Policy Learning: EU investments in Secondary Education in SEE

Knowledge Economy Forum IV

Istanbul, 23 March 2005 Arjen Vos

2

What is the terminology?

EU

•Competitiveness

•Educational attainment

•Low skills

•Early school leavers

•Geographical and professional mobility

•Investment in human resources and quality

•Innovation in teaching and learning

South East Europe

•Weak governance

•Poor infrastructure

•Outdated curricula

•Rigid structures (early differentiation, lack of pathways)

•Weak skills teachers and school directors

•Few links between schools and enterprises

•Problematic transition from school to work

•Lack of second chance opportunities for early drop outs

•Lack of data and information management

3

The Socio-Economic Context in SEE is different

• Insufficient economic growth, not leading to more jobs• Poor investment climate• Low technological innovation• High levels of unemployment, few job opportunities• Large informal sector• High poverty• Skills mismatch• Brain drain

4

Is the EU message about benchmarks?

It looks like………………..

55

The EU employment targets for 2010and other key employment indicators

Sources: Eurostat (Structural Indicators Webpage), ETF (Key Indicators database)[*] Most recent year for which data is available

AL* 36% MK 49%

MON 62.2%

BG 56% HR* 46%

RO* 35% TR* 26%55.3%69.2%[*]Emploment in

services (% of total)

AL* 15% MK 35.8%

BA*43% MON*23%SR* 20.2

BG 12.2% HR* 14.3%

RO 8.1 % TR* 10.7%14.8%9.0%Unemployment rate

50%

Over 60%

70%

EU 2010

Youth unemploymentrate

Employment in agriculture (% of total)

Employment rate ofolder workers

Female employmentrate

Employment rate

18.3%[*]

5.2%[*]

40.2%

55.7%

63.2%

EU 25

(2004)

31.9%

13%

30.5%

50.2%

55.9%

New EU 10

(2002)

BG 24.5% HR* 35.9%

RO 20.7% TR 23.7%

BG 11% HR* 17%

RO* 34.1% TR* 32.8%

BG 33.3% HR* 28.4 %

RO 38.5% TR* 33.5%

BG 51.6% HR* 46.3%

RO 53.5 % TR 25.7%

BG 55.1% HR* 53.4%

RO 58.7% TR* 45.8%

CCs (2004)

AL* 35.5% MK 61%

MON*51.3%

AL* 51% MK 20%

MON* 21.4%

AL* 27.5%

MK* 27.7%

AL* 40.1%

MK* 30.7%

AL* 53.7% MK* 39.3% MON*49.8%

SEE (2004)

6

5

The 5 EU benchmarks in education and trainingSources: Eurostat (Structural Indicators Webpage), OECD (PISA database), ETF (Key Indicators database)

[*] Most recent year for which data is available

12.5%

Decrease by 20%

746 000

Increase by 15%

85%

10%

EU 2010

Lifelong learning (2004)

% of 25-64 participating in education and training

% of pupils with low readingliteracy Level 1 or below

(PISA 2003)

Total tertiary educationgraduates in maths, science

and technology (2001)

Youth educational attainment

% of 20-24 having completed

at least ISCED 3 level (2004)

Early school leavers (2004)

% of 18-24 with at most lower secodary education (ISCED 2)

and not in further education

EU Benchmarks

Education and Training

10.1%

OECD

19.1%

568 000

73.5%

18.0%

EU 15

9.4%

CZ 19.4%

HU 20.5%

LV 18%

649 000

76.4%

15.9%

EU 25

BG 1.3%

HR* 2.1%

RO 1.6%

TR 2.3%

BG* 40.3%

RO* 41.3%

TR 36.8%

RO 18 400

BG 9 100

BG 76%

HR* 90.7%

RO 74.8%

BG 22.4%

HR* 8.4%

RO 23.6%

TR* 52.9%

CCs

SR* 3.8%

MK* 1.9%

AL* 70.3%

MK* 62.6%

SR 46.7%

AL* 61.2%

MK* 36.2%

SEE

W. Balkans

7

……it only gives a general orientation:

• The benchmarks are a tool agreed by all EU Member States to measure some indicators of progress

• They are limited in scope• They are about quantity, more than quality• They may give rise to questions or competition.

8

Developments in SEE Education Reforms: Strengths

• Recognition of the problems and what they have to change (awareness)

• Policy development in particular in general education and IVET

• Establishment of legislative and institutional infrastructure• Open to donor’s projects and innovation

9

Developments in SEE Education Reforms: Weaknesses

• Insufficient priority setting and little analysis of critical constraints (implementation)

• Little involvement of and consensus building with social partners and other key stakeholders

• Discontinuity of reforms• “Legalistic” approach to reforms• Insufficient tools for decision making and monitoring

10

Which lessons can be drawn from EU for SEE?

• Lisbon strategy: Human capital is a key asset of Europe• Invest more in your human resources: it pays off for

economic development and for social development!• Make Lifelong Learning a reality• Make education more attractive, bring it closer to work• Develop partnerships• Develop continuously the competences of teachers

11

But it also means:

• Parity of esteem of general secondary and vocational education is the objective

• Make learning more flexible, create pathways• Develop targeted efforts for disadvantaged groups• Develop broad occupational competences through workplace

learning, promote key competences• Education and training are built on national traditions• There is diversity and there is no best model

12

Why does EU invest in Education and Training in SEE, and in particular in VET and Higher Education?

• VET is considered a key sector with 62.7% of all EU students at ISCED 3 level in 2002 (was 60.5% in 1999)

• VET can be attractive for large groups of students, for whom general education may be too theoretical

• VET has been hit hard in the transition process; relations between schools and enterprises to be re-established

• Large VET infrastructure is available; raise the quality before building up new structures

• People to people cooperation in higher education

13

How does the EU invest in VET in SEE?

• Capacity building for policy makers• Involvement of key stakeholders• Labour market analysis• Develop broader qualifications in qualification framework• Re-establishing relations schools-enterprises• Modernise curricula, include core skills• Train teachers

14

ETF Approach: Policy Learning (1)

• From policy copying and policy taking to policy learning• Knowledge sharing and exchange of good examples of

practice to enable decision makers to design and implement their reform

• Evolution more than revolution• Reform projects need to reflect local reality, take institutional

structure into account and involve all relevant stakeholders• VET Reform process is at least as important as the final

products

15

ETF Approach: Policy Learning (2)

No single best solutions for the ‘HOW’:• to organise the system• to get the right balance between general and vocational

education• to define a national qualification framework• to structure the involvement of social partners

National solutions must be found on basis of

well informed decisions!

16

ETF Approach: Policy Learning (3)

Policy learning is about:

• Raising quality of reform process • Empowering local decision makers and institutions • ETF as a dialogue partner and a facilitator

17

THANK YOU

More info: WWW.ETF.EU.INT