally competent and confident
       

       

    8. Additional courses for students on using digital technologies (e.g. coding classes)
       

       

    9. Supporting the education system by improving the conditions for remote education, in particular in connection with the COVID‑19 pandemic
       

       

17. Which of the EU supported tools/platforms/actions do you know, are you using or have you participated in?
    
    1. SELFIE (Self‑assessment tool for digitally capable schools)
       

       

    2. eTwinning (Educational network)
       

       

    3. DigComp (European Digital Competence Framework)
       

       

    4. School Education Gateway (single point of entry for teachers, school leaders, policy makers, experts and other professionals in the field of school education)
       

       

    5. Future Classroom Lab (provided by the European School net and including training courses, working groups etc.)
       

       

    6. Living Schools Lab
       

       

    7. Digital Education Hackathon
       

       

    8. EU Code Week
       

       

    9. Projects promoting international school partnerships (e.g. exchanges, knowledge sharing)
       

       

Source: ECA survey.

Annex IV – Milestones and targets for RRF measures supporting the digitalisation of schools in the member states we visited

Abbreviations

CSR: Country specific recommendations

ERDF: European Regional Development Fund

ESF: European Social Fund

ESIF: European Structural and Investment Funds

ICT: Information and communication technology

ISCED: International Standard Classification of Education

NGEU: NextGenerationEU

NRW: North Rhine-Westphalia

REACT-EU: Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe

RRF: Recovery and Resilience Facility

RRP: Recovery and Resilience Plan

VAT: Value added tax

Glossary

Cohesion policy: The EU policy which aims to reduce economic and social disparities between regions and member states by promoting job creation, business competitiveness, economic growth, sustainable development, and cross-border and interregional cooperation.

Cohesion policy funds: Provide financial support within the framework of the EU Cohesion Policy, through multi-annual programmes, which complement national, regional and local interventions. The relevant funds for this audit are the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF).

Digital education ecosystem: A digital learning and teaching infrastructure which supports all aspects of a digitally transformed educational system.

Digitalisation: Introducing digital technology and digitised information to processes and tasks.

Digitalisation of schools: In the context of this report, the process of systematically introducing ICT to teaching and learning in schools.

Erasmus+: EU programme to support education, training, youth and sport in Europe.

European Regional Development Fund: Cohesion policy fund that strengthens economic and social cohesion in the EU by financing investments that reduce imbalances between regions.

European Semester: Annual cycle which provides a framework for coordinating the economic policies of EU member states and monitoring progress.

European Social Fund: Cohesion policy fund for creating educational and employment opportunities and improving the situation of people at risk of poverty. Superseded by the European Social Fund Plus.

Gigabit: Unit of measurement of digital information, equivalent to one billion bits.

Gigabit internet: Internet service that offers a connection speed of 1 gigabit per second.

NextGenerationEU: Funding package to help EU member states recover from the economic and social impact of the COVID‑19 pandemic.

Operational programme: Framework for implementing EU-funded cohesion projects in a set period, reflecting the priorities and objectives laid down in partnership agreements between the Commission and individual member states.

REACT-EU: NextGenerationEU programme that provides additional funding for existing cohesion policy programmes to support crisis recovery while promoting green and digital transformation.

Recovery and Resilience Facility: The EU’s financial support mechanism to mitigate the economic and social impact of the COVID‑19 pandemic and stimulate recovery in the mid-term, while promoting green and digital transformation.

Replies of the Commission

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=63783

Timeline

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=63783

Audit team

The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its audits of EU policies and programmes, or of management-related topics from specific budgetary areas. The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks to performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and public interest.

This performance audit was carried out by Audit Chamber II Investment for cohesion, growth and inclusion spending areas, headed by ECA Member Annemie Turtelboom. The audit was led by ECA Member Pietro Russo, supported by Chiara Cipriani, Head of Private Office and Benjamin Jakob, Private Office Attaché; Niels‑Erik Brokopp, Principal Manager; Sven Kölling, Head of Task; Fabio Fattore, Marija Grgurić, Marina Karystinou, Rene Reiterer, and Angelika Zych, Auditors. Miłosz Aponowicz, Kyriaki Kofini, and Mark Smith provided linguistic support.

From left to right: Fabio Fattore, Niels‑Erik Brokopp, Benjamin Jakob, Pietro Russo, Sven Kölling, Angelika Zych, Marina Karystinou, Rene Reiterer.

Endnotes

¹ European Commission, 2022.

² Survey of Schools: ICT in education: benchmarking access, use and attitudes to technology in Europe’s schools, 2013, and 2nd Survey of Schools: ICT in Education, 2019.

³ (2020), PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools, p. 113, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris.

⁴ (2020), Strengthening online learning when schools are closed: The role of families and teachers in supporting students during the COVID-19 crisis; OECD Publishing, Paris.

⁵ Article 165(1) TFEU.

⁶ European Commission, Eurydice National Education Systems.

⁷ European Pillar of Social Rights, Gothenburg, 2017.

⁸ Communication from the Commission on its contribution to the Leaders' meeting in Gothenburg, COM(2017) 673, 14 November 2017.

⁹ Communication from the Commission on the Digital Education Action Plan, COM(2018) 22, 17 January 2018.

¹⁰ Communication from the Commission on Connectivity for a Competitive Digital Single Market - Towards a European Gigabit Society, COM(2016) 587, 14 September 2016.

¹¹ Communication from the Commission on a digital agenda for Europe, COM(2010) 245, 19 May 2010.

¹² Article 9 points (2) and (10) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013.

¹³ Regulation (EU) 2020/2221.

¹⁴ Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund.

¹⁵ Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+).

¹⁶ Regulation (EU) 2021/241.

¹⁷ For a list of measures we identified in the RRPs, see Annex I.

¹⁸ Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013.

¹⁹ Regulation (EU) 2021/817.

²⁰ Regulation (EU) 2021/1153.

²¹ Communication from the Commission on Connectivity for a Competitive Digital Single Market - Towards a European Gigabit Society, COM(2016) 587.

²² Special report 12/2018 “Broadband in the EU Member States: despite progress, not all the Europe 2020 targets will be met”.

²³ Special report 21/2022 “The Commission’s assessment of national recovery and resilience plans: Overall appropriate but implementation risks remain”.

²⁴ Coronavirus response: Extraordinary Erasmus+ calls to support digital education readiness and creative skills.

²⁵ Article 19 together with Annex XI of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013.

²⁶ Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 and Articles 5(1) and 9 of Regulation (EU) 2021/241. See also our review 01/2023 “EU financing through cohesion policy and the Recovery and Resilience Facility: A comparative analysis“, paragraph 44.

²⁷ Article 9 and 17 of Regulation (EU) 2021/241.

²⁸ Special report 21/2022 “The Commission’s assessment of national recovery and resilience plans: overall appropriate but implementation risks remain”, paragraphs 82-84, and 89.

²⁹ Special report 21/2022, paragraphs 66-72.

³⁰ Review 01/2023, paragraph 43.

³¹ Article 20(4) of Regulation (EU) 2021/241.

³² (2020), PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools, p. 112, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris.

³³ Article 2(1) of the federal law on financing the digitalisation of the Austrian school system (the Schuldigitalisierungsgesetz).

³⁴ Article 34 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 and Article 54 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013.

³⁵ Article 27(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013.

³⁶ Updated Study on National Broadband Plans in the EU27, 2021.

Contact

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1
Enquiries: www.eca.europa.eu/en/contact
Website: eca.europa.eu
Twitter: @EUAuditors

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (https://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2023

PDF	ISBN 978-92-847-9894-0	ISSN 1977-5679	doi:10.2865/246156	QJ-AB-23-011-EN-N
HTML	ISBN 978-92-847-9875-9	ISSN 1977-5679	doi:10.2865/59931	QJ-AB-23-011-EN-Q

COPYRIGHT

© European Union, 2023

The reuse policy of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) is set out in ECA Decision No 6-2019 on the open data policy and the reuse of documents.

Unless otherwise indicated (e.g. in individual copyright notices), ECA content owned by the EU is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. As a general rule, therefore, reuse is authorised provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. Those reusing ECA content must not distort the original meaning or message. The ECA shall not be liable for any consequences of reuse.

Additional permission must be obtained if specific content depicts identifiable private individuals, e.g. in pictures of ECA staff, or includes third-party works.

Where such permission is obtained, it shall cancel and replace the above-mentioned general permission and shall clearly state any restrictions on use.

To use or reproduce content that is not owned by the EU, it may be necessary to seek permission directly from the copyright holders.

Figure 2 – Icons: This figure has been designed using resources from Flaticon.com. © Freepik Company S.L. All rights reserved.

Software or documents covered by industrial property rights, such as patents, trademarks, registered designs, logos and names, are excluded from the ECA’s reuse policy.

The European Union’s family of institutional websites, within the europa.eu domain, provides links to third-party sites. Since the ECA has no control over these, you are encouraged to review their privacy and copyright policies.

Use of the ECA logo

The ECA logo must not be used without the ECA’s prior consent.

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU

In person
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you online (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en).

On the phone or in writing
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service:

• by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
• at the following standard number: +32 22999696,
• via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en.

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU

Online
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website (european-union.europa.eu).

EU publications
You can view or order EU publications at op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications can be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en).

EU law and related documents
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex (eur-lex.europa.eu).

EU open data
The portal data.europa.eu provides access to open datasets from the EU institutions, bodies and agencies. These can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets from European countries.