COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the 2021-2030 European Education Area strategic framework Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the interim evaluation of the 2021-2030 European Education Area strategic framework

EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 30.6.2025
SWD(2025) 169 final
PART 1/2
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EVALUATION
of the 2021-2030 European Education Area strategic framework
Accompanying the document
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
on the interim evaluation of the 2021-2030 European Education Area strategic
framework
{COM(2025) 340 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2025) 0340 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2025
Table of contents
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................1
PURPOSE, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE EVALUATION .......................................................................1
2. WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION?.................................4
2.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION AND ITS OBJECTIVES...................................................................4
2.2. POINT(S) OF COMPARISON ....................................................................................................................6
3. HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD?...................8
CURRENT STATE OF PLAY............................................................................................................................8
4. EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART)....................................................................10
4.1. TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE INTERVENTION SUCCESSFUL AND WHY? .................................................10
4.1.1. Overall effectiveness ..................................................................................................................10
4.1.2. Effectiveness by EEA implementation instruments ....................................................................12
4.1.3. Effectiveness by EEA strategic priorities...................................................................................15
4.1.4. Promoting education and training from a global perspective ...................................................18
4.1.5. Efficiency....................................................................................................................................19
4.1.6. Coherence ..................................................................................................................................22
4.2. HOW DID THE EU INTERVENTION MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND TO WHOM?............................................24
4.3. IS THE INTERVENTION STILL RELEVANT?............................................................................................27
5. WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN AND LESSONS LEARNT?................................29
5.1. EEA SP AND EU-LEVEL TARGETS......................................................................................................29
5.2. EEA DESIGN.......................................................................................................................................31
5.3. EEA REPORTING, MONITORING AND EVALUATION .............................................................................32
5.4. EEA COMMUNICATION AND DISSEMINATION .....................................................................................33
5.5. RESULTS AT MEMBER STATE LEVEL ..................................................................................................34
5.6. RESULTS AT EUROPEAN LEVEL...........................................................................................................35
5.7. EEA PRIORITIES, ACTION STRANDS AND MONITORING .......................................................................37
Glossary
Terms and acronyms are used for both singular and plural forms.
Term or acronym Meaning or definition
AES Adult Education Survey
AI Artificial intelligence
CARE Cohesion’s Action for Refugees in Europe
CB High-Level Group on Education and Training Coordination Board
CPD Continuous professional development
CSR Country-specific recommendations
DEAP Digital Education Action Plan
DEQAR Database of External Quality Assurance Results
DG Directorate-General
DG EAC Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture
DG EMPL Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
ECEC Early childhood education and care
EDUC Education Committee
EEA European Education Area
EENEE European Expert Network on Economics of Education
EFTA European Free Trade Association
EIT European Institute of Innovation and Technology
EIT HEI European Institute of Innovation and Technology Innovation Capacity Building for Higher Education
EP European Parliament
EPALE Electronic Platform for Adult Learning in Europe
EQAR European Quality Assurance Register
EQF European Qualifications Framework
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
ESF+ European Social Fund Plus
ET2010 Education and Training 2010
ET2020 Education and Training 2020
ETM Education and Training Monitor
EU European Union
EYCS Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council
HE Higher education
HEI Higher education institution
HLG High-Level Group on Education and Training
ICILS International Computer and Information Literacy Study
ICT Information and communications technology
ITE Initial teacher training
LFS EU Labour Force Survey
LGBTIQ Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer
MS Member State
NESET Network of Experts working on the Social Dimension of Education and Training
NQF National Qualifications Framework
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
PISA Programme for International Student Assessment
REACT-EU Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe
RRF Recovery and Resilience Facility
SGIB Standing Group on Indicators and Benchmarks
SP Strategic priority
STEM Science, technology, engineering and mathematics
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
TSI Technical Support Instrument
UN United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
UOE UNESCO-UIS / OECD / Eurostat joint data collection
VET Vocational education and training
WG (EEA strategic framework) working group
WG DELTA Working Group on Digital Education: learning, teaching and assessment
WG ECEC Working Group on Early Childhood Education and Care
WG Equality and Values Working Group on Equality and Values in Education and Training
WG HE Working Group on Higher Education
WG Schools Working Group on Schools
WG Schools – Pathways Working Group on Schools sub-group Pathways to School Success
WG Schools – Learning for
Sustainability
Working Group on Schools sub-group Learning for Sustainability
WG VET and the Green
Transition
Working Group on Vocational Education and Training (VET) and the Green Transition
1
1. INTRODUCTION
This staff working document describes the purpose and methodology and presents the main
findings of the European Commission’s interim evaluation of the strategic framework for
European cooperation in education and training towards the European Education Area
(EEA) 2021-2030. The EEA strategic framework was set out by the Council Resolution of
February 20211
, and complemented by the Council Resolution on the strategic
framework’s governance structure of November 20212
and the Council Resolution ‘The
European Education Area: Looking to 2025 and beyond’ of May 20233
.
Purpose, scope and methodology of the evaluation
Purpose
Based on the 2021 Council Resolution establishing the EEA strategic framework, and in
line with the European Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines, the purpose was to
evaluate the EEA at the midpoint of the 2021-2030 strategic framework, assessing its
effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value. In line with the
Council Resolution, the results of this evaluation will inform reflections on and
preparations for European cooperation towards the EEA in the next cycle (2026-2030),
with the aim of reinforcing the EEA’s contribution to Europe’s competitiveness,
preparedness and resilience, social cohesion, equity and fairness, as well as democracy and
EU values.
Scope
Data was collected in a structured way between 2021, when the Council Resolution on the
EEA strategic framework was adopted, and June 2024. The evaluation was discussed and
completed with inputs from Member State (MS) representatives at the meetings of the
High-Level Group (HLG) on Education and Training held in July and December 2024.
The evaluation assesses progress towards building the EEA at EU and MS level. It covers
the five EEA strategic priorities (SP) outlined in the Council Resolution of 2021 (see Table
2) and the six EEA implementation instruments (see Table 1). The global perspective of
cooperation is also considered.
Methodology
The Commission’s interim evaluation has been supported by an external support study,
which was carried out between January 2024 and March 20254
. It collected evidence
through desk research (portfolio analysis, policy context analysis, literature review,
citation analysis) and an extensive stakeholder consultation strategy consisting of
interviews, surveys and focus groups. The consultation strategy took a fully participatory
approach, engaging relevant EEA actors5
and the wider education and training community
through open and targeted consultation activities, as summarised in Figure 1. An
interservice group made up of relevant Commission departments oversaw the evaluation.
1
OJ C 66, 26.2.2021. This Council Resolution was preceded by the Commission’s Communication on achieving the
EEA by 2025, (COM/2020/625 final).
2
OJ C 497, 10.12.2021
3
OJ C 185, 26.5.2023. This Council Resolution was preceded by the Commission’s Communication on Progress towards
the achievement of the EEA, (COM/2022/700 final).
4
See Support study for the interim evaluation of the EEA (2021-2030) (July 2025).
5
EEA actors are the participants (policymakers, practitioners, stakeholder representatives, experts, etc.) participants in
activities under the EEA implementation instruments, who act as multipliers towards their organisations and thus help
generate impact at the level of education and training systems.
2
Figure 1. Stakeholders’ participation in consultation activities
The data gathered was analysed by applying five main analytical techniques:
▪ portfolio analysis to assess the comprehensiveness and complementarity of the
activities under each of the EEA implementation instruments to achieve progress
towards the SP;
▪ contribution analysis to assess the extent to which the EEA and its
implementation instruments have contributed to the effects observed;
▪ qualitative comparative analysis to identify the conditions required for EEA
implementation instruments to support actual reform processes in MS based on an
analysis of national case studies;
▪ most significant change narratives to identify EEA actors’ understanding of the
EEA, and what they value the most about European cooperation towards the EEA;
▪ cost-effectiveness analysis to assess a selected number of illustrative processes
and activities under the EEA implementation instruments in terms of costs accrued
and benefits generated.
The EU competence as outlined in the Treaties6
and the open method of coordination7
in
the field of education carried certain implications for the intervention logic8
. The EEA
contributes to the development of education policies by encouraging cooperation and
supporting and supplementing MS’ actions. The impact of the EEA relies largely on MS
activities, their interest in exchanging and learning from each other, their use of the
instruments available at EU level and committing resources at national, regional and local
levels to pursue the common objectives.
6
Articles 165 and 166 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.
7
The open method of coordination in the EU may be described as a form of ‘soft’ law. It is a form of intergovernmental
policymaking that does not result in binding EU legislative measures, and it does not require EU countries to introduce
or amend their laws.
8
See intervention logic in Figure 2 below.
3
The evaluation faced several limitations, in particular:
▪ the broad scope of the EEA limiting the level of detail the evaluation can provide
for each activity and making assessment of overarching impacts challenging;
▪ the results of the European cooperation towards the EEA on national, regional, and
local policies being non-linear and also influenced by the EU’s broader agenda and
other international initiatives;
▪ the indirect impact of European cooperation towards the EEA on the ground,
making quantification of its contribution to results and impacts impossible;
▪ the short implementation timeframe limiting the ability of the evaluation to
comprehensively assess impacts;
▪ the lack of a clear baseline to measure progress against, as this is the first evaluation
of an overarching EU education and training policy framework.
To mitigate these limitations, the data collection tools were designed to capture concrete
examples of impact, and contribution analysis was used to validate assumptions that would
allow for conclusions on impact to a higher degree of certainty. The methodology,
including how it addressed the above limitations, is detailed in Annexes I and II.
Table 1. EEA implementation instruments
EEA implementation
instrument
Scope
Governance
Council of the EU (Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council (EYCS)) and the
Council’s Education Committee (EDUC)
HLG and its Coordination Board (CB)
Directors-General (DG) formations
EEA strategic framework working groups (WG), Standing Group on Indicators and
Benchmarks (SGIB) and other Commission expert groups
Communities of practice like the Learning Lab on Investing in Quality Education
and Training
Mobilisation of EU funds
and instruments for
national reforms
Alignment of funding priorities (e.g. European Social Fund Plus (ESF+), European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) including Interreg, Recovery and Resilience
Facility (RRF)) with EEA SP and take-up of structural support for reforms
(Technical Support Instrument, TSI)
Strategic EEA initiatives
Initiatives adopted by the Commission and/or the Council, including Commission
Communications and Council Recommendations. Evaluation covered 19 of such
initiatives (adopted and/or implemented under the first 2021-2025 cycle of the
EEA strategic framework). (See Annex III for full list.)
EU-level projects and calls
Projects and calls funded at EU level (primarily through Erasmus+ programme)
aimed at learners, practitioners and/or education and training institutions.
Evaluation covered 17 of such projects and calls. (See Annex III for full list.)
Reporting, monitoring and
evaluating progress
EU-level targets in education and training9
Education and Training Monitor (ETM)
Indicators developed by SGIB
Country-specific recommendations (CSR) as part of the European Semester
DG EAC-DG EMPL EEA Taskforce
Communication and
dissemination
EEA portal
European Education Summits
EU platforms like the European School Education Platform
EEA midterm review event
EEA communication contract
Sector specific events and communication campaigns linked to specific initiatives
or projects
9
The following seven EU-level targets should be attained to fully realise the EEA: (1) The share of low-achieving 15-
year-olds in reading, mathematics and science should be less than 15%, by 2030; (2) The share of low-achieving eight-
graders in computer and information literacy should be less than 15%, by 2030; (3) At least 96% of children between
3 years old and the starting age for compulsory primary education should participate in early childhood education and
care, by 2030; (4) The share of early leavers from education and training should be less than 9%, by 2030; (5) The
share of 25-34-year-olds with tertiary educational attainment should be at least 45%, by 2030; (6) The share of recent
graduates from VET benefiting from exposure to work-based learning during their vocational education and training
should be at least 60%, by 2025; (7) At least 47% of adults aged 25-64 should have participated in learning during the
last 12 months, by 2025.
4
2. WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION?
2.1. Description of the intervention and its objectives
Education and training systems are essential for boosting Europe’s competitiveness,
democracy and cohesion, and are the foundation for personal fulfilment, employability,
and active and responsible citizenship. The right to quality and inclusive education,
training and lifelong learning is the first principle of the European Pillar of Social Rights.
The EEA (2021-2030) is a single overarching framework that brings together education
and training policies and investments across the EU to deliver high-quality education and
training for all, in line with Articles 165 and 166 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU). It supports MS in developing their national education and
training systems in line with shared priorities and strengthens transnational cooperation on
education and training, which is voluntary. European cooperation towards the EEA builds
on previous cooperation frameworks, notably Education and Training 2020 and Education
and Training 2010 (ET2020 and ET2010 respectively). Erasmus+ is the main EU
programme in the area of education and training and is a key enabler of the EEA.
The strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training towards the
EEA sets out five SP.
Table 2. EEA SP as set out in the 2021 Council Resolution
SP1 Improving quality, equity, inclusion, and success for all in education and training
SP2 Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality for all
SP3 Enhancing competences and motivation in the education profession (teachers and trainers)
SP4 Reinforcing European higher education
SP5 Supporting the green and digital transitions in and through education and training
European cooperation towards the EEA supports MS in their efforts to build more resilient,
high-quality inclusive education that covers all learning contexts (formal, non-formal and
informal learning) across all levels – from early childhood education and schools to higher
education, vocational education and training, and adult learning. It acknowledges the role
of a global perspective in cooperation on education and training, which has become an
essential component of EU external policies, grounded in European values and the
principles of cooperation and solidarity.
The EEA provides a comprehensive framework for cooperation that can help bridge the
innovation gap and equip learners with the digital, green and cross-cutting skills that are
essential for creating a resilient and competitive economy. Robust education and training
systems are a necessary condition for a thriving single market, which is critical for
fostering research and development, driving digital and green innovation, and securing
strategic autonomy10, 11
. Furthermore, European cooperation towards the EEA contributes
to the development of a more inclusive and participatory democracy by promoting
democratic values and by empowering individuals to participate actively in Europe’s
democratic processes. By enhancing access to lifelong learning and facilitating mobility
across borders, the EEA strategic framework reinforces social cohesion and ensures that
Europe’s knowledge and skills base is future-ready.
10
Letta, Enrico. (2024). Much more than a market
11
Draghi, Mario. (2024). The future of European competitiveness
5
Intervention logic of the EEA 2021-2030
The EEA supports MS in their efforts to develop, reform and evaluate policies and
practices, and strengthens transnational cooperation in education and training. The impact
of the EEA on policy debates and decision-making processes can range from agenda
setting to direct contributions on shaping new strategies or measures. The EEA also enables
more effective cooperation between policymakers, civil society organisations, social
partners, practitioners, and academic and policy researchers in the areas related to EEA
SP. At operational level this means that European cooperation towards the EEA seeks to:
▪ build synergies between different levels of governance;
▪ enable and support co-creation and mutual learning;
▪ ensure alignment between funding and policy priorities;
▪ carry out dissemination and communication activities;
▪ encourage an evidence-informed approach to policy design and investment;
▪ improve performance monitoring and analysis of progress towards EU-level
targets.
These general and operational objectives are pursued through six EEA implementation
instruments. Each objective can be addressed through one or several instruments. Each
instrument is associated with a set of unique activities and outputs (see Section 3).
Figure 2. Intervention logic of the EEA
6
2.2. Point(s) of comparison
Points of comparison between ET2020 and the EEA strategic framework
There is a high level of connection and continuity between the activities carried out under
ET2020 and those carried out under the EEA. The 2019 assessment of ET2020’s tools and
deliverables highlighted the potential of the initiative to further strengthen European
cooperation in education and training12
. Although the ET2020 strategic objectives were
considered broad and flexible, the need to streamline them was highlighted, as this would
help make the framework a strong and consistent driving force for change across education
and training systems. The governance structure of ET2020 included a High-level group,
whose informal nature was highly appreciated, but it was felt that the group needed a
stronger role on steering strategic issues. The working groups were assessed as adequate
for addressing ET2020 objectives and priorities and considered an important forum for
cooperation on sectoral and cross-cutting issues related to education and training.
As such, the EEA strategic framework was designed to build upon previous cooperation
frameworks, with some adjustments.
Points of comparison between the intended impacts of the EEA strategic framework
The long-term impacts of the EEA are expected to include improved education and training
and better labour market outcomes. To establish a baseline with points for comparison,
three groups of indicators were considered as appropriate for measuring the long-term
impact of European cooperation towards the EEA, namely: (i) participation in education
and training (including attainment of qualifications); (ii) the achievement of skills; and (iii)
labour market outcomes. The points of comparison focused on trends – wherever possible
– prior to the launch of the EEA strategic framework.
Crises occurring during the period in the focus of this evaluation (such as the COVID-19
pandemic and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine) have had a considerable impact
on education and training systems and the labour market. It should be noted that the EEA
is only one of the contributing initiatives (at various levels) that seek to promote the aims
of the SP and the EU-level targets. These trends should therefore not be regarded as
illustrating the impact (or lack thereof) of European cooperation towards the EEA, but
rather the context in which such cooperation takes place.
Participation in education and training, and attainment of qualifications
Several EU-level indicators relate to the levels of participation in education and training
and to obtaining qualifications13
. On average in the EU, participation in early childhood
education and care (ECEC) stood at 92.5% in 2021, demonstrating good progress towards
the target of at least 96% of children starting ECEC from the age of 3 by 2030. Early school
leaving rates have dropped over the past few years, with an EU average of 9.8% in 2021,
slightly above the 2030 target of less than 9%. Progress has also been made in tertiary
educational attainment, with 41.5% of 25-34-year-olds having completed a short-cycle
tertiary, bachelor, master, doctoral or equivalent level of education in 2021 (EU target: at
least 45% by 2030). Finally, participation rates in adult learning (excluding guided on-the-
job training) steadily increased from 34.4% to 37.4% between 2011 and 2016 (latest
available data for establishing a baseline). However, this is still significantly below the
12
Assessment of tools and deliverables under the framework for European cooperation in education and training
(ET2020), European Commission, 2019.
13
2021 is the baseline for the EEA. More recent data are included in Table 6.
7
EU-level targets of at least 47% by 2025 and the European Pillar of Social Rights headline
target of 60% by 2030.
Achievement of skills
Education and training systems play a crucial role in skills acquisition, and therefore in
ensuring learners’ prospects for future success. According to PISA data14
,
underachievement among 15-year-olds is on the rise in reading, mathematics and science,
and well above the EU-level target of an underachievement share below 15%. In 2018, the
share of low achieving students stood at 22.9% in mathematics, 22.5% in reading and
22.3% in science. There was also a significant equity gap of 19.3 percentage points on
average across the EU, with students of low socio-economic status 5.6 times more likely
to underachieve in basic skills than students of high socio-economic status. There was no
comparative data available to establish a suitable baseline for the level of digital skills15
or
for work-based learning for VET graduates16
. The target for reducing underachievement in
digital skills has been set at below 15% by 2030 and the target for participation in work-
based learning has been set at 60% by 2025.
Labour market outcomes
Obtaining higher levels of qualifications tends to be associated with higher rates of
employment, as reflected by the EU-average rates of employment by level of education
attained. In 2021, the rate of employment for 20-64-year-olds with less than primary,
primary and lower secondary education was 55.0%, while the rate for those with upper
secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education was 72.7% (within this category
62.4% for general education and 76.4% for vocational education) and the rate for those
with tertiary education was 85.0%.
14
European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, PISA 2018 and the EU – Striving
for social fairness through education, Publications Office, 2019.
15
Only seven EU countries (Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Finland) participated in the
2018 International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS), rendering the data unsuitable for establishing a
baseline for comparison. 22 EU countries participated in the 2023 ICILS study, including Austria, Belgium (Flanders),
Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany (North Rhine Westphalia), Greece, Hungary, Italy,
Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden. This broad
participation marks a significant step forward, offering a much more comprehensive view of EU students’ digital skills
proficiency.
16
There is no available data for establishing a suitable baseline, with the earliest data available dating to 2021. However,
participation in work-based learning by VET graduates has surpassed the EU-level target of 60%, with an EU average
of 60.5 in 2021, 60.3% in 2022 and of 64.6% in 2023.
8
3. HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD?
Current state of play
Implementation of the EEA strategic framework 2021-2024
The first cycle of the implementation of the EEA began with the Council Resolution of
2021 setting out the SP and direction for the work. Several activities have been
implemented since then. This section provides an overview of these activities under each
of the implementation instruments to support progress towards the EEA SP and EU-level
targets. Progress towards the seven EU-level targets has been mixed, with one target
reached, several on track to being reached and others still requiring significant efforts.
Trends in the progress towards these targets since the EEA’s launch are discussed in
Section 5.1 (see Table 6).
Governance
The EEA governance bodies provided a political steer and coordinated approaches on
shared priorities and challenges. They have demonstrated a high level of flexibility in
responding to crises such as COVID-19 and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.
The EEA WG supported mutual learning and exchange of best practices through regular
meetings, peer-learning activities and webinars. WG provided opportunities for EEA
actors (from MS, non-EU countries, EU agencies, international organisations and
stakeholder organisations) to participate in knowledge exchange and co-creation (i.e.
setting priorities and developing policies with the input of all actors). The SGIB supported
the Commission in work towards building supplementary indicators in the areas of equity,
teachers and learning for sustainability. Several EU-led initiatives also promoted mutual
learning through expert groups focused on supportive learning environments and quality
investment in education and training, the community of practice of the Learning Lab,
policy dialogue and Team Europe approaches, and through European guidance for the
development of national school education career frameworks.
Mobilisation of EU funds and instruments
Commission departments have worked together and with MS to support alignment
between the EEA SP and the use of the relevant EU funds, taking into account the
respective scope of their support and their management modes. EU funds and instruments,
including ESF+, ERDF, RRF and TSI, facilitated reforms at national and regional levels
towards the EEA SP. The ESF+ prioritised skills and workforce resilience, while the ERDF
supported infrastructure and equipment for quality and inclusive education as well as skills
for smart specialisation and cooperation in education and training in the Interreg context.
The RRF supported national reforms and investments in broad policy areas relevant to
EEA SP. The TSI provided technical support for related reform projects (72 interventions
in 23 MS over 2021-2024). Over EUR 150 bn (EUR 75 bn from RRF17
, 40.4 bn from
17
Estimated expenditure based on the pillar tagging methodology for the Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard and
corresponds to the measures allocated to the policy areas ‘Adult Learning, Including Continuous Vocational Education
And Training; Recognition And Validation Of Skills’, ‘Early childhood education and care: accessibility, affordability,
quality and inclusiveness, including digitalisation and infrastructure’, ‘General, vocational and higher education:
accessibility, affordability, quality and inclusiveness, including digitalisation and infrastructure’, ‘Human capital in
digitalisation’ and ‘Green skills and jobs’, as primary or secondary policy area. Source: European Commission’s own
calculation. The data was retrieved on 11 February 2025.
9
ESF+, 8.7 bn from ERDF and over 26 bn from Erasmus+ in 2021-2027.) have been
invested in education, skills and infrastructure, promoting progress towards the EEA SP.18
Strategic EEA initiatives
Nineteen strategic initiatives (mainly Council Recommendations, and some Commission
Communications) were launched or advanced19
, guided by extensive consultation and
co-creation including in the WG, followed by Commission proposals negotiated in
Council. These initiatives provide a structured framework and strategic guidance to drive
changes in national policies, supporting progress towards the EEA SP. Council
Recommendations addressed all areas of relevance to the EEA SP, such as promoting
school success, enhancing mobility. supporting learning for sustainability, improving
digital education and skills, or enhancing European higher education. Several initiatives
launched before 2021, such as those on inclusive education and language learning and on
automatic recognition of qualifications, continued to be supported under the current
strategic framework.
EU-level projects and calls
Seventeen EU-level projects and calls (most funded under Erasmus+) supported
education and training institutions and practitioners under the EEA strategic
framework.20
The majority of these projects and calls provided concrete opportunities for
beneficiaries to exchange information and experiences and co-create scalable practices,
and to develop concrete skills through project-based activities. Projects and calls, such as
Erasmus+ Teacher Academies and Centres of Vocational Excellence, addressed key
education priorities, including teacher training and vocational excellence. Tools for
facilitating education and training have also been developed as part of this implementation
instrument (e.g. the European Student Card initiative, European Digital Credentials for
Learning).
Reporting, monitoring and evaluating progress
The ETM tracked progress towards EU-level targets and provided information on the
reforms under way in the MS. At the request of the Council, new indicators were
developed in areas like equity, the teaching profession and sustainability. The ETM
country reports were used to inform CSR under the European Semester. In 2024, CSR
linked to education and training topics were issued to 18 MS.
Communication and dissemination
Activities to communicate and disseminate EEA activities included the EEA portal,
European Education Summits, the EEA communication contract, the EEA midterm review
event and targeted campaigns. Between 2021 and 2023, the EEA portal, which provides
information on resources and funding opportunities, attracted 4.5 million unique visitors
and generated 10.2 million page views. The European Education Summits provided
stakeholders with a forum to discuss progress and opportunities for collaboration, while
social media campaigns amplified the reach of EEA initiatives, including outside the EU.
18
An additional 2.6 bn from the external funds has supported international mobilities of EU students, staff, youth and
youth workers towards partner countries, as well as partnerships between EU and third countries’ higher education and
VET institutions.
19
See Annex III for the list of strategic EEA initiatives.
20
See Annex III for the 17 EU-level projects and calls that were included in the scope of this evaluation (given their link
the EEA strategic framework).
10
4. EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART)
4.1. To what extent was the intervention successful and why?
In the absence of regulatory power, the EEA’s ability to drive impact is indirect and stems
from combining different instruments and support mechanisms, setting quantified
targets, establishing EU policy frameworks, providing policy guidance, supporting
cooperation, allocating EU funds, monitoring progress and supporting evaluation of
relevant reforms. The first subsection on overall effectiveness summarises main findings
in two respects: Firstly, results that participation in the EEA strategic framework (and
engagement with its EEA implementation instruments) brought for individual EEA actors
(who act as potential multipliers), organisations, and education and training systems.
Secondly, it zooms in on the EEA actors who drive the overall governance and are
therefore key to the generation of results and impacts. Subsequent sections present an
overview of evaluation results on the effectiveness of the six EEA implementation
instruments, on progress under the five SP, and on promoting education and training from
a global perspective. The chapter concludes by an assessment of the efficiency of EEA
implementation instruments and of the coherence of the EEA strategic framework.
4.1.1. Overall effectiveness
Key findings on results at the level of EEA actors, organisations and systems
The evaluation assessed results at three interconnected levels:
▪ EEA actors: participants in activities under the EEA implementation instruments
(policymakers, practitioners, stakeholder representatives, experts, etc.)
▪ organisations: ministries and stakeholder bodies where follow-up actions towards
EEA SP are taken
▪ education and training systems at national/regional level.
The analysis highlighted specific achievements at all three levels, though their extent
varies. The most significant direct results of the EEA were in the areas of mutual
learning, knowledge generation and structured coordination mechanisms through
various EEA governance bodies. Results were most visible at the level of EEA actors. At
organisational level, the biggest results were observed for those organisations that take a
more systematic approach to sharing information and organisational learning.
System-level results were best achieved when countries were proactive in making the best
combined and coordinated use of several EEA implementation instruments. An
overview of results at the three levels identified with evidence of the contribution of
specific EEA implementation instruments is provided in Table 3 below.
11
Table 3. Findings on results at different levels
Results achieved Evidence of contribution made by the EEA implementation instruments
At individual level among EEA actors
Improved
understanding and
awareness of the
EEA policy agenda
and of the funds that
can be used to
support reforms
• Improved awareness was enabled by EEA governance that engaged EEA actors continuously
and enabled the reiteration and internalisation of EEA’s SP (to varying degrees among the EEA
actors involved in the HLG and WG). EEA governance also contributed to increased awareness
on the use of EU funds.
• Communication and dissemination, especially at European Education Summits, also helped raise
awareness on key EEA SP and EU-level initiatives and projects, including among those EEA
actors who were not directly involved in the governance bodies.
Increased
knowledge of good
practices and
common challenges
• EEA governance, through regular meetings and exchanges, allowed EEA actors to build
knowledge on good practices and common challenges.
• EU-level projects and calls provided a foundation for improving the knowledge of those EEA
actors not involved directly in governance on good practices and common challenges.
• Activities that were part of the EEA implementation instrument reporting, monitoring and
evaluation were used by EEA actors (e.g. the ETM comparative and country reports) to inform
their discussions in the HLG/CB and WG, as well as (to some extent) within organisations at
national level.
Enhanced
engagement in co-
creation practices
• Engagement in co-creation practices was enabled through EEA governance, including the WG
(e.g. through the development of thematic outputs and contribution to strategic EEA initiatives).
• EU-level projects and calls involved EEA actors in the exchange and co-creation of practices.
Many EU-level projects and calls showed positive trends in participation, reflecting enhanced
engagement.
• In some cases (VET), tasks attributed to the WG could have been attributed to other bodies
instead (Advisory Committee on Vocational Training).
At organisation level
Coordination and
knowledge/sharing
of practices
• Results were mixed on improved coordination and knowledge / sharing of practices via EEA
governance and EU-level projects and calls. In some cases, the coordination and dissemination
of knowledge within organisations (gained via EEA actors in WG) was very well established; in
other cases, it was limited and not systematic.
Co-creation
• EU-level projects and calls enabled co-creation between participating organisations (e.g. EIT’s
Innovation Capacity Building for Higher Education initiative (EIT HEI)), but the extent of the
results was not always clear.
Use of evidence for
policymaking
• Outputs associated with reporting, monitoring and evaluation of progress (e.g. ETM, Learning
Lab) and EEA governance (knowledge gained by EEA actors via WG, thematic outputs) were
taken up to a varying extent by the MS in informing their policies. Examples of success were
identified, yet they were not applied systematically across MS.
Follow-up on
strategic EEA
initiatives by EEA
actors at MS level
• The extent of further operationalisation of strategic EEA initiatives by EEA actors at national
level varied, and the nature of national follow-up was unclear, due to a lack of national reporting.
At system level
Agenda setting,
innovation and
policy development
at national level
• MS are pursuing reforms that contribute to building the EEA. In some cases, these were directly
inspired by involvement in the EEA governance. Alignment between the policies of MS and the
EEA SP was observed. 21
However, because the SP are broad, and given the voluntary nature of
European cooperation in education and training and its ‘soft’ instruments, causality (direct
influence of the EEA) could not be confirmed.
• EU-level projects and calls drove policy progress in MS (e.g. the European Universities initiative
in relation to facilitating transnational cooperation, recognition, micro-credentials, joint
programmes and degrees, etc.).
Use of new
knowledge
(including evidence-
informed
policymaking)
• The instrument for reporting, monitoring and evaluating progress contributed to the use of new
knowledge, but the systematisation of knowledge was not yet evident.
• Information produced within the EEA remained to be processed and synthesised into accessible
resources. Knowledge transfer within EEA governance requires a more systematic approach –
not simply by sharing the growing volume of information, but by organising and distilling the
wealth of information into actionable insights. Currently, the sheer quantity of documentation
makes navigation challenging for EEA actors. This hinders synergies between governance
bodies, as well as across other implementation instruments.
• The EEA’s Learning Lab holds significant potential in this regard, especially for strengthening
national capacity to conduct impact evaluations in education and training.
Increased awareness
of EU funds and
instruments and
their use
• EU funds and instruments were used by the MS to support reforms that were in line with the
EEA SP. EU funds and instruments appear to be crucial in ensuring that MS have the capacity to
pursue reforms that align with the EEA SP.
21
In the area of adult learning, the impact has been limited, in particular on interplay and impact with labour market
policy and structures.
12
Key findings on the effectiveness of EEA governance
The evaluation results showed that the reformed governance of the EEA has contributed
to a better understanding of shared priorities and challenges in education and training
and increased ownership among participants in the various governance bodies.
The reformed governance, driven at informal level by the HLG, has contributed to
strengthening the political steer on shared priorities and challenges. The shift towards a
more strategic agenda setting and greater continuity in the work of the HLG was attributed
to the HLG CB. The efforts to implement the 18-month policy agenda could provide a
further boost to strategic agenda setting. However, limitations were seen in various degrees
of commitment among Council Presidencies to steer European cooperation on common
priorities and challenges. Furthermore, the HLG is still to take up its role in providing
steering on the key topics in the two Council Recommendations on digital education and
skills of November 2023.
Mutual learning and the exchange of good practices in the WG are among the EEA
activities that have been the most effective in helping to build the EEA. The WG
contributed to the development of strategic EEA initiatives and supported their national
follow-up, by providing a valuable forum for information sharing, co-creation, peer
learning and exchange on national policy developments. However, these exchanges were
not always consistently translated into concrete policy actions at MS level. There is
potential to optimise the WG’ working methods to strengthen their effectiveness, by
exploring different formats and approaches. Further opportunities to provide peer-
counselling support to MS for implementing evidence-informed reforms, including for
small groups of countries facing similar challenges, could also be explored.
The SGIB has made progress in promoting the systematic collection of data and has
contributed to the development of new types of indicators and to evidence-informed
policy discussions. At the same time, there were gaps in information across governance
bodies on the status of implementing key strategic EEA initiatives. According to
stakeholder consultations, systematic reporting would help to increase consistency and
regularity in the way the evidence is used.
The evaluation concluded that the effectiveness of the EEA strategic framework
governance was somewhat limited by an inconsistent flow of information between WG,
DG formations, HLG and EDUC. In addition, EEA actors did not always clearly
understand the specific roles of and the lines of cooperation between some of these
governance bodies. Efforts by the HLG CB to streamline activities and links between the
WG, the HLG and EDUC still need to be strengthened (see Section 5.2.).
4.1.2. Effectiveness by EEA implementation instruments
The delivery and combination of EEA implementation instruments were given a
positive assessment for enabling collaboration, flexibility in crisis response, mutual
learning and other ways of supporting national reforms. Table 4 summarises the main
findings regarding the most important identified strengths, as well as areas for possible
improvement with a view to improving the instruments’ effectiveness.
13
Table 4. Key results and areas of improvement for the effectiveness of EEA implementation instruments
Strengths Areas for improvement
Governance
• Better understanding of shared priorities & challenges
• Stronger political steering & more strategic agenda setting
• Highly appreciated mutual learning & knowledge
exchange
• Co-creation of strategic EEA initiatives & support for
national follow-up
• Flexibility of EEA governance enabled effective EU-level
coordinated response to tackle the education impact of
crises (COVID-19 pandemic, Russia’s war of aggression
against Ukraine)
• Clarify roles of different EEA governance bodies
• Reinforce systematic feedback loop and linkages between
the various bodies
• Optimise WG’ working methods and boost dissemination
of outputs to facilitate further organisational learning at
national level, leading to system improvement
• Improve synergies with governance in other sectors (such
as employment)
Strategic EEA initiatives
• Providing a longer-term comprehensive policy framework
& guidance for further work by policymakers and
practitioners
• Co-creation of initiatives increases ownership by MS &
other EEA actors
• Impact reinforced where there is complementary support
for national follow-up through other EEA implementation
instruments
• Increase focus on and limit the number of strategic EEA
initiatives, in view of MS’ limited capacity for follow-up
Launch evaluations of flagship strategic EEA initiatives
(recency of initiatives & lack of MS reporting on
implementation limit the evidence base on results &
impacts)
Mobilisation of EU funds & instruments
• Use of EU funds & instruments align with EEA SP
• Increasing awareness & knowledge of available EU funds
& technical support in MS
• Structured discussions on funding priorities between
Commission departments responsible for EU funds and
policies help contribution to EEA SP
• The European Semester and the CSR serve as channel
through which the EEA strategic framework informs
programming of EU funds for national reforms
• The task of assessing the quality of investments could be
supported through more systematic reporting and capacity
building support, including at the national and regional
level, on the outcomes/results of investments linked to the
EEA SP and by embedding EEA SP in impact evaluations
of EU funds. These measures could help improve the
evidence base.
EU-level projects & annual calls
• Some actions (e.g. EIT HEI initiative, European
Universities initiative, European Student Card initiative)
achieved high visibility & already demonstrated impact
confirmed by external evaluation studies
• Enabling internalisation of EEA SP at practitioner level,
potential to promote them at learner level
• Contribution to system-level change stronger, when clear
links with strategic EEA initiatives
• Erasmus+ funded activities support progress towards
EEA (e.g. increased capacity of organisations,
contribution to policy development, promotion of
inclusion & diversity, digital & green transitions,
participation in democratic life & civic engagement)
• Communication on EU-level projects and calls to use EEA
brand and be embedded in renewed EEA narrative
• Evidence on the effectiveness of EU-level projects & calls,
and their links to EEA SP to be reinforced
Reporting, monitoring & evaluating progress
• EU-level targets provide a direction for reforms
• ETM serves as an important flagship publication
providing useful, high-quality quantitative and qualitative
evidence that can support policymaking
• Under the EEA strategic framework, ETM extended its
scope to new indicators fields (some of which can support
target-setting)
• SGIB & Learning Lab contribute to building a culture of
evidence-informed policymaking in education and
training, and help guide policy monitoring and evaluation
practices, considering especially the identified need for
support at national level
• Monitoring of effectiveness & national impact of EEA
implementation instruments (especially follow-up of
strategic EEA initiatives) is hampered by lack of
engagement of MS in data collection for EU-level
monitoring & evaluation. This is a challenge for evidence-
informed policymaking through open method of
coordination.
• ETM could be further used to stimulate policy dialogue at
national level
• Available channels of data collection on education &
training systems (e.g. Eurydice, independent expert
networks such as EENEE, NESET) to be better connected
with EEA SP and synthetised to inform the EEA
Communication & dissemination
• Building a community of education & training
stakeholders who have an aligned view of EEA SP
• Better visibility and understanding of EEA activities (e.g.
through EEA portal, European Education summit)
• Essential in supporting effectiveness of other instruments
• Information shared can support national policy design &
implementation
• Renew and reinforce EEA ‘brand’ to ensure distinctiveness
& recognition among stakeholders who do not participate
in EEA activities
• Renewed EEA narrative to drive overarching
communication strategy ensuring alignment of all EU-level
education & training activities
14
Box 1. Examples of combined support from several EEA implementation instruments
▪ Improvement of ECEC. This included efforts to improve quality standards through strategic EEA
initiatives (the European quality framework for ECEC), supported by mutual learning in WG ECEC,
participation of ECEC institutions in Erasmus+ projects, and through mobilisation of EU funds and
instruments (RRF, Cohesion Policy funds, TSI).22
▪ Support for disadvantaged learners. This included the Pathways to School Success (strategic EEA
initiative), policy guidance developed in WG Schools, WG Equality and Values and the Expert Group
on supportive learning environments for groups at risk of underachievement and for supporting well-
being at school, mobilisation of EU funds and instruments, and monitoring under ETM.23
▪ Boosting digital skills of learners. European cooperation towards the EEA, alongside actions under
the Digital Education Action Plan (DEAP), provided guidance for enhancing digital skills across all
education levels (strategic EEA initiatives), and mobilised substantial EU funding and technical
support. They were supported by EU-level projects and calls (European Universities initiative) and
mutual learning in WG (including WG DELTA and WG HE).24
▪ Acceleration of the Bologna Process in higher education. European cooperation towards the EEA
(EEA strategic initiatives, mutual learning under WGs, EU-level projects and calls) accelerated the
Bologna Process, which would otherwise have been likely to progress more slowly (or in certain
cases not at all). This speeded up the alignment of higher education systems, enhanced mobility, and
improved the recognition of qualifications across countries.25
22
E.g. in Lithuania ESF+ and RRF supported the implementation of the reform to increase inclusiveness and quality in
ECEC through renewed curriculum guidelines, established quality assurance mechanism and improved teacher
training. In Bulgaria the introduction of a national quality framework was supported under RRF and TSI. (Evidence
from national case studies, see evaluation support study, July 2025).
23
E.g. in Romania implementation of education reform to address equity gaps, attendance, learning outcomes,
progression to HE and employment was supported by strategic EEA initiatives (such as the Council Recommendations
on Pathways to School Success, and on promoting common values, inclusive education and European dimension of
teaching), as well as EU funding (RRF, TSI, ESF+). In Portugal implementation of reforms on inclusive education and
school autonomy were influenced by discussions in EEA governance bodies (EYCS, WG Schools), with measures
supported by Erasmus+, ESF+, technical support and RRF. CSRs and ETM have been used to inform monitoring
progress. (Evidence from national case studies, see evaluation support study, July 2025).
24
E.g. in Austria reform to digitalise higher education has been supported through EU-level projects and calls (e.g.
European Universities initiative), RRF, TSI, Reform is in line with relevant CSRs. In Czechia a comprehensive reform
to support digital transition was informed by discussions in WG DELTA, aligned with DigComp, and supported by
EU-level projects and calls (European Universities initiative), RRF and TSI. (Evidence from national case studies, see
evaluation support study, July 2025).
25
E.g. in Croatia reform of quality assurance in higher education were supported by mutual learning in WG HE, informed
by EEA strategic initiatives, and supported under RRF, ESF+, TSI. In Italy the reform on automatic recognition of
qualifications was initiated in reaction to the Council Recommendation on promoting automatic mutual recognition
and was supported under Erasmus+. In Slovakia peer learning under WG HE contributed to amendments of the Higher
Education Quality Assurance act, and Erasmus+ and RRF supported implementation. (Evidence from national case
studies, see evaluation support study, July 2025).
15
4.1.3. Effectiveness by EEA strategic priorities
EEA implementation instruments facilitated progress towards the achievement of the
five EEA SP. Notable progress towards the EEA SP was made at EU level, but this was
not consistently translated into progress in each MS at regional and national levels (see
Section 5.5.).
The current design of SP, which combines horizontal and sectoral priorities, ensures
comprehensive coverage of education sectors. Though not every SP is relevant to all
education levels, the activities carried out under the EEA strategic framework and
complementary framework strategies in education and training (such as the European
Skills Agenda) covered all education and training sectors.
Intensity of support for various SP through different types of EEA implementation
instruments varied: from high coverage (SP1, SP4, SP5 – digital), through medium (SP2,
SP5 – green), to low (SP3).
In addition to the EEA implementation instruments, the achievement of progress towards
the EEA SP was also influenced by the existence of other policy frameworks in education
and training.
In particular, SP3 (teachers and trainers) received a low focus as, unlike all other SP, it
was not supported by a dedicated strategic EEA initiative and there were no other
complementary EU policy frameworks that focused on the education profession. The
breadth of challenges across all EU MS in this area (teacher shortages, attractiveness of
the profession, working conditions etc.) suggests there is a need to strengthen efforts.
Table 5 summarises key evaluation findings regarding the effectiveness (and relevance) of
efforts by EEA SP, highlighting:
▪ coverage of education and training levels;
▪ coverage by (support through) EEA implementation instruments;
▪ support by other complementary frameworks in education and training
(contributing to impact);
▪ the most important results;
▪ persisting challenges that remain to be addressed.
16
Table 5. Key findings on SP
SP
Education
levels
covered
Coverage by EEA
implementation
instruments
Complementary
frameworks
Key results Key remaining challenges
SP1:
quality,
equity,
inclusion
ECEC: high
School: high
HE: high
VET: high
AL: high
Non-formal:
medium
OVERALL: high
Governance: high
Mobilisation of EU funds:
high
Strategic initiatives: high
EU-level projects: high
Monitoring: high
Communication: high
EU Youth Strategy,
Child Guarantee;
Council
Recommendation on
vocational education
& training for
sustainable
competitiveness,
social fairness &
resilience
Sharing good practices & fostering mutual learning (WG Schools-
Pathways, WG ECEC, WG Equality and Values, other expert
groups);
Evidence of progress in implementing strategic EEA initiatives
(Pathways to School Success, ECEC quality framework);
Establishment of common targets & indicators; progress in reducing
early school leaving;
Inclusion of the equity in education indicator in the 2022 EEA
progress report & ETM;
Support for learners with fewer opportunities through Erasmus+ &
European Solidarity Corps
High underachievement & low top performance
in basic skills;
Persisting equity & inclusion gaps across and
within MS;
Structural challenges highlighted by COVID-
19;
Inclusion & support needs of refugees &
displaced persons from Ukraine
SP2:
lifelong
learning &
mobility
ECEC: low
School:
medium
HE: high
VET: high
AL: high
Non-formal:
high
OVERALL: medium/high
Governance: high
Mobilisation of EU funds:
high
Strategic initiatives: high
EU-level projects: covered26
Monitoring: medium
Communication: medium
European Skills
Agenda; Council
Recommendation on
vocational education
& training for
sustainable
competitiveness,
social fairness &
resilience; Council
Resolution on a
European Agenda for
Adult Learning;
Osnabrück
Declaration; EU
Youth Strategy;
Lifelong learning
Implementation of micro-credentials & automatic recognition
facilitated by referencing NQF to the EQF, digitalisation of the
Diploma Supplement via Europass, launch of DEQAR by the EQAR;
Mutual learning facilitated by WG Adult Learning.
Mobility
Virtual & blended mobility initiatives integrated into regular
programmes & courses;
European inter-university campuses developed by the European
Universities initiative;
Increased inclusiveness & flexibility for all types of learners;
Enhanced learners’ experiences;
Progress in learning mobility enabled by Erasmus+ & European
Solidarity Corps
Lifelong learning
Low participation in adult learning;
Limited visibility of non-formal lifelong
learning (all levels);
Structural challenges in integrating Ukrainian
refugees into education and labour market;
Measures for integration and inclusion of
refugees remain primarily short-term
Learning mobility
Inclusivity issues, particularly for
disadvantaged learners;
Inconsistent implementation of automatic
recognition – only 12 MS with fully compliant
national legislation for the automatic
recognition of higher education qualifications
SP3:
teachers
& trainers
ECEC: high
School: high
HE: high
VET: high
AL: high
Non-formal:
high
OVERALL: medium/low
Governance: medium
Mobilisation of EU funds:
medium
Strategic initiatives: none
EU-level projects: medium
Monitoring: medium
Communication: medium
Council
Recommendation on
vocational education
& training for
sustainable
competitiveness,
social fairness &
resilience (for VET
teachers & trainers)
Teacher Academies & the European Innovative Teaching Award
enabled by Erasmus+ funding;
European guidance for the development of national career
frameworks;
Introduction of teacher-related indicators in 2023 ETM;
Recognition of progress achieved by EU-level projects & calls
supporting SP3 among EEA actors at national level
Teacher shortages, especially in STEM & ICT
and in remote & disadvantaged regions;
Challenges related to attracting, upskilling and
retaining talents across the MS;
Unsatisfactory working conditions, including
well-being at work, level of pay, recognition of
the teaching profession;
Lack of diversity & inclusion training or
measures to ensure the participation of teachers
in such training; No strategic EEA initiatives
primarily targeting teachers
26
While EU projects and calls specifically attributed to EEA as part of this evaluation did not address SP2 as their primary thematic focus, the nature of this instrument and its support through Erasmus + is enabling
mobility and lifelong learning as the core of its design, and therefore contributes to the progress of SP2.
17
SP
Education
levels
covered
Coverage by EEA
implementation
instruments
Complementary
frameworks
Key results Key remaining challenges
SP4:
European
higher
education
ECEC: none
School: low
HE: high
VET: high
AL: low
Non-formal:
none
OVERALL: high
Governance: high
Mobilisation of EU funds:
medium
Strategic initiatives: high
EU-level projects: high
Monitoring: medium
Communication: high
European Higher
Education Area /
Bologna Process
Recognised progress among different EEA actors;
EU-level target on HE attainment is likely to be achieved; Visibility
& recognition of European Degree package, European Universities
initiative (65 European University alliances) and HEI initiative (in
cooperation with EIT) at institutional level;
Mutual learning facilitated by WG HE;
EEA-informed reforms in higher education across MS (largely driven
by the European Universities initiative); European Student Card
initiative scaling up and enabling digital exchanges of student data
between HEIs across the EEA;
Simplified management of student mobility & cross-border
validation of student status through European Student Card initiative
Legal obstacles in MS prevent more effective
transnational cooperation;
Long-term sustainability of European
Universities alliances;
Involvement of further European HEIs in digital
exchange of data through the Erasmus Without
Paper network
SP5: green
& digital
ECEC: high
School: high
HE: high
VET: high
AL: high
Non-formal:
high
OVERALL: high
Governance: high
Mobilisation of EU funds:
high
Strategic initiatives: high
EU-level projects: high
Monitoring: medium
Communication: high
Digital Education
Action Plan
EU Youth Strategy;
Council
Recommendation on
vocational education
& training (VET) for
sustainable
competitiveness,
social fairness &
resilience
Initiatives to enhance digital competences & digital readiness of EEA
actors;
Mutual learning facilitated by WG DELTA;
DEAP contributing directly to the EEA;
Adoption of Council Recommendations on the key enabling factors
for successful digital education & training, and on improving the
provision of digital skills & competences in education & training
Tensions between the digital and green
transitions due to resource- and energy-
intensive nature of digital technologies;
Perception of insufficient mainstreaming of
achieving green & digital transitions together;
Longer legacy of prioritising the digital
transition under ET2020 contributing to
perception of disparity in focus; Need for
greater visibility of activities related to
sustainability within the EEA; Room for greater
exploitation of innovation in education to
advance the green & digital transitions
SP5 - Digital
Disparities in infrastructure and access to digital
tools; Scepticism of certain MS towards the use
of digital tools in education;
Advances in AI and concerns linked to AI
(ethics, capacity, infrastructure)
SP5 – Green
Practical implementation of Learning for
Sustainability hampered by educators’ lack of
capacity to design, facilitate & assess
transformative learning experiences;
Gap between attitudes & actions towards
sustainability
SP5:
green &
digital
ECEC: high
School: high
HE: high
VET: high
AL: high
Non-formal:
high
OVERALL: Medium
Governance: medium
Mobilisation of EU funds:
medium
Strategic initiatives: medium
EU-level projects: high
Monitoring: high
Communication: high
Green Deal; EU
Youth Strategy;
Council
Recommendation on
vocational education
& training (VET) for
sustainable
competitiveness,
social fairness &
resilience
Adoption of Council Recommendation on learning for the green
transition and sustainable development; GreenComp;
Mutual learning facilitated by WG Schools and WG VET and the
Green Transition;
Dedicated community of practice around GreenComp embedded in
the Education for Climate Coalition mobilising EEA actors to
collaborate on the green transition;
Gradual integration of sustainability topics into curricula across all
MS;
Greener Erasmus+ & European Solidarity Corps providing
fundamental support through dedicated calls for forward-looking and
policy-experimentation projects; Sustainability as a focus topic in
several Erasmus+ Teacher Academies; Researchers at Schools
initiative
18
4.1.4. Promoting education and training from a global perspective
Cooperation under the EEA strategic framework contributed to advancing education
and training from a global perspective. This was achieved through the EEA
implementation instruments that allow for participation of some non-EU countries. EU
candidate and European Economic Area / EFTA countries participated in some parts
of the EEA governance (in particular in HLG, WG and SGIB), benefited from mutual
learning and exchange, and aligned closely with EEA SP. In particular, for EU candidate
countries, this participation in the EEA governance and peer learning significantly
supported the process of modernisation of their education and training systems, facilitating
alignment in view of enlargement.
Several EU-level projects and calls under the Erasmus+ programme open to some
non-EU countries proved effective in advancing the EEA SP and promoting the
global perspective of European cooperation in education and training. One notable
example is the European Universities initiative, which brought progress towards the
strategic objectives of the Bologna Process by enabling higher education institutions in
other Bologna countries to take part in alliances as associated partners. The opening of the
European Universities alliances to the Western Balkans helped extend the benefits of this
initiative to close partners and potential future EU members. Other examples include EIT
HEI initiative, or activities that increasingly emphasise digitalisation, sustainability and
international reach through the Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps programmes.
The Global Gateway Strategy and the 2021 Western Balkans Agenda reinforced the
EU’s commitment to supporting non-EU countries’ educational advancement, contributing
to regional integration and alignment with the EEA SP.
The EEA served as an inspirational framework for international cooperation,
particularly in the Eastern Neighbourhood, Africa, Asia, and Latin America, through
initiatives like Erasmus Mundus and Jean Monnet actions that promoted high-level
international joint degrees and EU values outside the EU, and people-to-people dialogue.
Cooperation projects under the international dimension of Erasmus+ met specific needs
in non-EU regions, strengthening educational ties and supporting capacity building in
higher education and vocational education and training. From the point of view of skills
development, these projects supported the modernisation of education systems in partner
countries (e.g. looking at curricula and recognition of diplomas), which in turn helps
deliver a pool of skilled people the EU MS could tap into in the future.
The mobilisation of EEA governance allowed for effective reaction to global crises,
playing an important role in particular in ensuring continuation of education and training
of Ukrainian refugees following Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.
Enhancing visibility and communication about the EEA’s contributions globally
could foster a better understanding and stronger partnerships with non-EU actors, as well
as an increased attractiveness worldwide of European education and training systems.
Streamlining the global perspective across all SP of the EEA strategic framework
would ensure a more consistent approach, leveraging the strengths of international
partnerships in education for mutual benefit, strengthening EU’s competitiveness and
democracy, allowing essential know-how exchanges with partner countries that could
support, among others, developments in innovation, STEM and AI-related fields in the EU,
strengthen the competitiveness of European universities and attract talent to the EU (see
also Sections 4.3., 5.1.).
19
4.1.5. Efficiency
Measuring the cost-effectiveness of efforts under the strategic framework to build the
EEA is complex and constrained by several major limitations.
A major challenge is that European cooperation towards the EEA comprises a wide and
varied range of processes and activities and is influenced by the EU’s broader agenda and
other international initiatives. Improvements cannot be solely attributed to the EEA, and it
is difficult to isolate the EEA’s specific impacts as the strategic framework builds on
previous cooperation frameworks (ET2020 and ET2010). Furthermore, there is no baseline
data.
In view of this, for the analysis information was collected on the costs and benefits of
selected illustrative examples of processes and activities under the EEA implementation
instruments. This approach was taken to minimise the response burden on the providers of
such information and to keep the costs of producing the necessary data in proportion to the
importance of the results sought. Due to the incremental nature of the EEA, it was not
possible to quantify the additional monetary and time inputs due to the EEA (as compared
to the previous period under ET2020). These constraints therefore limit the possibility
to generalise the findings and to draw comparative conclusions with regard to cost-
effectiveness.
The processes and activities covered by the analysis were the following:
EEA governance
HLG and its CB. The main cost-generating items were HLG meetings, especially those
organised in person27
. Costs relate to time spent by participants (EU MS, European
Economic Area / EFTA countries, Commission) preparing for meetings, attending them
and doing follow-up work; and, for in person meetings, to costs for the meeting venue,
accommodation and travel. The costs of the CB, with most meetings taking place online,
were very low. Main benefits included strategic agenda setting and steering, enhanced
ownership of EEA priorities by the EU MS, responsiveness and agility of the EEA strategic
framework governance in addressing crises (for example, to ensure continuity of education
and training for refugees from Ukraine following Russia’s war of aggression), and mutual
learning. Consulted members of the HLG mostly agreed that the benefits of their
participation outweigh the resources invested.
WG. External expertise, covered by dedicated contracts, and physical WG meetings and
peer-learning activities were the main cost-generating items. Clear benefits include
supporting the design of and follow-up to strategic EEA initiatives and advancing the
European dimension in education and training. The WG were found to represent an
important regular and structured forum for co-creation, mutual learning and dissemination
of good practices, with contributions also from social partners, EU-level stakeholder
organisations and agencies. The various activities of the WG resulted in almost 80
deliverables – including input papers, reports, factsheets, key policy messages and briefs.
The mutual learning and deliverables fed policy development and supported reforms in
several MS. For example, they contributed to the reform of ECEC in Bulgaria and
Lithuania, the Higher Education and Science Act and the Act on Quality Assurance in
Higher Education in Croatia, improved governance and modernisation of the VET system
in Cyprus, the digital education reform in Czechia, citizenship education reform in Spain,
legislation on inclusive education and curriculum flexibility in Portugal, or the integration
27
One HLG meeting per Council Presidency took place in person, in the country of the Presidency.
20
of Ukrainian refugees in Germany. Furthermore, WG supported the global dimension of
the EEA by facilitating exchanges and mutual learning with EU candidate and European
Economic Area / EFTA countries. They also helped ensure that the EEA strategic
framework was aligned with the work of international organisations such as UN agencies
or the OECD, who are regular participants in most WG. The survey of WG members
revealed that they had favourable perceptions of the cost-benefit ratio28
. Knowledge gained
informed national policymaking and promoted institutional knowledge-sharing, albeit with
varying results across countries linked to their level of engagement.
SGIB. The twice-yearly SGIB meetings were the main cost-generating items. Benefits
included technical advice for DG EAC on data usage and indicator development, covering
topics such as equity and inclusion, the teaching profession, learning for sustainability,
civic knowledge and learning mobility. Such technical advice contributed to proposals to
revise EU-level targets and work on the online Monitor Toolbox (from 2022), which
allowed more detailed and transparent monitoring of progress towards existing EU-level
targets.
Expert Group on Quality Investment in Education and Training. The main cost-
generating items were the 16 meetings of the expert group in 2021-2022. Benefits included
contribution to EU policy discussions (published a key report on quality investment) and
laying the foundations for the establishment of the Learning Lab.
Learning Lab on Investing in Quality Education and Training. Contracts on
administrative and communication aspects, which also cover the costs of meetings, were
the main cost-generating item. The Lab helps to develop a culture of education policy
evaluation across the EU to improve the effectiveness of education and training policy and
the efficiency of education spending.
Strategic EEA initiatives
Council Recommendations. Four Council Recommendations were included in the
analysis29
. The costs for developing and following up on each recommendation vary widely
depending on the nature of each recommendation, and implementation costs at MS level
are difficult to estimate.
Regarding benefits, the Recommendation on automatic mutual recognition acted as a
strong enabler of European cooperation in education and training by facilitating
transnational cooperation and mobility. Progress in implementing the recommendation
was made in several MS, with the benefits of the automatic recognition of qualifications
being especially important for students moving across borders and for higher education
institutions seeking to attract such students. Cost savings are also possible in the
qualification recognition process itself, given its expected simplification, although much
depends on what institutional solutions are finally adopted. While some progress was
made, the ultimate objective of the recommendation is yet to be achieved.
The Recommendation on pathways to school success contributed to a common
understanding of school success and of the impact of well-being on educational outcomes.
28
Most of the respondents who answered this question considered that the benefits outweighed the time invested by
participants (55%; n=130); more than one third (36%; n=130) considered that the benefits were proportional to the
time invested; and only 8% had a negative view on the cost-benefit ratio.
29
The selected Council Recommendations were: Council Recommendation on promoting automatic mutual recognition
of higher education and upper secondary education and training qualifications and the outcomes of learning periods
abroad adopted in 2018; the Pathways to School Success Council Recommendation (2022); and the 2023 Council
Recommendations on the key enabling factors for successful digital education and training and on improving the
provision of digital skills and competences in education and training.
21
It also provided guidance on improving equity and quality in education. The
recommendation significantly influenced the inclusive education reforms e.g. in Romania,
with the aim to address equity gaps, attendance, learning outcomes, progression to HE and
employment.
The Recommendations on digital education and skills brought to light inter alia a lack of
availability of high-quality digital education content and pedagogical approaches for
teaching computer science. This prompted the establishment of relevant Commission
expert groups in 2024 to draw up guidelines to support teachers and school leaders.
Mobilisation of EU funds for national reform
This implementation instrument invited MS to make use of EU funds to support national
and regional reforms in line with EEA objectives, e.g. TSI technical support and RRF
funds for the VET reform to support the green transition in Denmark and ESF+ funds and
technical support for reforms in Estonia to improve the competences and motivation of
teachers. There appeared to be only negligible costs involved in promoting the use of these
funds to achieve objectives in line with the EEA SP. Such costs would also be very difficult
to separate from costs already calculated (e.g. for the functioning of the WG) as raising
awareness of EU funds often takes place as part of other activities (e.g. during meetings at
different governance levels). Regarding the benefits, the mobilisation of EU funds for
national reforms contributed effectively to mainstreaming the EEA SP into MS’
policymaking. Evaluating the extent to which this will result in mature reforms and a
positive impact on the performance of education and training systems will be possible only
in the coming years.
EU-level projects and calls
Jean Monnet actions for schools and VET. The main cost-generating items were an
external contract (communication activities linked to the launch of the action) and
Commission staff time to prepare project calls. Outputs included over 100 teacher training
events and school networks and projects under the Learning EU initiative with a total
budget of EUR 21.1 million, contributing to the promotion of European values.
Education for Climate Coalition. The main cost-generating items were platform hosting
and Commission staff time dedicated to the action. The benefits were 166 online and 8 in-
person events, with combined audience of around 5,650 persons between 2021 and mid-
2024. The Coalition led to the consolidation of a participatory community of practice that
supports teaching and learning for the green transition, with over 8,000 registered users of
the online platform. It also led to the mobilisation of EEA actors to collaborate and work
towards the green transition and sustainable development. The community is growing, so
benefits are expected to rise.
Reporting and monitoring
ETM (comparative and country reports). An external-expert contract and Commission
staff time to analyse and draft reports were the main cost-generating items. On the benefits
side, the ETM provided regular updates on progress towards targets at EU and national
level and was an important source of country-specific and thematic information. In
addition to its growing visibility among education experts and policymakers, the ETM’s
analysis was used internally in the Commission to inform country-specific analysis and
recommendations under the European Semester and to guide funding priorities for national
reforms, investments and projects across various EU funds and instruments.
22
DG EAC-DG EMPL EEA Taskforce. The main cost-generating item was Commission
staff time to prepare for, participate in and follow up on meetings. The Taskforce ensured
coordination between DG EAC and DG EMPL units most closely involved in building the
EEA. The Taskforce played an important role in monitoring and reporting progress
towards the EEA (including the 2022 EEA progress report and this evaluation). There are
grounds for concluding that the associated benefits outweighed the costs associated with
the time invested.
Communication and dissemination
The main communication and dissemination activities related to the EEA portal,
European Education Summits, and social media campaigns. The main cost-generating
items were the external contract covering Summit costs, venue costs and other costs related
to the Summit (in-person format), and the communication contract. On the benefits side,
the portal attracted around 1.5 million users annually, facilitating access to funding
opportunities. The summits brought together all key actors in education and training,
helped raise awareness on key EEA-related topics and fostered synergies across EEA EU-
level actions. The social media campaigns achieved increased engagement and their
performance was cost-effective. The communication activities raised awareness and made
selected information more accessible for EEA actors and to some extent for the wider
education and training community.
More detailed information is provided in Annex IV Overview of benefits and costs.
4.1.6. Coherence
Overall, the EEA was delivered in a coherent way. Efforts to build the EEA under the
strategic framework were fully consistent with the priorities of the European
Commission (2019-2024) and of the EU Strategic Agenda30
.
Complementarity between the EEA strategic framework and other EU-level
strategies and frameworks was observed, including those directly linked to education
and training (DEAP, European Higher Education Area, European Skills Agenda, European
Qualifications Framework, European Research Area, EU Youth Strategy, New European
Innovation Agenda) and in other fields more broadly31
.
The analysis nevertheless found that the links between the EEA and other frameworks
in education and training were not always clear for EEA actors, leading to varying
interpretations of what the EEA is. It was challenging to build a common understanding of
the EEA, delineating it from other complementary frameworks. This requires: (i) a better
integration of policies with clearer division of responsibilities relating to skills, VET and
adult learning under the EEA; and (ii) improved communication on the links between the
EEA and other frameworks in education and training (such as the European Higher
Education Area, EU Youth Strategy, European Skills Agenda or the New European
Innovation Agenda).
The EEA SP were found to be consistent with the priorities pursued by the MS. MS
have carried out reforms that complemented the EEA SP (given the broad and consensual
30
EU Strategic Agenda 2019-2024 and 2024-2029.
31
European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan, New European Innovation Agenda, European Child Guarantee, European
Strategy on the Rights of the Child, Gender Equality Strategy 2020 – 2025, EU Action Plan on Integration and Inclusion
2021-2027, EU Anti-racism Action Plan, European Democracy Action Plan, European Media Literacy actions,
Strategy on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, EU Strategy on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish
Life 2021-2030, EU Roma Strategic Framework for Equality, Inclusion and Participation 2020-2030, LGBTIQ
Equality Strategy 2020-2025.
23
nature of the SP, there was no great risk of misalignment). Some reforms in the MS were
directly inspired by the European cooperation, such as Austria’s Universities and
Digital Transformation 2030 framework, reform of ECEC in Lithuania, or the Higher
Education and Science Act in Croatia32
.
Furthermore, there was strong complementarity between the EEA strategic framework
and initiatives by other international organisations like the OECD, UNESCO, United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Council of Europe or the World Bank. This was
achieved through complementary objectives, the participation of several international
organisations in the EEA WG, and active collaboration in delivering joint initiatives.
The EEA implementation instruments were largely delivered in an internally
coherent way. Synergies were sought and exploited between instruments to ensure more
impactful results. The analysis concluded that closely linking different instruments can be
a useful strategy for maximising effectiveness.
For example, the WG had strong links with several strategic EEA initiatives, helping to
shape their development and supporting their implementation. Some EU-level projects and
calls also showed clear links with the working groups, for instance the link between
Erasmus+ Teacher Academies and the European Innovative Teaching Award with the WG
Schools. Since 2021, there has been some attempt to exploit synergies between the WG.
This included holding several joint meetings (e.g. joint sessions between WG Schools –
Pathways and WG Equality and Values; joint meetings between WG DELTA and WG
Schools, and between WG Schools – Learning for Sustainability and WG VET and the
Green Transition). The synergies established to date were mostly assessed positively by
the WG’ members. Nevertheless, there is still potential for more synergies between the
WG. Additionally, better integration of the WG’ activities and political governance is
needed to maximise their contributions to the EEA SP.
Many interviewees noted a strong synergy between the European Universities initiative
and other EEA implementation instruments. The initiative drove implementation of other
EEA activities under various EEA implementation instruments, including the Blueprint for
a European Degree, the European Recognition and Quality Assurance System, a possible
legal status for alliances of HEIs, or the European Student Card initiative, and at the same
time benefits from them. This mutual support enhances the progress and effectiveness of
the initiative.
More broadly, however, the evaluation found evidence gaps regarding the results and
impacts of the key strategic EEA initiatives and EU-level projects and calls (with some
exceptions like the European Universities initiative, the Council Recommendation on
automatic recognition, or the EIT HEI initiative). Efforts to assess progress with their
implementation were often scattered and lacked robust assessment (partly linked to the
recency of several initiatives).
Strong complementarity was established through contributions made to the
European Semester, which in turn was linked to RRF and other funding and actual
reforms that were financed and implemented. For instance, the recovery and resilience
plans of MS were assessed also based on their capacity to address the CSR advanced in
the framework of the Semester. The negotiations for the current cohesion policy
programming period (2021-2027) were informed by the challenges and investment
priorities in the field of education and training outlined in the European Semester 2019
country reports. MS were invited to prioritise ERDF and ESF+ investments in line with
32
See national case studies in annex of external evaluation support study (July 2025).
24
the CSR falling within the scope of the respective funds. The possibility of using EU funds
is also mentioned in several strategic EEA initiatives. The ETM also included information
on the use of EU funds, including EU cohesion policy funds, RRF and TSI, in the country
reports.
While EU funds and instruments contributed to the EEA SP, the ability to assess their
impact was hindered by a lack of consistency in how these investments were monitored
and evaluated.
Moreover, there was not always clear understanding among EEA actors about the full
range of activities entailed by the EEA. This can hinder internal coherence of the EEA
and support for it.
4.2. How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom?
The primary added value recognised by EEA actors and the wider education and training
community consulted was that the EEA strategic framework establishes shared priorities,
enables coordination of policy discussions and mutual learning on how to tackle
common challenges across EU MS. The contribution analysis conducted as part of the
external evaluation support study suggested that the EEA strategic framework helped to
maintain political attention on education and training policies. It offered an internally
cohesive set of implementation instruments, in addition to those at national level, to
foster improvements in national and regional education and training systems, and
promoted the European dimension of education and training. Significant EU funding
was mobilised to invest in education, skills and infrastructure in Member States,
supporting the green and digital transitions, higher education reforms, inclusion and
innovation33
.
Box 2. Examples of the added value provided by the EEA strategic framework
▪ Improvement of ECEC:
- ECEC reform in Lithuania to improve access to ECEC for all children, especially children with
disabilities and those from vulnerable backgrounds. Connected to SP1 and SP3. The reform was
inspired by the 2019 Council Recommendation on high-quality ECEC systems and supported by
knowledge shared through the WG ECEC and through ESF+ and RRF funds.
▪ Enhancing inclusion and equity:
- Adoption of policies in Romania to establish a more equitable pre-university education system,
promoting student-centred practices and ensuring resources for quality education. Connected to
SP1 and SP4. The policies were linked to the CSR and aligned with several Council
Recommendations (including the 2022 Council Recommendation on Pathways to School
Success, the 2018 Council Recommendation on promoting common values, inclusive education,
and the European dimension of teaching) in strategic documents. They were supported by the
TSI, and funding from RRF and ESF+ funds.
- Reforms in Portugal to enhance inclusion, autonomy and curriculum flexibility by creating a
structure that gives schools flexibility to adjust pupils’ learning path in order to boost inclusion,
also leading to a reduction in early school leaving. Connected to SP1. The reforms were informed
by the work in different WG and ETM country reports, EU-level targets and CSR to track
progress on policy reforms. They received technical support as well as funding from ESF+, RRF,
and Erasmus+.
▪ Boosting digital skills:
- Digital education reform in Czechia to modernise the content of education, equipping schools
with digital technologies and supporting the digital literacy of teachers. Connected to SP5. This
reform was informed by discussions in WG DELTA, including through peer-learning activities,
and supported by RRF and Erasmus+ funding and the TSI.
33
Mobilisation of EUR 75 billion under the RRF, EUR 40.4 billion under ESF+ and EUR 8.7 billion from ERDF (2021-
27).
25
- In France, recent school reforms to improve the digitalisation of education and digital skills have
been influenced by European cooperation and EEA SP and has benefitted from RRF funding and
technical support through the TSI.
- School reform in Greece aiming to support the development of skills and competences needed
for various societal and labour market transformations, including green and digital skills, was
inspired by common European priorities. Aligned with CSR and ETM findings, the reform
received ESF+ and Erasmus+ funding, as well as technical support.
• Improvement of VET:
- A series of reforms to improve and modernise the VET system in Cyprus have been influenced
by European cooperation, including the Council Recommendation on VET for sustainable
competitiveness, social fairness and resilience. Funding from the RRF and Just Transition Fund
been instrumental in designing and implementing the national reform.
▪ Strengthening higher education:
- The adoption of the Universities and Digital Transformation 2030 strategic framework in
Austria aims to address universities’ digitalisation issues, including learning and teaching, as
well as research, supporting organisation and infrastructure in terms of digital transformation.
Connected to SP4 and SP5. The framework was informed by the work in the WG HE and aligned
with CSR, and received RRF and Erasmus+ funding and technical support through the TSI.
- Reform in Italy to establish an institutional framework for the recognition of qualifications which
has led to a simplified recognition of the qualifications process and improved international
mobility. Connected to SP4. The framework was aligned with the 2018 Council
Recommendation on promoting the automatic mutual recognition and benefitted from Erasmus+
funding to support the recognition of qualifications and to establish an international database of
higher education entry qualifications.
- In Slovakia, the adoption of the Higher Education Quality Assurance Act led to the development
of new accreditation standards and a more university-led approach to quality assurance. The
reform was informed by peer learning opportunities in WG HE and received technical support,
as well as Erasmus+ and RRF funding.
In terms of mutual learning and knowledge-sharing, added value was most visible at the
level of individual EEA actors (i.e. policymakers and practitioners, who participated in
various activities under the EEA implementation instruments); and at organisational level,
for those organisations that had a more systematic approach to sharing information and
organisational learning. At system level, added value was best achieved when countries
were proactive in making the best combined and coordinated use of several of the
EEA implementation instruments.
For small EU countries and those with limited resources, the added value of
participating in mutual learning activities under the EEA strategic framework was
particularly pronounced. These countries were also more likely to see the benefit of using
EU-level guidance to open up to transnational cooperation and to access EU funds to
support educational reforms.
All countries, regardless of their size and level of advancement on certain topics, can
benefit from support under the EEA strategic framework, including the variety of
instruments and funds available, which might not yet be fully utilised.
For EU candidate countries, the participation in the EEA governance and peer learning
supported modernisation of their education and training systems, facilitating alignment
in view of enlargement.
The consultations carried out show that most countries acknowledge that it was much
easier for some challenges to be addressed at EU level. For instance, challenges relating
to digitalisation and AI in education and training, including data protection and
security, can be addressed more efficiently through cooperation at EU level.
26
Such structured cooperation was particularly beneficial at times of crises, such as the
COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine34
, when
coordinated response and mobilisation of EU support were crucial to maintaining the
continuity and quality of education and training.
Strengthening European cooperation in education and training served as a clear
indicator of added value. The EEA strategic framework facilitated the development of
advanced structural cooperation structures that extend beyond individual MS, such as the
European Universities initiative or the Centres of Vocational Excellence.
Continued added value
The importance of continuing European cooperation in education and training
towards the EEA was widely recognised by the EEA actors consulted.
According to the consulted actors, the main risks associated with discontinuing
European cooperation towards the EEA are as follows.
▪ For individual EEA actors: reduced opportunities for knowledge creation and
sharing. According to members of the WG and SGIB surveyed (83 %; n=130), the
discontinuation of the EEA would disrupt connections between policymakers
across the EU. Moreover, individual EEA actors may also have potentially
reduced mobility opportunities.
▪ For organisations: reduced opportunities for policy learning. Organisations
would also be most negatively affected by the loss of European dimension of
education and training, focused on enabling advanced structures for cooperation
that go beyond individual MS. The progress towards internationalisation of
organisations, especially in higher education, and its possible transfer to other
areas, would be hindered. Organisations would have reduced project
opportunities and would face an increased burden in terms of time, human and
financial resources to tackle education issues on their own.
▪ At system-level: loss of coordinated approaches and reduced access to EU
guidance could widen gaps between MS. Progress on pressing issues would
likely slow down, in particular on digital education, quality and equity across
educational levels or higher education as these areas have advanced significantly
through the activities under various EEA implementation instruments.
Discontinuing the EEA would hinder the implementation of national reforms
according to 73% (n=130) of respondents to the WG and SGIB survey.
Furthermore, for half of the policymakers surveyed (n=107), ending the EEA
would negatively affect education policy development in their country.
Discontinuing European cooperation towards the EEA would have a likely negative impact
beyond the education and training field.
34
For example, 25 MS participated in a joint data collection on the inclusion of displaced children from Ukraine in
education systems, organised by the Council Presidency and the European Commission.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/224f94b0-32a8-11ef-a61b-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en
27
4.3. Is the intervention still relevant?
The various analyses conducted as part of the external evaluation study35
strongly indicated
that the thematic focus of the EEA strategic framework is considered highly relevant
by the EEA actors and the wider education and training community consulted. The EEA
SP are highly pertinent and well-aligned with national priorities and issues within
national education systems, including teacher shortages, declining basic skills, low levels
of digital skills, and widening equity gaps. National representatives that were interviewed
(including members of the WG) pointed out that while country-specific challenges exist,
the activities under the EEA strategic framework cover a wide spectrum of issues that
matter to them.
While all SP were considered relevant, with no significant differences in the perceived
importance of one over another, respondents considered the EEA particularly significant
in tackling low levels of digital skills and competences, with 72% (n=130) of
respondents agreeing on this. This was followed by the contribution of the EEA to raising
the quality of education and training provision (68%; n=130) and to reducing
inequalities in education and training (66%; n=130). Two thirds of respondents believed
that the EEA could help address teacher shortages and the lack of attractiveness of the
teaching profession, while 53% agreed that it can help to tackle skills mismatches
between the supply of skills and labour market demand.
The EEA remains relevant even when faced with crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic
and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine36
. The EEA strategic framework mobilises
EU funds and cooperation efforts to support national education systems, in line with the
EEA SP on promoting quality, equity and inclusion. In fact, EEA actors further confirmed
that the EEA SP are even more relevant during these crises, as collaborative efforts are
instrumental in addressing immediate needs, adopting responsive strategies and upholding
a consistent approach to these common challenges.
The continued relevance of the EEA SP
The EEA’s flexibility and focus on long-term, overarching priorities ensure its
continued relevance. Consulted EEA actors provided examples of issues of continued
high relevance for EEA SP to emphasise, in light of the new EU priorities and persistent
challenges:
▪ The EEA strategic framework needs to ensure continued and reinforced focus on
diversity, mental health, well-being, and resilience, at all levels of education and
training. Tackling underachievement and building basic skills should be further
prioritised in light of decreasing performance.
▪ Inclusiveness should remain a priority for access to lifelong learning and cross-
border mobility, targeting especially learners with disabilities, students from
migrant backgrounds and students from a disadvantaged socio-economic
background. In addition to SP1, equity should be mainstreamed as a cross-cutting
objective under all EEA SP.
▪ More attention should be given to improving the working conditions of teachers
and the attractiveness of the teaching profession.
35
See external evaluation support study for details on the analyses (July 2025).
36
European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, ‘Progress towards the
achievement of the EEA – Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions’, Luxembourg: Publications Office of
the European Union, 2022.
28
▪ Priority should be given to sustaining the transnational cooperation necessary
to boost the EU’s competitiveness globally, while increasing inclusivity and equal
access for vulnerable students.
▪ A sustained focus on digital skills is needed, with more attention also given to
developments in AI. Synergies between digital education and learning for
sustainability should be further enhanced. There should also be more focus on
innovation in and through education.
While the current SP were seen as broadly relevant, the EEA actors consulted mentioned
a need to further streamline the EEA SP to address common and national challenges more
effectively. The evaluation identified three potential pathways to ensure the EEA’s
continued relevance and effectiveness in its upcoming 2026-2030 cycle.
Pathway A: Maintain the agreed broad SP with strengthened focus on relevant
(re)emerging and persistent challenges under each of the current SP.
The EEA actors consulted considered that the long-term SP should remain sufficiently
broad to accommodate emerging issues. Nevertheless, respondents suggested that the
strategic framework could benefit from identifying a limited set of priority issues to be
addressed (e.g. basic skills, innovation, STEM, teachers, etc.).
Pathway B: Introduce cross-cutting objectives across the current SP, and revise
them to improve their clarity
EEA actors saw the benefit of introducing cross-cutting objectives (such as lifelong
learning and skills development; socio-economic, regional/territorial, and gender equality;
innovation in and through education, and the global perspective) across current SP to
address cross-cutting issues. These objectives can create a cohesive framework, allowing
for targeted initiatives while maintaining a general framework that addresses a range of
challenges.
At the same time, overarching objectives aligning with the new EU political priorities –
such as boosting Europe’s competitiveness, preparedness and resilience, social cohesion
and fairness, and promoting democracy and EU values – could drive progress towards the
SP.
Pathway C: Consider introducing a new SP (namely, in the area of citizenship
education).
The increased importance of citizenship education was highlighted throughout the
consultations, as well as in numerous recent EU documents (for example, the EP's 2024
resolution on the Commission’s 2023 Rule of Law Report, the 2023 Issue Paper on
Citizenship Education of the WG on Equality and Values, the 2023 Council conclusions,
and Conference on the Future of Europe report). The EEA actors consulted also stressed
the importance of continuing efforts to improve the implementation of citizenship
education, calling for the development of a common citizenship education framework and
for action to enhance its role and improve its quality across MS.
29
5. WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN AND LESSONS LEARNT?
The evaluation found that the EEA in its first cycle (2021-2025) proved its strong added
value by reinforcing agreement on shared priorities across the wider education and training
community, boosting EU resilience in the face of crises, and mobilising support for
structural reforms. The EEA strategic framework provides an overarching strategy for
quality education and training in all contexts, at all levels and in all forms, underpinned by
lifelong learning across borders. Since 2021, the building blocks of a comprehensive
approach towards developing the EEA, serving as a solid basis for further work, have been
gradually put in place. In recent years this comprehensive approach has brought together
education and training actors at different levels to share experiences, cooperate and co-
create the EEA. The overall assessment of European cooperation in education and training
is positive.
The strategic framework will continue to be relevant beyond 2025, by offering a platform
for mutual learning, knowledge creation, and policy and funding support to address
common challenges and opportunities shared by education and training systems across the
EU. EEA actors and the wider education and training community consider the EEA as a
framework that helps Member States build high-quality and inclusive education and
training systems, and which advances the European dimension of education and training
by enabling structured cooperation and promoting mobility, citizenship education and EU
values. At the same time, the evaluation identified some room for improvement to further
boost results and impacts. Six key conclusions were formulated, each paired with lessons
learnt. This chapter concludes with a table providing a structure for operationalising work
under EEA SP.
5.1. EEA SP and EU-level targets
There was progress on the five EEA SP, supported by European cooperation under
the EEA strategic framework. European cooperation towards the EEA contributed to an
increased ownership and understanding of common priorities in education and training
across EEA actors and stakeholders in the wider education and training community. MS
pursued reforms that are aligned with EEA SP (see Section 5.5. below).
Coverage of both SP and education sectors was varied, with some priorities supported more
than others in the first cycle (2021-2025) of the EEA strategic framework (see Table 5).
Addressing persisting and (re)emerging challenges will require even greater efforts and the
prioritisation of issues that have not made sufficient progress during the first cycle of
implementation (see column on priority themes in Table 7, section 5.7.).
EU-level targets and supporting indicators provided a valuable tool for both driving
and tracking progress. At the same time, EU-level targets were not fully aligned with the
EEA SP (see Table 6 below), as some priorities (and related education challenges) do not
lend themselves for being measured quantitatively via a single target domain. While SP1
has several targets that can be associated with it, no targets cover SP3 (teachers and
trainers) or learning for sustainability (under SP5). But the Commission has developed
indicator areas for both (as well as equity), with the support of the SGIB, at the request of
the Council.
30
Trends towards meeting the EU-level targets show a mixed picture. On the plus side: we
see a trend of positive upward convergence (since 2020) with EU-average progressing
towards the achievement of several long-standing 2030 targets (early school leaving,
tertiary attainment and participation in ECEC). Moreover, the 2025 target on VET has been
exceeded. Despite some progress, significant efforts are needed on adult learning. There
are significant warning signs of a persistent and even growing level of underachievement
in basic and digital skills, hitting disadvantaged students especially hard.
Table 6. Progress towards EU-level targets and need for adjustments
EEA SP EU-level target37 Current
value
Progress & need for adjustment
SP1
–
quality,
equity,
inclusion
and
success
for
all
Early childhood education and
care: ‘By 2030, at least 96% of
children between 3 years old and
the starting age for compulsory
primary education should
participate in ECEC’
94.6%
(UOE
2023)
Progress towards achieving the target. Further efforts needed to
achieve target by 203038
. Target remains relevant (together with the second
Barcelona target for under 3-year-olds), also because increased provision
of ECEC is seen as a key contributor to the European Pillar of Social
Rights EU target linked to employment for 203039
. Increase in the 2030
target value would be unrealistic.
Early school leaving: ‘By 2030,
the share of early leavers from
education and training should be
less than 9%’
9.3%
(LFS
2024)
Progress towards achieving the target. Reducing early school leaving is
also seen as a key contributor to the European Pillar of Social Rights EU
target linked to adult participation in training for 203040
. It is also one of
the headline targets on the Social Scoreboard41
. Target level could be made
more ambitious.
Basic skills: ‘By 2030, the share
of underachievement in reading,
mathematics and science should
be less than 15%’
26.2% in
reading
29.5% in
maths
24.2% in
science
(PISA
2022)
Falling even further short of the target. Significant effort needed to
fully explore the reasons and achieve the target. The target remains highly
relevant for helping to improve equity and the quality of education and
training and thus boosting EU competitiveness, social cohesion and
fairness. More ambitious target value would be unrealistic.
Work-based learning in VET: ‘By
2025, at least 60% of recent VET
graduates should have
experienced work-based learning
as part of their VET programme’
65.3%
(LFS,
2024)
2025 target has been exceeded.
Decisions on VET targets will be taken as part of the forthcoming
European Strategy for Vocational Education and Training.
SP2
–
Lifelong
learning
&
mobility
‘By 2025, at least 47% of adults
aged 25-64 should have
participated in learning during the
last 12 months’42 39.5%
(AES
2022)
Progressing towards achieving the target. Significant effort needed to
achieve the target. EU level target for 2030 (as taken forward in the
European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan) remains relevant.
‘By 2030, at least 60% of adults
aged 25-64 should have
participated in learning during the
last 12 months’ (European Pillar
of Social Rights)
SP
4
–
Higher
education
The share of 25 to 34-year-olds
with tertiary educational
attainment should be at least 45%
by 2030
44.2%
(LFS
2024)
Progressing towards achieving the target. Target remains relevant.
Target level could be made more ambitious.
SP5
–Digital
Digital skills: ‘By 2030, the share
of underachievement in digital
skills should be less than 15%’
42.5%43
(ICILS
2023)
Significant gap between the target value and the level of achievement.
Given the rapidly changing technological landscape and the future needs
of the labour market this target will continue to be highly relevant for
contributing to the EU’s preparedness and competitiveness.
37
EU-level targets as set under the 2021 EEA strategic framework resolution, see Annex II. Except the 2030 AL target.
38
European Commission: Employment and social developments in Europe 2024, 2024.
39
Council Recommendation of 8 December 2022 on early childhood education and care: the Barcelona targets for 2030
(2022/C 484/01). European Commission, The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan, 2021.
40
Ibid.
41
Eurostat, Social Scoreboard.
42
Target also adopted by 2021 Council Resolution on a new European agenda for adult learning 2021-2030 (Annex II).
43
Share of eighth-graders were below Level 2 proficiency. IEA, ‘IEA Releases Latest Results of the International
Computer and Information Literacy Study, ICILS 2023’, 2024.
31
Lessons learnt
▪ While current SP were recognised as providing a good basis for further work, there is room for
increasing impact by focusing work-strands on issues related to the most pressing challenges
(see Table 5 on SP).
▪ Systematically tackling cross-cutting objectives (e.g. innovation in and through education;
socio-economic, regional/territorial or gender equality, or the global perspective) across all SP
could increase their impact. In addition, promoting lifelong learning and skills development
might be more effective as a horizontal priority to increase its coverage across all sectors of
education and training.
▪ Introducing a new SP on citizenship education would enhance the EU’s democracy and
preparedness, and help address calls from the European Parliament, the Council and the
Conference on the Future of Europe44
.
5.2. EEA design
The overall design of the EEA strategic framework was found to be appropriate and
fit for achieving strategic priorities. In the absence of regulatory power, the ability of the
EEA strategic framework to create impact arises from its combination of various ‘soft’
implementation instruments. These include: (i) setting quantified targets; (ii) providing
concrete policy guidance (on the implementation of strategic EEA initiatives); (iii)
fostering mutual learning and exchange; (iv) supporting transnational cooperation between
policymakers, practitioners and education and training institutions; (v) mobilising relevant
EU funds and instruments for national reforms; (vi) monitoring progress; and (vii)
supporting the evaluation of relevant reforms.
While EEA implementation instruments, their combination and delivery were overall
positively assessed, further prioritisation (of most relevant challenges to tackle and
strategic EEA initiatives to implement) and a more systematic combination of several
EEA implementation instruments could lead to stronger results and national impacts.
As highlighted by some EEA actors consulted for this evaluation, the strategic framework
risks becoming overly ambitious, by aiming to deliver on too many strategic EEA
initiatives. Given limited resources, pursuing SP through a high number of diverse
activities could result in dispersed efforts (at EU level) and constraints on implementation
capacity (at national level). This could hinder effectiveness and coherence. Prioritising
through more concentrated efforts a smaller number of strategic EEA initiatives,
supported by a systematic combination of other EEA implementation instruments
and periodic evaluation of their implementation, would also help fill evidence gaps,
feeding into policy reviews and increasing impact (for new flagship initiatives that could
be prioritised see bold in column ‘strategic initiatives’ in Table 7, see also section 5.3.
below on filling evidence gaps).
EEA governance bodies proved suitable for supporting collaboration on SP, enabling
mutual learning, and allowing flexibility in reacting to crises. At the same time, the EEA
governance architecture would profit from further reform, including clarification of the
specific roles and responsibilities of governance bodies and ensuring more systematic
feedback loops between them and stronger linkages with governance bodies in other
relevant policy areas.
44
European Parliament Resolution on the implementation of citizenship education actions (2022); Conference on the
Future of Europe (April 2021-March 2022) final report; Council conclusions on the contribution of education and
training to strengthening common European values and democratic citizenship (2023).
32
Lessons learnt
▪ A more focused approach with key strategic EEA initiatives supported by a systematic
combination of EEA implementation instruments could lead to stronger outcomes and
impact, and open the door to exploring targeted approaches for supporting and tracking
progress. This could include identifying under each SP one or two flagship initiatives as
framework strategies setting out work and mobilisation of EEA implementation instruments.
▪ Further governance reforms setting out clear roles for various governance levels, ensuring a
continuous feedback loop between political steering, implementation and monitoring of
progress towards the EEA and reinforced connection with business and other relevant
stakeholders (social partners, labour market and civil society actors), could foster a whole-of-
government approach driving further development of the EEA. A reinforced governance
with improved cross-sectoral linkages could also ensure synergies across education and skills
and employment policies.
5.3. EEA reporting, monitoring and evaluation
Reporting and monitoring under the EEA focused on assessing the effectiveness of
education and training systems using EU-level targets and supporting indicators, such as
participation, attainment and quality of education. This approach helped focus attention on
and drive national reforms and contributed to building a more systematic and coherent
body of evidence, supported by the work of the SGIB. Tools like the ETM informed
policymaking but could be further used to stimulate policy dialogue at the national level.
While the EEA strategic framework has developed a regular monitoring practice around
the EU-level targets and a growing number of supporting indicators, it lacks a mechanism
for systematically building and collecting evidence on national reforms aimed at
achieving EEA SP (including the national implementation of strategic EEA initiatives and
the impact of EU funding on progress towards EU-level targets), or on outcomes and
impacts of activities carried out under EEA implementation instruments45
. The absence of
systematic monitoring and evaluation to track progress on achieving EEA SP, reforms
in line with strategic EEA initiatives and the use of other EEA implementation instruments,
hinders learning about the impact of strategic EEA initiatives, and creates a
knowledge gap weakening its potential to drive evidence-informed policymaking.
Importantly, it makes it difficult to identify and support with robust evidence how national
governments are following up on strategic EEA initiatives and translating them into
concrete policies and practices. It also hinders the assessment of the effectiveness of other
EEA implementation instruments, such as EU-level projects and calls, to support
meaningful change within MS (or at EU level). While some strategic EEA initiatives have
been evaluated, this is not true of all, and evaluations are not repeated regularly. Without
systematic and targeted monitoring and evaluation, it is not possible to identify
implementation gaps and barriers (such as regulatory mismatches, resource constraints
or lack of political will), which could impede the realisation of the EEA SP.
45
There have been efforts to track the EEA’s delivery at the output level, including the 2022 EEA progress report, the
present evaluation, and internal reporting to track progress of activities under EEA implementation instruments.
33
Lessons learnt
▪ A limited number of EU-level education and training targets should be maintained to ensure
that they are effective in mobilising action. A layered system of targets and indicators that
differentiates between thematic targets (e.g. on basic skills, including citizenship education
and digital skills, as well as STEM or equity), sectoral targets (on attainment and
participation in different levels of education and training) and relevant supporting indicators.
As the EEA strategic framework ultimately seeks to promote progress towards the SP, each
SP could be linked to indicators/targets.
▪ A more comprehensive EEA monitoring and evaluation scheme46
could consist of:
- regular impact evaluations of national reforms in line with EEA priorities or of the
follow-up of flagship strategic EEA initiatives;
- periodic impact evaluations and monitoring of the use of EU funds, with embedded
focus on EEA SP;
- light but consistent reporting by MS (e.g. national implementation plans on specific
strategic EEA initiatives or overall follow-up on Union of Skills / EEA) to enhance
comparability and feed mutual learning;
- enhanced synthesis and analysis of data — with a focus on progress towards EEA SP
and implementation of strategic EEA initiatives — collected from various sources and
European Commission knowledge providers47
to create a cohesive understanding of
progress and impact.
5.4. EEA communication and dissemination
Strengthening the shared understanding of the EEA strategic framework and its
benefits is essential for further progress. The success of the EEA in supporting
improvements to national education and training systems, and fostering effective
transnational collaboration, depends on two key factors: (i) a clear understanding by
national-level actors of the benefits of cooperation and active engagement in EEA
governance bodies (for stronger multiplier effects at the organisational and system levels);
and (ii) ownership by these actors of the activities supported through the EEA
implementation instruments. Communication activities directed at EEA actors and
stakeholders at the EU-level, and their active engagement disseminating knowledge and
outputs of EEA governance processes (such as WG deliverables) could therefore have a
significant impact on the overall effectiveness of the EEA strategic framework.
According to the consultation carried out for this evaluation, the precise scope of the EEA
remains somewhat unclear to some stakeholders, leading to varying interpretations of the
EEA strategic framework and its instruments. The lack of a comprehensive
communication strategy at EU level driven by a strong EEA narrative was a barrier
to reaching a consistent and shared understanding. Enhancing the EEA’s branding and
visibility is therefore essential both for achieving a stronger impact at national level and
for reinforcing transnational collaboration. The communication strategy could draw on
activities that have proven effective such as the EEA portal, European Education Summits
and other participatory events (under the Learning Lab, Jean Monnet actions or linked to
a SP, such as the Digital Education Dialogues). Due to their participatory formats, such
events were found to help participants gain a deeper insight into EEA activities and
achievements, fostering greater visibility of strategic EEA initiatives and EU-level
projects, and increasing co-creation and networking within the education and training
community.
46
Such comprehensive monitoring and evaluation would require additional resources and analytical capabilities.
47
Such as European Semester Country Reports, Eurydice, ENESET network, independent expert network, EACEA
Feedback-to-policy reports.
34
Lessons learnt
▪ An overarching EU education and skills communication strategy, driven by a renewed
EEA narrative with a strong focus on branding (ensuring consistent visual identity across
activities under all EEA implementation instruments) with clearly defined target groups and
communication channels could support the effectiveness of EEA implementation
instruments. Communication to EEA actors and the wider education community should
provide clarity on the overall design of the EEA strategic framework (what is included in it,
how the EEA and the Union of Skills will interact, etc.).
▪ Communication on specific EEA implementation instruments should systematically use
the EEA brand and its central messages to boost the visibility of the EEA.
National/regional/local events that mobilise the education and training community could be
encouraged to cover EEA topics, share results of the strategic EEA initiatives / EU-level
projects and calls and their contribution to the EEA. The EEA portal’s user-friendliness and
attractiveness could be further enhanced by reviewing the search functionality, creating
mobile-friendly designs and interactive content (e.g. success stories, case studies, progress
dashboards, etc.).
5.5. Results at Member State level
European cooperation towards achieving the EEA laid an important foundation for
improving education and training systems in Europe. One of the key objectives of the EEA
strategic framework was to support reforms in MS. It did so by engaging EEA actors
(policymakers, practitioners, education and training institutions and other education and
training stakeholders) in cooperation and co-creation focusing on the EEA SP, supported
by various EEA implementation instruments.
MS pursued reforms that were aligned with and contributed to the achievement of
the EEA SP. Progress varies by MS and depends on several factors. This is partly due to
the nature of European cooperation (i.e. voluntary cooperation and no regulatory power at
the EU level). Box 3 shows selected examples at various education levels from ECEC,
through primary and compulsory secondary to VET and higher education.
Box 3. Examples of national reforms that aligned with and contributed to the achievement of EEA SP
▪ Adoption of the National ECEC Quality Framework in Bulgaria (as a direct follow-up of the 2019 Council
Recommendation on high-quality ECEC systems, informed by WG ECEC, supported by TSI, linked to a CSR
under the European Semester). The implemented reforms aligned with SP1 (improving quality, equity, inclusion,
and success for all in education and training) led to improvements in quality standards in ECEC through their
institutionalisation, professional development of staff and the creation of monitoring instruments.
▪ In Spain, educational reforms have made citizenship education a compulsory subject since 2021, contributing
to SP1. The reform outlines the basic and specific competences for citizenship education in primary and
compulsory secondary education. The Spanish EU Presidency prioritised citizenship education, and, ahead of
its presidency, hosted a peer-learning activity under WG Equality and Values in 2023, followed by a discussion
in the HLG. These discussions informed the 2023 Council Conclusions on the Contribution of Education and
Training to Strengthening Common European Values and Democratic Citizenship, connecting the technical and
the political levels of the EEA strategic framework.
▪ In Germany inclusion of refugee learners in schools and VET and employment opportunities to teachers
from Ukraine was supported by mutual learning and policy transfer through WG, and funding opportunities (for
integration efforts, language support, education infrastructure, teacher training) from ESF+, CARE and REACT-
EU, as well as Erasmus+ Horizon Europe projects.
▪ The higher education reform in Croatia (including new legislation on governance) aims to strengthen quality
assurance, accreditation, and enable joint programmes thus supporting the European dimension,
internationalisation. The new legal framework directly incorporates core aspects of strategic EEA initiatives in
higher education. Regular participation of Ministry representatives and experts in the EEA governance structures
(WG HE) ensured policy consistency between the national reforms and strategic EEA initiatives. Significant EU
funding (RRF, ESF+, Erasmus+) as well as TSI support has been mobilised to support the implementation of the
reforms, and the broader digitalisation of higher education.
▪ The reforms in the Netherlands to address the pressing challenges facing teachers, aims to enhance the
competences and motivation of teachers. Having used WG Schools as a knowledge-exchange forum, the
reform is fully aligned with SP3.
35
The evaluation identified the following EEA pathways of influence on national reforms:
Contributing to agenda setting through
building consensus on the shared
priorities (including guiding policy
development in line with Council
Recommendations)
→
EEA SP are reflective of the needs of the MS, as they are
agreed by consensus. When specific national needs closely
align (become salient), political will is more likely to
facilitate the translation of priorities into concrete actions.
Providing opportunities for mutual
learning
→
EEA impact is greater if national policymakers actively
participate in meetings of different governance bodies. WG
and their peer-learning activities serve as crucial fora for
discussing policy issues. These policymakers play a key role
in disseminating the knowledge gained and promoting EEA
SP within their institutions and broader national contexts.
When the guidance developed and the good practices
discussed are systematically shared at the national level, they
inspire reforms and foster policy innovation.
Ensuring complementary use of different
EEA implementation instruments
→
EEA impact is greater if the EEA implementation
instruments are used in synergy. For instance, using
strategic EEA initiatives to guide ongoing policy reforms
and addressing CSR can help identify which challenges to
act upon, including through a collaborative search for
solutions.
Aligning use of EU funding to support
national reforms on EEA SP and
providing project-based funding
opportunities
→
The evaluation found that strong complementarity has
been established between the EEA and the European
Semester, which in turn is linked to the RRF, TSI, and
Cohesion Policy funding and the actual reforms financed,
supported and implemented. The use of EU funding and
technical support to design and implement national reforms
is instrumental in supporting the implementation of EEA SP.
Lessons learnt
In the light of the evaluation findings and considering the ‘soft’ nature of the EEA strategic
framework, more impact at national level could be achieved by:
▪ ensuring better sharing of results by national EEA actors participating in EEA
governance with their counterparts in the respective education systems (e.g. disseminating
outputs across their administrations, feeding into national reforms and the follow-up of
strategic EEA initiatives) to enhance multiplier effects, and build a more solid evidence base
to develop the EEA;
▪ further supporting MS’ reform processes and inclusive dialogue at national level (e.g. use
annual recovery and resilience plans meetings to discuss progress, present selected EEA
initiatives, bring together education authorities, practitioners, and national level stakeholder
organisations; build on national ETM launch events to engage the education community);
▪ further supporting MS in building a culture of evaluation and evidence-informed
policymaking on education and training at national level through the Learning Lab on
Investing in Quality Education and Training.
5.6. Results at European level
While the EEA strategic framework aims to support MS in achieving their educational
objectives, its ambition extends beyond this role. The framework creates a European
dimension by facilitating a transnational exchange of experiences, mutual learning and co-
creation among policymakers and other education and training stakeholders and by
promoting transnational cooperation between education and training institutions and
learning mobility.
36
While the EEA strategic framework builds on the legacy of the earlier frameworks that
promoted transnational cooperation and mobility, this objective was further strengthened
through efforts to consolidate sustainable structures of European cooperation,
embodied in activities under EEA implementation instruments. Such activities include the
European Universities initiative, Centres of Vocational Excellence, the European Degree
and the European Student Card initiative.
In its first cycle, the EEA demonstrated its potential to foster more sustainable and
structured transnational cooperation in education and training, by making significant
progress in promoting mobility, innovation and shared standards. Several initiatives
(including those on learning mobility, micro-credentials and recognition) already
demonstrated significant benefits (documented by evaluations)48
, such as boosting
mobility, fostering more flexible learning pathways and enhancing recognition of
qualifications. This facilitated smoother collaboration, especially at the level of HEIs,
which would probably not have been achieved without European cooperation. These
activities also contributed to new knowledge and practices being developed through
transnational cooperation, and to increased mobility and the reduction of legal obstacles to
further cooperation. At the same time, hurdles related to regulatory diversity and legislative
alignment might impede full implementation and the broader goal of fostering
transnational collaboration.
Under the first cycle of the EEA strategic framework, work supporting the promotion of
a European dimension of education and training through the work on citizenship
education, learning about the EU, its values and democracy also intensified (e.g.
through WG Equality and Values and the Jean Monnet Actions - Learning EU initiatives).
Platforms like the European School Education Platform which provides the Toolkit for
Schools, the Digital Education Hub, EPALE communities for adult learning and VET, and
the EEA portal contributed to creating a common European knowledge space for
educators and policymakers. Frameworks like the European Quality Framework on
ECEC, Key Competences for Lifelong Learning, DigComp and GreenComp advanced
shared standards, contributing to building a European approach to education. Finally,
initiatives such as the Erasmus+ Teacher Academies strengthened collaboration and
professional development across borders.
The EEA strategic framework has also proven instrumental in responding to crises, such
as COVID-19 and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, where a coordinated EU
response helped limit disruption and ensure continuity in education and training.
48
See evaluations of individual Council Recommendations such as that on automatic recognition, or selected EU-level
projects and calls such as the EIT HEI initiative, as well as the RRF or Erasmus+ evaluations.
Lessons learnt
▪ European cooperation in education and training is particularly strong under the SP focused on
(i) reinforcing European higher education; and (ii) making lifelong learning and mobility a
reality. Work towards these priorities goes beyond cooperation and includes transnational
measures. Expanding such efforts to other areas, such as school education, digital skills and
green competences, would embed an even stronger European dimension throughout the EEA.
This is especially relevant when fostering common approaches to skills development.
▪ The EEA’s ability to ensure effective coordinated response to crises like the COVID-19
pandemic and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine illustrates its potential to act as a
unifying force for addressing common challenges faced by European education systems. Any
further reforms of the EEA governance should aim to safeguard and reinforce the EEA
strategic framework’s flexibility and agility to boost preparedness and resilience.
37
5.7. EEA priorities, action strands and monitoring
Based on the above findings of this evaluation, table 7 sets out a structure that could inform
the Council’s review and guide work on EEA priorities (themes to focus on), action strands
(flagship strategic EEA initiatives and EU-level projects and calls) and target/indicator
domains for monitoring progress.
Table 7. EEA priorities, action strands and monitoring
38
SP Priority themes Strategic initiatives (to be proposed or implementation) Flagship projects / calls Relevant M&E target/indicator areas
1. Quality,
equity,
inclusion
Basic skills & top
performance; Quality
and inclusiveness
(diversity, gender,
well-being at school)
Action Plan on Basic Skills with Basic Skills Guarantee;
Pathways to School success, ECEC quality framework
Girls and women’s participation in STEM
studies and careers (also under SP5)
UNDERACHIEVEMENT & TOP PERFORMANCE
in literacy, mathematics and science
EQUITY (learners from a disadvantaged
socio-economic background with good
achievement in at least one domain)
STEM enrolment by sex
2. Mobility
Learning mobility &
inclusiveness
Europe on the Move
EU Talent Magnet framework
EU Talent Pool & Talent Partnerships; M.
Sklodowska-Curie Action ‘Choose Europe’
pilot project
INTERNATIONAL ATTRACTIVENESS (inward
degree mobile tertiary graduates from
outside the EU)
Learning mobility indicators (outward credit
and degree mobile tertiary graduates)
3.
Education
profession
(teachers
and
trainers)
Teacher shortages;
Working conditions;
Attractiveness of the
profession; ITE, CPD
EU Teachers Agenda with European competence
framework for academic staff
Erasmus+ Teacher Academies; European
Innovative Teaching award; Erasmus+ pilot on
European School Alliances
Teaching profession indicator area (online
Monitor Toolbox)
4.
European
higher
education
Reducing obstacles to
cooperation;
Inclusiveness and
accessibility
European degree; Action plan on accessibility of higher
education; European Quality Assurance and Recognition
System; Attractive & sustainable careers in higher
education, European Strategy for Universities
European Universities alliances
EIT HEI initiative
Tertiary attainment
Enrolment in STEM at tertiary level
See also learning mobility indicators under
mobility above.
5. Green
and digital
STEM; AI; Digital
skills; Enhanced links
between learning for
sustainability and
digital skills, gender
and digital equity
Roadmap on the future of digital education and skills;
STEM education strategic plan; STEM competence
framework, European Degree for engineers, Council
Recommendation on AI in education; Council
Recommendations on digital (with DigComp) and on
learning for the green transition and sustainable
development (with GreenComp)
Girls and women’s participation in STEM
studies and careers (Girls Go STEM and STEM
Futures and Fellowships); STEM education
centres; STEM skills foundries, STEM Tech
Talent Induction, European Advanced Digital
Skills Competitions, International Partnerships
on STEM; Education for Climate Coalition
DIGITAL SKILLS (underachievement)
Enrolment in STEM (VET & tertiary), ICT
(PhD)
Learning for sustainability indicators (online
Monitor Toolbox)
6.
Citizenship
education
Teaching and learning
through, about and for
democracy; European
dimension of teaching
and promotion of EU
values
Competence framework for active and democratic
citizenship education, adapted to the EU; Guidelines to
improve the supply and quality of democratic citizenship
education; Strategic guide for EU VET policymakers and
providers to effectively promote citizenship competences in
initial VET; Guiding principles on protecting fundamental
academic values
Jean Monnet actions for Schools and VET;
Erasmus+ Teacher Academies; Erasmus+
School / Culture Collaborations for Civic
Engagement and Critical Citizenship Education
project; EU citizenship module for Erasmus;
Eurydice study: Citizenship education at school
CIVIC KNOWLEDGE (adequate performance
in civic knowledge)
HORIZONTAL PRIORITY: LIFELONG LEARNING & SKILLS DEVELOPMENT
Lifelong learning
mindset; Skills &
qualifications;
recognition
European framework for the automatic recognition of
study qualifications and learning periods abroad at
school, VET & HE levels; European Qualifications
Framework; Individual learning accounts; Micro-
credentials; Skills Portability Initiative; VET strategy
European Digital Credentials for learning;
Erasmus+ pilots on university-business
partnerships and on a European VET diploma;
European Centres of Vocational Excellence
Skills Academies; Pact for Skills
ECEC participation; early school leaving;
[VET]; tertiary attainment; adult
participation in learning


EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 30.6.2025
SWD(2025) 169 final
PART 2/2
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EVALUATION
of the 2021-2030 European Education Area strategic framework
Accompanying the document
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
on the interim evaluation of the 2021-2030 European Education Area strategic
framework
{COM(2025) 340 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2025) 0340 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2025
Table of Contents
ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION...........................................................................................1
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED................................................3
LIMITATIONS...............................................................................................................................................3
1. INCEPTION STAGE...............................................................................................................................4
2. DATA COLLECTION STAGE..................................................................................................................5
3. DATA ANALYSIS STAGE ......................................................................................................................5
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX......................................................................................................7
EFFECTIVENESS...........................................................................................................................................7
EFFICIENCY...............................................................................................................................................14
COHERENCE ..............................................................................................................................................15
EU ADDED VALUE.....................................................................................................................................17
RELEVANCE ..............................................................................................................................................19
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS .......................................................................20
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT........................................25
CONSULTATION STRATEGY .......................................................................................................................25
1. CALL FOR EVIDENCE ........................................................................................................................26
2. PUBLIC CONSULTATION....................................................................................................................27
3. INTERVIEWS WITH THE MAIN EEA ACTORS ......................................................................................30
4. FOCUS GROUPS WITH HLG AND EDUC MEMBERS ...........................................................................33
5. SURVEY OF WG AND SGIB MEMBERS..............................................................................................35
6. SURVEY OF THE WIDER EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMUNITY.....................................................38
7. FOCUS GROUPS WITH EEA ACTORS AT NATIONAL LEVEL.................................................................40
Glossary
Terms and acronyms are used for both singular and plural forms.
Term or acronym Meaning or definition
AI Artificial intelligence
CB Coordination Board (of the High-Level Group)
CSR Country-specific recommendations
DG Directorate-General
DG BUDG Directorate-General for Budget
DG CLIMA Directorate-General for Climate Action
DG CNECT Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology
DG EAC Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture
DG ECFIN Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs
DG EMPL Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
DG ENV Directorate-General for Environment
DG HE Directors-General for Higher Education
DG HOME Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs
DG INTPA Directorate-General for International Partnerships
DG JUST Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
DG NEAR Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations
DG REFORM Directorate-General for Structural Reform Support
DG REGIO Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
DG RTD Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
DGVT Directors-General for Vocational Education and Training
EACEA European Education and Culture Executive Agency
EASNIE European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education
ECEC Early childhood education and care
EDUC Education Committee
EEA European Education Area
EEAS European External Action Service
EFEE European Federation of Education Employers
EFFE European Forum for Freedom in Education
EFTA European Free Trade Association
EIT European Institute of Innovation and Technology
EP European Parliament
EPALE Electronic Platform for Adult Learning in Europe
ESF+ European Social Fund Plus
ESU European Students Union
ET2010 Education and Training 2010
ET2020 Education and Training 2020
ETM Education and Training Monitor
ETUCE European Trade Union Committee for Education
EU European Union
EYCS Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council
HLG High-Level Group on Education and Training
JMA Jean Monnet actions
JRC Joint Research Centre
MS Member States
NFIL Non-formal and informal learning
NGO Non-governmental organisation
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
RRF Recovery and Resilience Facility
SG Secretariat-General (of the European Commission)
SG.RECOVER Reform and Investment Task Force
SGIB Standing Group on Indicators and Benchmarks
SJ Legal Service (of the European Commission)
SP Strategic priority
STEM Science, technology, engineering and mathematics
SWD Staff working document
TSI Technical Support Instrument
UN United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
UNICEF United Nations agency for children
VET Vocational education and training
WG Working groups (EEA strategic framework working groups)
WG AL Working Group on Adult Learning: opening up opportunities for all
WG DELTA Working Group on Digital Education: learning, teaching and assessment
WG ECEC Working Group on Early Childhood Education and Care
WG Equality and Values Working Group on Equality and Values in Education and Training
WG HE Working group on Higher Education
WG Schools Working Group on Schools
WG Schools – Pathways Working Group on Schools sub-group Pathways to School Success
WG Schools – Learning for
Sustainability
Working Group on Schools sub-group Learning for Sustainability
WG VET and the Green
Transition
Working Group on Vocational Education and Training and the Green Transition
1
ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
Lead Directorate-General: European Commission, Directorate-General for Education,
Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC)
Agenda planning reference: PLAN/2023/264
Organisation: The preparatory work for the evaluation started in February 2023. Key
steps in this inception phase included setting-up an interservice group (ISG), publication
of a call for evidence, and drafting of technical specifications for the evaluation support
contract. The contract was awarded under the framework contract EAC/2021/OP/0004
for the provision of services in evaluation to the consortium led by PPMI (the external
contractor). The contract started in December 2023.
The external evaluation assignment included a public and targeted consultations and
provided the main evidence base for this staff working document. The draft external
evaluation support study has been submitted on 3 February 2025. The synopsis report on
all consultation activities was published on the Have your say portal. It is also annexed to
the staff working document.
Timing (key steps of the evaluation):
Date Step
17 February 2023 Evaluation launched in DECIDE (PLAN/2023/264)
26 April 2023
Note Ares(2023)2956155 sent to relevant DGs on setting-up the
ISG
22 May 2023
First ISG meeting: call for evidence, intervention logic,
evaluation questions
16 June-15 September 2023 Call for evidence open on the Have your say portal
mid-July to September 2023
Written consultation of the ISG: technical specifications for the
evaluation support contract
6 December 2023 Signature of the evaluation support contract
15 December 2023 Kick-off meeting with the external contractor
1 February 2024 Theory of Change workshop with the Commission staff
29 February 2024 Second ISG meeting: inception report
4 April-27 June 2024 Public consultation open on the Have your say portal
Q1-Q4 2024 Targeted consultations
11 July 2024 Third ISG meeting: interim report
25 November 2024 Fourth ISG meeting: draft final report
January 2025 Drafting of the evaluation SWD and obligatory annexes
3 to 19 February 2025
Written consultation of the ISG: external evaluation support
study
5 to 12 February 2025 Written consultation of the ISG: draft SWD on evaluation
25 April-12 May 2025 Inter-service consultation
July 2025 Publication of the evaluation report (and the support study)
2
Interservice group: The ISG oversaw the evaluation and met regularly throughout the
evaluation process. The ISG was composed of representatives of 18 Commission
departments1
. It was involved in all the key steps of the evaluation process, including
preparation of the call for evidence, intervention logic, evaluation questions, technical
specifications, public consultation and other questionnaires, monitoring progress and
steering the evaluation, providing comments to and ensuring quality of deliverables
produced by the external contractor. The ISG meetings were held in a hybrid format,
while the written consultations were done online through a dedicated Teams/SharePoint
space.
Work carried out by the external contractor: The evaluation was supported by an
external contractor, who conducted an evaluation support study from December 2023 to
Q1 2025. In line with the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines, the contractor
analysed the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, added value and relevance of the
European cooperation towards the European Education Area (EEA) in the period 2021-
2024.
The consultation strategy was based on a stakeholder mapping. Specific attention was
paid to ensuring the inclusion and diversity of the EEA actors at Member State (MS)
level, as well as balancing the representation of public authorities, social partners, and the
wider education and training community. Respondents were selected in a way to ensure
representation of all MS and all education levels. Data was mainly gathered through the
following consultation activities:
▪ call for evidence on the Have Your Say portal (16 June-15 September 2023)
▪ public consultation on the Have your say portal (4 April-27 June 2024)
▪ targeted consultations:
o survey of EEA strategic framework working groups (WG) and Standing
Group on Indicators and Benchmarks (SGIB) members (16 May-7 June
2024), and of wider education and training community (19 July-23 August
2024)
o interviews with EU institutions, MS and European Economic Area /
EFTA authorities, international organisations, social partners, European
and national stakeholders (Q1-Q4 2024)
o focus groups involving High-Level Group on Education and Training
(HLG) and Education Committee (EDUC) members (22, 25, 29 April
2024), and EEA actors at national level (30 September; 1, 2, 4 October
2024)
o workshops involving experts (8 October 2024), and Commission staff (14
October 2024).
1
BUDG, CLIMA, CNECT, EAC, EACEA, ECFIN, EMPL, ENV, HOME, INTPA, JRC, JUST, NEAR, REFORM,
REGIO, RTD, SG & SG.RECOVER, SJ
3
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED
The external evaluation assignment encompassed several tasks organised in three distinct
stages, all contributing to a comprehensive interim evaluation of the EEA. The
methodology mostly followed a qualitative approach, collecting evidence through
desk-based research and an extensive stakeholder consultation strategy. The evaluation
adopted a fully participatory approach, engaging relevant EEA actors and wider
education and training community into open and targeted consultation activities. Such
involvement of EEA actors, along with the guidance by the ISG and the DG EAC-EMPL
EEA Taskforce, ensured triangulation and quality assurance of data.
Figure 1. Overall process and methodology of the evaluation
• kick-off meeting
• scoping interviews
• scoping desk research
• theory of change workshop
• development of impact
pathways
• desk research
- literature review
• stakeholder consultations
- call for evidence
- public consultation
- focus groups with HLG
and EDUC members
- survey of WG and SGIB
members
- interviews with main EEA
actors
- survey of the wider
education and training
community
- focus groups with EEA
actors at national level
- Delphi workshop
- forward-looking workshop
with the Commission staff
• portfolio analysis
• policy context analysis
• citation analysis in
national documents
• contribution analysis
• qualitative comparative
analysis
• most significant change
narratives
• cost-effectiveness
analysis
Limitations
The evaluation faced several limitations, which influenced the methods used to address
them.
▪ The broad scope of the EEA limits the level of detail the evaluation can provide
for each activity and makes assessing overarching impacts challenging. To
address this, the evaluation focused on high-level interconnections (e.g. among
implementation instruments) and used examples to illustrate activity-level
interplay. The cost-effectiveness analysis covered selected illustrative processes
and activities under each implementation instrument.
▪ The results of the European cooperation towards the EEA on national, regional,
and local policies are non-linear and influenced by the EU's broader agenda and
other international initiatives. Improvements cannot be solely attributed to the
EEA, and it is difficult to isolate its specific impacts, as its strategic framework
Stage 1
Inception stage
Stage 2
Data collection
Stage 3
Data analysis
4
builds on previous cooperation (ET2020 and ET2010). Data collection was
designed with these limitations in mind, and the contribution analysis was used to
draw more robust conclusions.
▪ Due to the indirect impact of the European cooperation towards the EEA on the
ground, quantifying its contribution to results and impacts is not possible.
Analytical techniques, including qualitative comparative analysis, were used to
complement contribution analysis findings.
▪ The short implementation time frame limits the ability of the evaluation to
comprehensively assess impacts, as many activities are still relatively new or
ongoing. To address this limitation, the evaluation focused on completed
activities and early indicators of progress.
▪ The lack of baseline was an additional limitation.
1. Inception stage
The inception stage of the evaluation process started with a kick-off meeting involving
the Commission and the external contractor held on 15 December 2023. The meeting
discussed the overall evaluation process, including the methodology and the timeline.
In total, 20 scoping interviews were conducted with the Commission staff and a
representative of the Life-Long Learning Platform. Scoping desk research was
conducted to review key background documents related to the European cooperation in
education and training towards the EEA. The Commission provided an overview of such
documents to the external contractor for the purposes of the evaluation support study.
The scoping desk research also allowed to identify and address some of the data gaps.
Throughout the data collection activities, different data needs and collection methods
were identified and then used to inform answers to the evaluation questions.
The theory of change workshop with the Commission staff took place on 1 February
2024. The purpose of the workshop was twofold: i) to refine the draft intervention logic
and associated theory of change, and ii) to develop detailed impact pathways for the EEA
implementation instruments and associated assumptions. The workshop helped to collect
information on success factors for every EEA implementation instrument. That
information impacted the final operationalisation of the evaluation questions and the list
of assessment criteria for responses to the evaluation questions.
The theory of change workshop enabled the development of detailed impact pathways
for the EEA implementation instruments, as well as associated assumptions outlining the
conditions under which changes are expected to occur. The impact pathways were
designed to trace connections between the strategic EEA initiatives and the expected
results and impacts, highlighting how different implementation instruments contribute to
overarching EEA objectives. The impact pathways formed the basis for the contribution
analysis.
5
2. Data collection stage
The data collection stage included desk research and various stakeholder consultation
activities.
The desk research helped further development of the evidence base for the evaluation.
The literature review focused on academic literature, past evaluations, and studies
conducted to identify the results and impacts of the EEA strategic framework and its
predecessors (ET2010 and ET2020).
The stakeholder consultations were based on a stakeholder mapping and the
stakeholder consultation strategy. The strategy included open public and targeted
consultation activities. Targeted consultations included relevant EEA actors and the
wider education and training community. Specific attention was paid to ensuring
diversity of MS-level EEA actors, and to balancing representation of public authorities,
social partners and wider education and training community. Respondents were selected
to ensure representation of all MS and all education levels. The synopsis report (see
Annex V) provides a summary of all consultation activities.
Table 1. Stakeholder consultations activities
Activity Timing
Call for evidence (Have your say portal) 16 June-15 September 2023
Public consultation (Have your say portal) 4 April-27 June 2024
Interviews with the main EEA actors Q1-Q4 2024
Focus groups with HLG and EDUC members 22, 25, 29 April 2024
Survey of WG and SGIB members 16 May-7 June 2024
Survey of the wider education and training community 19 July-23 August 2024
Focus groups with EEA actors at national level 30 September 2024; 1, 2, 4 October 2024
Delphi workshop 8 October 2024
Forward-looking workshop with the Commission staff 14 October 2024
3. Data analysis stage
The collected data was analysed by combining several analytical techniques.
▪ The portfolio analysis was used to assess the comprehensiveness and
complementarity of the activities under each EEA implementation instrument2
to
achieve progress towards the EEA strategic priorities (SP)3
.
▪ The policy context analysis explored the complementarity of European
cooperation towards the EEA with other education and training initiatives at both
European and international levels.
▪ The citation analysis examined explicit references to the EEA and its strategic
initiatives in national strategic documents.
2
1. EEA governance; 2. Mobilisation of EU funds and instruments for national reforms; 3. Strategic EEA initiatives; 4.
EU-level projects and calls; 5. Reporting, monitoring, and evaluating progress; 6. Communication and dissemination
3
SP1. Improving quality, equity, inclusion, and success for all in education and training; SP2. Making lifelong
learning and mobility a reality for all; SP3. Enhancing competences and motivation in the education profession
(teachers and trainers); SP4. Reinforcing European higher education; SP5. Supporting the green and digital
transitions in and through education and training
6
▪ Based on the impact pathways and associated assumptions, the contribution
analysis was used to assess the extent to which the EEA and its implementation
instruments contributed to the observed effects. Fieldwork data was used to assess
how the impact pathways materialised and to validate the assumptions. The
contribution analysis helped to identify the role and contribution of each EEA
implementation instrument and supported the evaluation of their effectiveness.
▪ The qualitative comparative analysis examined the conditions for EEA
implementation instruments to support actual reform processes in MS. The
analysis was based on the national case study reports (forthcoming as part of the
evaluation support study in July 2025), and involved mapping the contribution of
the EEA implementation instruments to the development or amendment of the
reforms. The mapping enabled a comparative analysis of the drivers of influence
and the EEA’s role in supporting or disseminating reforms. The insights from this
analysis provided valuable input into evaluating the effectiveness of the European
cooperation towards the EEA.
▪ The most significant change narratives analysis was used to explore EEA
actors’ understanding of the European cooperation towards the EEA and to
identify what they value the most about it. This analytical technique relied on
qualitative data collection methods, mainly in-depth interviews and focus groups
with EEA actors at all levels. During these consultations, participants shared their
views on the main benefits of the EEA and its activities. The findings from the
most significant change narratives analysis informed the evaluation of
effectiveness, efficiency (in terms of benefits), and added value, and provided
inputs to the contribution analysis.
▪ Regarding the cost-effectiveness analysis, an important challenge was that
European cooperation towards the EEA comprises a wide and varied range of
processes and activities and is influenced by the EU's broader agenda and other
international initiatives. The analysis therefore adopted an approach whereby
information was systematically collected on the costs and benefits of selected
illustrative examples of processes and activities under the EEA implementation
instruments. Improvements could not be solely attributed to the EEA, and it was
difficult to isolate the EEA’s specific impacts as the strategic framework builds
on previous cooperation frameworks (ET2020 and ET2010). Due to the
incremental nature of the EEA, it was not possible to quantify the monetary and
time inputs. These constraints therefore limit the possibility to generalise the
findings and to draw comparative conclusions with regard to cost-
effectiveness. More details on the cost-effectiveness analysis can be found in
Annex IV.
7
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX
The evaluation matrix presents the operationalisation of the evaluation questions as developed during the inception phase of the evaluation process. The matrix
addresses all the evaluation criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU added value, and relevance.
Effectiveness
Evaluation question Judgement criteria Indicators Sources
Implementation of the strategic EEA initiatives4
and EU-level projects and calls5
EQ1: To what extent have the strategic
EEA initiatives and EU-level projects and
calls been implemented?
The strategic EEA initiatives and EU-level projects and
calls agreed have been implemented/progressed in a
timely manner.
Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ outputs implemented:
o strategic EEA initiatives and EU-level projects and calls
implemented
o planned deliverables produced
o participants engaged and communicated about the
outputs/outcomes
Quantitative:
▪ proportion of surveyed EEA actors who report progress of selected
strategic EEA initiatives (Commission Communications and Council
Recommendations)
Qualitative:
▪ examples of progress raised by interviewees
▪ challenges encountered
▪ results achieved so far (intended and unintended)
Interviews
Online focus groups
Portfolio analysis
Surveys (WG and wider
education and training
community)
4
The evaluation focused on 19 strategic EEA initiatives: 1) Support for language teaching and learning; 2) Inclusive, equitable and gender equal education; 3) Mobility of young volunteers across the EU; 4)
Making Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps programmes more inclusive; 5) Pathways to school success; 6) High quality early childhood education and care (ECEC); 7) Europe on the Move – learning
mobility opportunities for everyone; 8) Micro-credentials for lifelong learning and employability; 9) Automatic recognition of qualifications and learning periods abroad; 10) European strategy for universities;
11) Building bridges for effective European higher education cooperation; 12) European quality assurance and recognition system in higher education; 13) European degree; 14) Attractive and sustainable careers
in higher education; 15) European graduate tracking initiative; 16) Blended learning; 17) Learning for sustainability; 18) Key enabling factors for successful digital education and training; 19) Improving the
provision of digital skills.
5
The evaluation focused on 17 EU-level projects and calls: 1) Erasmus+ Jean Monnet Actions for schools and VET; 2) Erasmus+ Centres of Vocational Excellence; 3) Erasmus+ Teacher Academies; 4) European
Innovative Teaching Award; 5) Teacher mobility framework; 6) Erasmus+ European Universities; 7) European Student Card Initiative; 8) European Digital Credentials for Learning; 9) Erasmus+ policy
experimentation on the European degree (label) and institutionalised cooperation by alliances of universities; 10) EIT Innovation Capacity Building for Higher Education; 11) Researchers at Schools; 12)
Education for Climate Coalition; 13) Making Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps programmes greener; 14) Women’s participation in STEM studies and careers; 15) Making Erasmus+ and European
Solidarity Corps Programmes more digital; 16) International dimension of Erasmus and the European Solidarity Corps; 17) Association of the Western Balkans.
8
Effects of the EEA by SP
Effects of strategic EEA initiatives and EU-level projects and calls (by SP)
EQ2: To what extent current strategic EEA
initiatives and EU-level projects and calls
contribute effectively to the achievement of each
SP? How could strategic EEA initiatives and EU-
level projects and calls contribute further?
The strategic EEA initiatives and EU-level projects and calls produce
the expected effects (results/impacts) at EU-level and in MS at the
level of:
▪ EEA actors (policymakers and practitioners)
▪ organisations
▪ systems and policy.
There is a relationship between strategic EEA initiatives and EU-
level projects and calls and achieved results/impacts.
The assumptions about the effectiveness of the EEA are validated
and confirm the contribution of the EEA (strategic EEA initiatives
and EU-level projects and calls) to the positive effects observed (as
defined in the impact pathways of the strategic EEA initiatives and
EU-level projects and calls).
Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ results/impacts achieved by SP (intended and
unintended)
▪ distribution of effects across target groups
▪ assumptions about effectiveness and related
indicators
▪ presence or absence of EEA related indicators
(success factors)
▪ coverage of SP within strategic EEA initiatives
and EU-level projects and calls
▪ identification of level of progress by SP across the
strategic EEA initiatives and EU-level projects
and calls
▪ presence or absence of desired effects at different
levels across the EEA SP and different EEA
implementation instruments
Quantitative:
▪ proportion of surveyed WG members who agree
that strategic EEA initiatives and EU-level
projects and calls contribute to progress towards
EEA
Contribution
analysis
Interviews
Online focus groups
Portfolio analysis
Public consultation
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
EQ3: Why have certain objectives (SP) not (yet)
been (fully) achieved?
What kind of expected results and impacts, in
relation to the objectives set out in the SP are
likely to require a longer time to show?
What are the main barriers, if any, hindering the
effectiveness of strategic EEA initiatives and
EU-level projects and calls supporting the MS
with regard to each SP?
Not applicable. Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ coverage of SP by activities implemented and the
effects observed
Qualitative:
▪ barriers identified by interviewees
▪ description of mechanisms to address barriers
▪ nature of expected results and impacts compared
to the nature of activities implemented
▪ prevalence of barriers
Case studies
Contribution
analysis
Interviews
EQ4: How has effectiveness of strategic EEA
initiatives and EU-level projects and calls and the
achievement of objectives set out in the SP
varied between various sectors of education and
training?
Positive effects are observed in all sectors. Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ overview of effects per sector
Contribution
analysis
Interviews
9
Effects of national reforms (by SP)
EQ5: How has the European cooperation under
the EEA strategic framework contributed to
inspiring policy reforms in education and
training at national and regional levels? What are
effects of national reforms inspired by the EEA?
To what extent are the effects of national reforms
in line with the intended results and impacts of
each SP?
EEA objectives (SP) reflected in national (regional/sub-national, as
appropriate) education strategies (policy documents and legislation)
and/or policy reforms – evidence that EEA outputs are used in
strategic documents at national level.
European cooperation under the EEA strategic framework has an
impact on setting and influencing policy agenda and development at
national level, and has inspired national policy reforms.
National reforms that are aligned with the EEA have been positively
evaluated in that they contributed to changing the expected impact
indicators at national level.
Effects at national level have been observed at individual,
organisational and system/policy levels (and are in line with the
results and impacts as defined in the EEA intervention logic).
Quantitative:
▪ proportion of surveyed WG members who agree
that EEA inspired national reforms in line with
EEA SP
Qualitative:
▪ nature of references
▪ examples of EEA-inspired reforms shared by
interviewees and survey respondents
▪ typology of effects supported by examples
Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ existence of references
▪ coverage of EEA SP in the references
▪ links between national reforms and SP
▪ assumptions of impact pathways of EEA
implementation instruments are validated
regarding national policy reforms
▪ case studies confirm effects at national level, and
those effects are in line with the results and
impacts as defined in the EEA intervention logic
Case studies
Citation analysis
Contribution
analysis
Interviews
Most significant
change narratives
Portfolio analysis
Qualitative
comparative
analysis
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
EQ6: To what extent do the EEA
implementation instruments support the efforts of
MS to address country-specific recommendations
(CSR) received in the context of the European
Semester, and to what extent do they influence
the programming of EU funds and instruments in
line with EEA objectives?
The EEA implementation instruments contribute to the formulation
of CSR in the context of the European Semester (assumption in
relevant impact pathways confirmed).
The EEA implementation instruments contribute to the definition of
priorities of the EU funds and instruments (assumption in relevant
impact pathways confirmed).
The EEA implementation instruments are useful for countries to
address CSR.
Examples of use of EEA implementation instruments by countries in
addressing CSR exist.
Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ assumptions concerning contribution to
development of CSR confirmed
▪ assumptions concerning contribution to definition
of EU fund priorities in line with the EEA SP
confirmed
▪ distribution of CSR per each SP
Qualitative:
▪ links between the European Semester and EEA
implementation instruments
Case studies
Interviews
Portfolio analysis
Questions specific to certain SP
EQ7: To what extent do current strategic EEA
initiatives and EU-level projects and calls give
visibility to specific areas of education (including
the role of non-formal and informal learning)?
SP: Making lifelong learning and mobility a
reality for all
There is a positive relationship between strategic EEA initiatives and
EU-level projects and calls and priorities and the role of non-formal
and informal learning (NFIL), including youth work and
volunteering, in the development of personal and professional skills
and competences of learners, including intercultural understanding
and active citizenship.
NFIL is valorised by EEA actors.
Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ coverage of NFIL in strategic EEA initiatives and
EU-level projects and calls
Qualitative:
▪ perception of NFIL by EEA actors
Interviews
Portfolio analysis
10
EQ8: Have the European strategy for universities
and the associated Council Recommendation on
building bridges for effective European higher
education cooperation provided relevant support
to MS in adapting their higher education systems
for deeper transnational cooperation in Europe?
SP: Reinforcing European higher education
The European strategy for universities and the associated Council
Recommendation on building bridges for effective European higher
education cooperation are positively viewed by EEA actors.
EEA actors agree that progress was achieved.
Evidence regarding achieved progress is identified.
Quantitative:
▪ proportion of surveyed EEA actors who agree that
there has been progress
Qualitative:
▪ examples of progress identified
Case studies
Interviews
Portfolio analysis
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
EQ9: To what extent has the EEA − including
through the international dimension of Erasmus+
− encouraged closer cooperation with non-EU
countries, and what has been the impact in terms
of mobilities/cooperation actions in the various
sectors of education?
Education and training from a global perspective
EEA has had positive effects on cooperation with non-EU countries.
The level of cooperation has positively affected participation in
learning mobility.
Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ evidence of increased mobilities/cooperation
identified linked with concrete efforts made within
the EEA implementation instruments
Qualitative:
▪ EEA actors provide examples of how EEA
enabled closer cooperation with non-EU countries
▪ examples of changes which were facilitated by the
EEA in non-EU countries or to allow incoming
students from partner countries
Interviews
Portfolio analysis
EQ10: How significant is the combined impact
of EU and its MS – “Team Europe” – in terms of
educational engagement with the rest of the
world?
Education and training from a global perspective
The EEA has effects on education and training from a global
perspective.
The EEA is known to EEA actors working on education and training
from a global perspective.
Quantitative:
▪ perception of the contribution of EEA in this field
(of the surveyed EEA actors)
▪ proportion of surveyed WG members who agree
that EEA contributed to the global perspective
Qualitative:
▪ indicative examples of interaction between EEA
and education and training from a global
perspective in the following areas:
o inclusive and equitable quality education
(including gender equality)
o lifelong learning opportunities for all
o promoting learning mobility
o digital transition in and through
education
Interviews
Survey of WG
Most significant
change narratives
EQ11: To what extent have strategic EEA
initiatives and EU-level projects and calls and the
EEA strategic framework governance and co-
creation processes (under the EU Education
Solidarity Group for Ukraine) contributed to
addressing the impact of the war in Ukraine on
education and training?
Education and training from a global perspective
There are examples of positive contribution of the work under EEA
in this field.
EEA actors concerned are able to describe examples of significant
contributions to addressing the education impact of the war in
Ukraine.
Qualitative:
▪ nature and type of activities implemented
▪ EEA actors’ opinions on EEA contribution to
addressing the education impact of the war in
Ukraine
▪ examples of effects
Case studies
Interviews
Most significant
change narratives
Portfolio analysis
11
Communication
EQ12: Have the EEA portal and online
communities of practice and the European
Education Summits contributed to promoting
access to information, collaboration, and
exchanges in relation to the EEA? Is there a need
for further development of these? If so, how?
EEA actors are aware of the SP, different strategic EEA initiatives
and EU-level projects and calls.
There is strong user satisfaction with these tools.
Users are able to navigate easily these tools.
The trends of accessing the tools and engagement with content are
positive.
Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ level of awareness of the EEA activities
Quantitative:
▪ proportion of surveyed EEA actors and WG
members who are aware of different EEA
activities
▪ proportion of surveyed EEA actors who agree that
they have a clear overall understanding of the
EEA strategic framework
▪ website statistics and trends
▪ proportion of EEA actors and wider education and
training community who agree that EEA
communication efforts have been good or
excellent
▪ proportion of surveyed EEA actors and wider
education and training community who agree that
communication has been overall successful, had
clear message in place
▪ level of satisfaction with the EEA portal and
online communities of practice (surveyed wider
education and training community)
Online focus groups
Portfolio analysis
Public consultation
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
Effects of reformed governance
EQ13: To what extent has the reformed
governance contributed to achieving progress
under the SP? What changes, if any, are needed
to improve effectiveness?
Positive examples of contribution to achieving SP are identified.
EEA actors are satisfied with current governance arrangements /
EEA actors identify positive changes concerning governance.
Comparison of effectiveness of different EEA implementation
instruments with tools and deliverables of the ET2020 (as identified
in the literature review / EEA actors’ opinions).
No significant areas for simplifying the governance are identified.
Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ comparison of effects by different SP
▪ level of participation in governance
Qualitative:
▪ testimonies of contribution
▪ synergies between governance bodies
▪ EEA actors’ opinions regarding how the
governance could be simplified and more effective
Case studies
Contribution
analysis
Interviews
Literature review
Online focus groups
Portfolio analysis
Public consultation
Survey of WG
EQ14: Has the MS’ ownership of the process
and priorities increased in comparison to
ET2020?
There is strong ownership of priorities among EEA actors at all
levels.
Comparison with the Assessment on tools and deliverables under the
framework for European cooperation in education and training
(ET2020).
Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ perception of the EEA and cooperation process
▪ awareness of EEA activities (MS policymakers
compared with other EEA actors’ groups)
▪ commitment to priorities and strategic EEA
initiatives and EU-level projects and calls
▪ level of participation
▪ level of engagement of participants
Interviews
Most significant
change narratives
Case studies
Public consultation
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
12
EQ15: Has the HLG become more strategic and
agile?
The HLG is better connected to the other levels of governance and
able to adapt rapidly.
Representation of MS and of the Commission at appropriate level in
HLG is ensured (sufficiently senior level, good understanding of
EEA strategic framework processes).
The Coordination Board (CB) has helped better prepare HLG
meetings and make the HLG discussions more strategic, also by
ensuring better continuity between Council Presidencies.
HLG/CB have contributed to improving communication between
technical and political levels.
Qualitative:
▪ feedback on the process of governance
▪ examples of synergies and agility
▪ perception of EEA actors regarding HLG being
more strategic and agile
Interviews
Portfolio analysis
EQ16: What is the effect of the reformed
governance under the strategic framework at the
organisational level in the administrations of MS,
EU institutions and EEA actors organisations?
There is positive effect of reformed governance at an organisational
level (MS administrations, EU institutions, and EEA actors
organisations).
Examples of effective in-country coordination exist.
Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ changes to improve effectiveness of governance
are identified:
o changed working arrangements
(structures and processes)
o inter-institutional and inter-sectoral
cooperation
o increased impact on agenda-setting,
planning and strategic decision-making
Interviews
Survey of WG
Effects of mutual learning (sub-group of the reformed governance)
EQ17: To what extent has European cooperation
under the EEA strategic framework facilitated
the mutual learning, analysis, and sharing of
good practices on quality investment in
education and training?
Assumptions of the technical governance pathway are confirmed.
Understanding of good practices in investment in education
infrastructure at MS level has been strengthened.
There is evidence of the influence of the EEA.
Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ assumptions from the impact pathways confirmed
▪ examples of influence
Case studies
Contribution
analysis
Interviews
Online focus groups
EQ18: Have the mutual learning arrangements
enabled progress towards the achievement of
objectives (SP)?
Relevant assumptions in the political and technical levels of
governance pathways are confirmed.
Mutual learning results in the desired effects at individual,
organisational and system level.
Mutual learning enabled progress towards the achievement of
objectives.
Need to further strengthen/adapt mutual learning activities.
Qualitative:
▪ assumptions from the impact pathways confirmed
▪ indicators aligned with final intervention logic
▪ gaps in the coverage of mutual learning activities
▪ barriers to participation and sharing best practices
▪ areas for adapting mutual learning activities
identified
▪ types of improvements for mutual learning
activities identified
Case studies
Most significant
change narratives
Interviews
Online focus groups
Portfolio analysis
Public consultation
Survey of WG
13
EU-level targets and indicators
EQ19: To what extent has European cooperation
under the EEA strategic framework contributed to
improved data collection and analysis with a view
to fostering evidence-based policymaking in
education?
Relevant assumptions from the impact pathway on monitoring are
confirmed.
There is evidence of positive contribution.
Performance monitoring sufficiently covers all aspects linked to EEA SP.
There are no gaps in the monitoring.
EU-level targets and indicators improve EU-level monitoring of
education and training systems,
Learning Lab activities improve EU and national/regional level
monitoring.
Positive effect of EU-level targets on monitoring capabilities and
undertaking of monitoring at EU level.
Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ assumptions from the pathway confirmed
▪ mapping of indicators against SP and needs
▪ EEA actors perceive monitoring as useful
Qualitative:
▪ examples of improvements and changes
Contribution analysis
Interviews
Online focus groups
Portfolio analysis
Public consultation
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
EQ20: To what extent has the governance of the
EEA strategic framework contributed to
strengthened monitoring and education policy
evaluation in the EU MS?
MS attribute strengthened education policy evaluation and monitoring to
the EEA.
Cross-references to EU-level monitoring exist in national strategic
documents.
Examples of use of the monitoring are identified.
Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ assumptions are validated
▪ degree and nature of cross-referencing to EU
monitoring in national strategy documents
Qualitative:
▪ examples of influence
▪ examples of use of EU level monitoring
Case studies
Citation analysis
Contribution analysis
Interviews
Online focus groups
Public consultation
EQ21: Based on the trends so far, is any
adjustment/resetting of any EU-level targets
warranted? If so, how? Is there a need for any new
targets? If so, what are they?
Not applicable. Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ match between the targets and performance to date
Qualitative:
▪ perceived need to adjust the targets
Expert Delphi panel
Interviews
Portfolio analysis
Mobilisation of EU funds and instruments
EQ22: How has European cooperation under the
EEA strategic framework contributed to mobilising
and using EU funds and instruments effectively to
support policy reform at national and regional
level?
Assumptions of the mobilisation of funds and instruments impact
pathway are confirmed.
EU funds have been aligned to support the EEA.
Countries have used the funds towards EEA objectives.
Reforms have been funded in line with the EEA.
Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ assumptions confirmed
▪ mapping of activities funded against the EEA SP
Qualitative:
▪ examples of strategic use of funds
▪ perceptions of EEA actors
Contribution analysis
Interviews
Most significant
change
National case studies
Online focus groups
Portfolio analysis
14
EQ23: To what extent have the EEA
implementation instruments contributed to
supporting MS’ design and implementation of EU-
funded and supported reforms and projects? And
beyond the EEA, through the international
cooperation policies of the EU and its MS?
EEA instruments have contributed to achieve change at the level of
national policies.
EEA-relevant reforms were supported by EU funds and instruments.
Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ assumptions from different impact pathways
confirmed
Qualitative:
▪ examples of contributions identified
Case studies
Contribution analysis
Interviews
Most significant
change
Portfolio analysis
Efficiency
Evaluation question Judgement criteria Indicators Sources
Costs and benefits of the EEA implementation instruments
EQ24: What are the costs and benefits of strategic
EEA initiatives and EU-level projects and calls and
European cooperation under the EEA strategic
framework during the period 2021-June 2024?
The costs of EEA activities under its instruments are proportionate to
the benefits.
There is a balance between activities implemented (where available) and
the effects observed.
The strategic EEA initiatives and EU-level projects and calls are
confirmed to be effective.
There is no identified need to change the strategic EEA initiatives and
EU-level projects and calls.
Qualitative:
▪ nature of costs and benefits
▪ type and nature of activities implemented
▪ nature and degree of effects observed description of
implementation mechanisms
▪ description of the chains of influence against the
assumptions in the theory of change
▪ identified need to streamline the strategic EEA
initiatives and EU-level projects and calls
Cost-effectiveness
analysis
Portfolio analysis
Case studies
Interviews
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
Contribution analysis
Public consultation
Efficiency of the EEA governance
EQ25: To what extent reforms under the EEA
(including strategic EEA initiatives and EU-level
projects and calls, governance, mobilisation of EU
funds and instruments, and monitoring) contributed
to making European cooperation and national
implementation/reforms more efficient compared
with the previous ET2020 framework?
Comparison of efficiency of strategic EEA initiatives and EU-level
projects and calls, governance, and mobilisation of EU funds and
instruments (including across the education and training sectors).
Qualitative:
▪ examples of efficiency gains
▪ EEA actors’ perceptions
▪ examples from other open methods of coordination
Interviews
Survey of WG
Online focus groups
Cost-effectiveness
analysis
EQ26: Are governance structures designed and
organised efficiently to support MS and promote
European cooperation and co-creation? Is there a
need for further simplification?
Absence of inefficiencies.
Satisfaction is high among participants involved in governance at
political and technical levels.
Clarity over roles and responsibilities as well as efficient
communication.
Qualitative:
▪ analysis of processes put in place
▪ examples of inefficiencies
▪ examples of gaps
Portfolio analysis
Interviews
Cost-effectiveness
analysis
15
Coherence
Evaluation question Judgement criteria Indicators Sources
Internal coherence
EQ27: To what extent is the EEA internally
coherent?
There are strong complementarities between EEA SP in terms of
activities and education and training levels covered.
There are strong complementarities between different EEA
implementation instruments:
▪ different instruments complement each other (in terms of SP,
education and training levels and target groups),
▪ technical and political governance levels are linked (feedback
mechanisms exist between the two), and this link has improved
compared to previous periods,
▪ feedback mechanisms between different instruments exist,
▪ no overlaps have been identified,
▪ the strategic EEA initiatives and EU-level projects and calls are
complementary and there is no need for simplification,
▪ the internal coherence is consistent across the education and
training sectors.
Qualitative and quantitative:
▪ mapping of activities in terms of SP covered,
number of activities that cover multiple SP, most
common SP pairings covered by one activity
identified (by EEA instrument)
▪ proportion of surveyed EEA actors who agree that
the EEA activities and SP are internally
complementary
▪ extent of overlaps and need for streamlining
strategic EEA initiatives and EU-level projects
and calls
▪ feedback mechanisms identified between:
o HLG and EDUC and EYCS,
Employment Committee, DGVT, DG
Schools, DG HE
o WG and HLG
o across WG
o technical and political governance, and
strategic EEA initiatives and EU-level
projects and calls (in terms of
objectives)
o monitoring, evaluation and progress
tracking and mobilisation of funds (in
terms of programming priorities and
funding decisions)
o other links identified
Qualitative:
▪ examples of complementarities
▪ absence of overlaps
Interviews
Portfolio analysis
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
16
Coherence of communication
EQ28: To what extent is communication about
the EEA coherent?
There is a consistency of messages in communication across EEA.
The existing communication and dissemination tools are used
consistently.
Complementarity between EEA and national discourse in education
and training.
Qualitative and quantitative:
▪ extent to which communication and dissemination
activities cover all SP and education and training
levels
▪ gaps identified in the use of existing
communication tools (e.g. in terms of SP,
education and training levels covered, information
provided on communication tools)
▪ EEA is mentioned (in an aligned way with the
Council Resolution) in context of national reforms
and strategic documents
Qualitative:
▪ examples of coverage of EEA
▪ examples of communication messages
▪ examples of internal coordination to deliver EEA
messages (feedback mechanisms between other
instruments and communication and
dissemination)
▪ absence of contradictory or not aligned messages
Citation analysis
Interviews
National case
studies
Portfolio analysis
Public consultation
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
External coherence
EQ29: To what extent are the approach and
efforts to achieve the EEA coherent with other
EU policies, programmes, and processes?
There are strong complementarities between EEA and other EU level
policies:
▪ the objectives, education and training levels and target groups
are complementary,
▪ synergies are actively fostered (e.g. through WG agenda,
participants, preparation of strategic initiatives),
▪ SP lifelong learning and mobility specific: complementarity
between strategic EEA initiatives and EU-level projects and
calls and Skills Agenda and European Qualifications
Framework,
▪ synergies exist for external coherence concerning different SPs,
▪ EEA actors perceive EEA as complementary to other initiatives
at EU level,
▪ external coherence is consistent across the different education
and training sectors.
Quantitative:
▪ proportion of surveyed EEA actors who agree with
existence of synergies
Qualitative and quantitative:
▪ mapping of objectives, target groups and types of
activities reveals complementariness
Qualitative:
▪ absence of contradictions
▪ examples of complementarities
▪ examples how synergies are proactively fostered
and cross-sectoral cooperation enhanced
Interviews
Policy context
analysis
Portfolio analysis
Public consultation
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
17
EQ30: To what extent is the EEA coherent with
initiatives at national level?
There are strong complementarities between EEA and national
policies:
▪ EEA SP and instruments are aligned with national policy agenda
and ongoing reforms,
▪ EU-level targets feature in national strategic documents,
▪ synergies are actively fostered (e.g. through WG agenda,
participants, preparation of strategic initiatives),
▪ synergies exist for external coherence concerning different SP,
▪ EEA actors perceive EEA as complementary to other initiatives
at national level,
▪ external coherence is consistent across the different education
and training sectors.
Quantitative:
▪ proportion of surveyed EEA actors who agree that
SP and EEA instruments are complementary with
national policy initiatives and reforms
Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ national reforms funded through RRF, ESF+ and
TSI (separately) are linked with the SP
▪ mapping reveals that EU-level targets are cited in
national documents
▪ differences across education and training sectors
identified
Qualitative:
▪ national reforms linked with the EEA (part of case
studies) complement other ongoing national
efforts based on the opinion of EEA actors
▪ examples of complementarities
Citation analysis
Interviews
National case
studies
Policy context
analysis
Portfolio analysis
Public consultation
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
EQ31: To what extent is the EEA externally
coherent with existing initiatives at international
level?
There are clear examples of alignment and synergies at the levels of
objectives, activities and target groups:
▪ the objectives, education and training levels and target groups
are complementary,
▪ synergies are actively fostered (e.g. through WG agenda,
participants, preparation of strategic initiatives),
▪ EEA actors perceive EEA as complementary to other initiatives
at international level,
▪ external coherence is consistent across the different education
and training sectors.
Quantitative:
▪ proportion of EEA actors and WG members who
agree with the existence of synergies
Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ mapping of objectives, target groups and types of
activities reveals complementariness
Qualitative:
▪ absence of contradictions
▪ examples of complementarities
▪ examples how synergies are proactively fostered
Policy context
analysis
Portfolio analysis
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
Interviews
Public consultation
EU added value
Evaluation question Judgement criteria Indicators Sources
Added value during the evaluation period
EQ32: To what extent did European cooperation
under the EEA strategic framework achieve
added value?
Added value was produced for different groups, in different
education and training sectors, and for different types of challenges
(shared by all/most MS and transnational/EU).
There is evidence of added value produced outside the EU (non-EU
countries).
Positive assessment of effectiveness in the area of policy learning.
Examples of positive effects of EEA are present.
Evidence that reforms/projects would not have taken place if the
EEA would not exist.
Other factors that influenced the results identified.
Qualitative and quantitative:
Nature and type of EU added value, including across:
▪ different education and training sectors
▪ SP
▪ different types of challenges (inequality of access
to high quality education, green skills, digital
skills / learning mobility, cross-border
cooperation)
▪ groups that the EEA benefited the most
▪ comparison with costs and benefits
▪ degree and scale of policy learning that can be
considered to be linked to EEA within EU and
Contribution
analysis and
qualitative
comparative
analysis under
effectiveness
Contribution
analysis and
qualitative
comparative
analysis under
18
beyond
▪ nature and type of added value on third countries,
including examples of strengthened cooperation
Quantitative:
▪ proportion of EEA actors who agree that similar
effects would not have been achieved without
EEA
▪ proportion of EEA actors who agree that EEA
provides added value
Qualitative:
▪ conclusions stemming from a combined analysis
of other evaluation criteria
▪ list of factors affecting the results EEA contributes
to identified (facilitating and hindering added
value)
effectiveness
Interviews
Interviews
Policy and portfolio
analysis
Public consultation
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
Continued added value
EQ33: Is it important to continue European
cooperation under the EEA strategic framework?
The EU added value and the benefits of the EEA outweigh the costs
and go beyond what MS would have achieved on their own.
There is evidence that discontinuation of the EEA would have
negative effects.
The scale and size of such negative effects are proportionate to the
costs of the EEA.
There is no evidence that other initiatives at different levels could
replace the EEA at similar scope and volume.
Quantitative:
▪ proportion of surveyed EEA actors who agree that
discontinuation of the EEA would have negative
effects
Quantitative and qualitative:
▪ examples and nature of effects of discontinuation
of EEA
▪ progress along the SP
▪ comparison of potential scope of the negative
effectives to the costs of the EEA
Qualitative:
▪ initiatives that could replace the EEA identified
(or not identified)
▪ negative effects identified through interviews
Contribution
analysis
Delphi expert panel
Task 4 – analysis of
other possible
measures Interviews
Online focus groups
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
EQ34: Have the competences granted to the EU
in the field of education under the treaties been
used to the full? If not, what more could be done
at EU-level to achieve the European Education
Area and the SP?
The EEA currently uses all legal possibilities in terms of EU’s
competence according to the treaties.
Qualitative:
▪ review of legal provisions
▪ mapping of measures in other open methods of
coordination
▪ suggestions of EEA actors on what more could be
done at EU level to promote achievement of the
EEA and SP
Delphi survey
Public consultation
Task 4 – analysis of
other possible
measures
19
Relevance
Evaluation question Judgement criteria Indicators Sources
Relevance of the EEA SP during the evaluation period
EQ35: To what extent do the SP for European
cooperation and reform (as set out in the 2021
EEA strategic framework Resolution) meet the
shared needs of the education and training
systems in EU MS?
The main needs of EEA actors in education and training are
addressed by the EEA SP.
EEA actors are satisfied with the extent to which the EEA meets their
needs.
EEA actors have good understanding of the EEA and its SP.
The SP and governance framework are flexible enough to adapt to
emerging shared unexpected challenges (e.g. COVID-19 pandemic,
Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine).
Quantitative:
▪ proportion of surveyed EEA actors and wider
education and training community who agree that
EU faced challenges that are addressed by EEA
SP
▪ proportion of surveyed WG members who agree
that the WG activities and outcomes have been
useful for their work
▪ proportion of surveyed EEA actors and wider
education and training community who agree that
the EEA was flexible enough to respond to the
unexpected education challenges
Qualitative:
▪ examples of how the SP meet the needs of EEA
actors identified through interviews
▪ examples of what is not clear in the EEA strategic
framework and SPs
▪ EEA actors (including WG members) perceive the
SP as flexible enough
▪ EEA actors (including WG members) perceive the
WG as flexible enough
▪ examples of flexibility in activities
Interviews
Online focus groups
Policy context
analysis
Portfolio analysis
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
Continued relevance of the EEA SP
EQ36: To what extent are the SP still relevant, or
do they need to be updated?
The current needs (as defined in the updated intervention logic)
continue to be addressed by the EEA and its SP.
Emerging needs are addressed by the EEA and its SP.
EEA actors perceive the SP as covering their needs and emerging
challenges.
Quantitative:
▪ proportion of EEA actors who agree that it is
important to continue to support European
cooperation in the areas of EEA SP
▪ proportion of surveyed EEA actors who agree that
the current cooperation framework is flexible
enough to address (re)emerging challenges
Qualitative:
▪ new needs of EEA actors identified
▪ gaps in coverage of existing needs identified
▪ new challenges in education and training emerging
Interviews
Literature review
Public consultation
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
20
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS
This annex summarises information on the benefits and costs associated with selected activities and processes under the various EEA implementation
instruments. As explained in the main document, measuring the cost-effectiveness of efforts under the strategic framework to build the EEA is constrained by
several major limitations. European cooperation towards the EEA comprises a wide and varied range of processes and activities and is influenced by the EU's
broader agenda and other international initiatives. Improvements cannot be solely attributed to the EEA, and it is difficult to isolate its specific impacts as its
strategic framework builds on previous cooperation frameworks (ET2020 and ET2010). Furthermore, there is no baseline data.
The analysis therefore adopted an approach whereby information was collected on the costs and benefits of selected illustrative examples of processes and
activities under the EEA implementation instruments. This was in part motivated by considerations related to minimising the burden of response on the
providers of such information and ensuring that the costs of producing the necessary data were in proportion to the importance of the results sought. Due to the
incremental nature of the EEA, it was not possible to quantify the additional monetary and time inputs linked to the EEA (as compared to the previous period
under ET2020). These constraints therefore limit the possibility to generalise the findings and to draw comparative conclusions with regard to cost-
effectiveness.
The data related to the costs predominantly come from the Commission staff and from the survey of WG and SGIB members. EEA actors from the MS were
not burdened with additional requests for data. Data on benefits are drawn from a broad variety of methodological approaches applied in the evaluation – in
particular desk research, consultation activities and national case studies. The EEA helped make European cooperation in education and training more strategic
and agile in addressing crises, such as through providing an effective coordinated response at EU level to ensure the continuation of education and training of
Ukrainian refugees. Mutual learning supported policy development and reforms in several EU MS and candidate countries. The EEA facilitated transnational
cooperation and mobility, promoted European values, and helped address pressing challenges that are easier to tackle at EU level than by individual countries,
such as in relation to digitalisation in education and training. The EEA also contributed to building a culture of education policy evaluation across the EU to
improve the effectiveness of education and training policies and the efficiency of education spending.
The analysis has not identified measurable potential for simplification and burden reduction, hence no table summarising this aspect is provided in this annex.
21
EEA implementation
instrument/activity or process
Costs Benefits
Governance
HLG and its CB Main cost-generating items were HLG
meetings, especially in-person meetings:
▪ 3-5 HLG meetings took place annually, of
which 2 in-person except in 2021, when
all meetings were in an online format;
▪ costs related to participants’ time for
preparation, participation and follow up of
meetings; and for in-person meetings to
costs for the meeting venue,
accommodation and travel of participants.
The costs of the CB (5-6 HLG CB meetings
annually since its establishment in March
2022), with most meetings taking place
online, were very low.
▪ HLG CB contributed to bigger continuity of work between Council Presidencies and to making the HLG more
strategic and agile.
▪ Enhanced understanding and visibility of the EEA policy agenda among national policy makers and other EEA
actors through strengthened role of HLG in strategic agenda setting.
▪ Responsiveness and agility of the EEA governance in addressing crises: the HLG played an important role in
identifying the needs and support required to ensure an effective coordinated response at EU-level to support the
integration in education and training of Ukrainian refugee learners in the EU MS, including through providing
guidance for related WG activities. It also helped to support the continuity of education in Ukraine (e.g. 1.5 million
textbooks were printed and delivered to Ukraine). The HLG and CB facilitated the organisation of a survey on
education of displaced children from Ukraine in EU MS. The survey provided a comprehensive picture of the
situation of displaced children from Ukraine in schools in the EU, of the key challenges that MS face in their
integration and what support the host countries need.
▪ Intertwining EEA priorities with national policy agendas in education and training, as well as mutual learning, to
better respond to the challenges faced by education and training systems in Europe, and to anticipate future
challenges.
Evidence on cost-benefits balance: the prevailing view of the HLG members consulted who expressed their opinions on this matter is that the benefits outweigh the
total time invested in participating in the HLG.
EEA strategic framework
WG including peer-learning
activities
External expertise, covered by dedicated
contracts, and physical WG meetings and
peer-learning activities were the main cost-
generating items:
▪ 32 WG meetings (of which 8 in-person
meetings) were held on average annually
since 2022
▪ 11 peer-learning activities took place on
average per year
▪ 9 seminars/webinars were organised on
average annually
▪ Costs for in person meetings and
peer-learning activities related to travel
and accommodation. For all WG
activities, costs related to participants’
time for preparation, participation and
follow up.
▪ The WG were found to represent an important regular and structured forum for co-creation, mutual learning and
dissemination of good practices, with contributions also from social partners, EU-level stakeholder organisations and
agencies.
▪ The various WG activities resulted in almost 80 deliverables during the period covered by the evaluation, including
input papers, reports, factsheets, key policy messages and briefs.
▪ The mutual learning and deliverables fed policy development and supported reforms in several MS. For example,
they contributed to the reform of ECEC in Bulgaria and Lithuania, the Higher Education and Science Act and the
Act on Quality Assurance in HE in Croatia, improved governance and modernisation of the VET system in Cyprus,
the digital education reform in Czechia, citizenship education reform in Spain, legislation on inclusive education and
curriculum flexibility in Portugal, or the integration of Ukrainian refugees in Germany.
▪ WG activities supported the design and follow-up of strategic EEA initiatives (e.g. WG Schools – Pathways, WG
Schools - Learning for Sustainability, or WG HE).
▪ Supporting the advancement of the European dimension in education and training (e.g. work of the WG Equality and
Values supporting Spanish presidency on the Council conclusions on the contribution of education and training to
strengthening common European values and democratic citizenship, or WG HE).
▪ Supporting the global dimension of the EEA by facilitating exchanges and mutual learning with the EU candidate
and European Economic Area / EFTA countries.
▪ Facilitating coherence of the EEA strategic framework with the work of international organisations (UN agencies,
OECD), who are regular participants of most WG and active contributors to the discussions (including bringing new
evidence).
Evidence on cost-benefits balance: The WG survey shows favourable perceptions of the cost-benefit ratio among participants in the WG. Most of those respondents
who answered this question believed that the benefits outweighed the required time input for participants (55 %; n=130); more than one-third (36 %; n=130) indicated
that the benefits were proportional to the time invested; 8 % indicated having a negative view on the cost-benefit ratio.
22
EEA implementation
instrument/activity or process
Costs Benefits
SGIB The twice-yearly SGIB meetings were the
main cost-generating item (costs of travel,
accommodation and venue logistics, as well
as time for preparation, participation and
follow up by participants).
▪ Promoting the use of data and generating evidence feeding into evidence-informed discussions on education and
training policies.
▪ Developing supporting indicators in three domains: equity and inclusion, the teaching profession, and learning for
sustainability to facilitate tracking progress on specific issues under the EEA SP.
▪ Contributing to the proposals on the revisions of the EU-level targets and developing online Monitor Toolbox (from
2022), which allows more detailed and transparent monitoring of progress towards existing EU-level targets.
▪ Facilitating exchange of information and practices and engaging members in co-creation of indicators that support
annual monitoring within the frames of the Education and Training Monitor (ETM).
Expert Group on Quality
Investment in Education
and Training
The main cost-generating items were the 16
meetings of the expert group during the
period 2021-2022:
▪ Out of these 16 meetings, 3 took place in
physical format.
▪ Costs related to travel, accommodation
and venue logistics, and time for
preparation, participation and follow up by
the Commission and other participants.
▪ Output: report on Investing in our future – Quality investment in education and training published in 2022
▪ The report mobilised discussions and was cited in other work
▪ Following discussion in the Council of the European Union under the French Presidency, the report supported (as a
reflection paper) the drafting of the intergovernmental declaration to build a shared vision of effective, efficient and
equitable investment in education, which was signed by most EU MS
▪ The report’s recommendations were used to design and launch another EEA flagship initiative, the Learning Lab on
Investing in Quality Education and Training
Learning Lab on Investing
in Quality Education and
Training
Contracts on administrative and
communication aspects, covering also the
costs of meetings, were the main cost-
generating item:
▪ 20 in-person meetings took place in 2023,
and 11 in the first half of 2024. For on-line
meetings, the numbers were 48 and 31,
respectively.
▪ Costs related to travel, accommodation
and venue (for in person meetings), and to
time for preparation, participation and
follow-up of meetings.
▪ Support for policymakers through training courses, mutual learning and capacity building on counterfactual impact
evaluation
▪ Support for building a culture of education policy evaluation across the EU to improve the effectiveness of education
and training policy and the efficiency of education spending
▪ Providing a platform/community of practice for EEA actors to exchange knowledge, experiences, and good
practices. This peer learning fosters collaboration and enables countries to learn from each other’s successes and
challenges
▪ Supporting with designing and conducting counterfactual impact evaluation studies of education policies in EU
countries, as well as providing customised support on education policy impact evaluation for local, regional, and
national authorities
Strategic EEA Initiatives
Four Council
Recommendations:
▪ Pathways to School
Success
▪ Automatic recognition
The costs for the development and follow up
to each Council Recommendation vary
widely depending on the nature of each
recommendation. Implementation costs at MS
level are difficult to estimate, without posing
administrative burden to MS.
▪ costs included external expert contracts,
▪ Benefits are heterogeneous, given the different focus areas of the Recommendations and progress achieved in their
implementation
▪ Contributions to shaping the direction of interventions in education and training and to building the political
momentum for reforms in several MS
▪ Council Recommendation on automatic recognition of qualifications is a strong enabler of the European cooperation
in education and training, specifically by facilitating transnational cooperation and mobility
Examples:
23
EEA implementation
instrument/activity or process
Costs Benefits
of qualifications
▪ Improving the
provision of digital
skills
▪ Key enabling factors
for successful digital
education and training
EU-level projects linked to the preparation
and follow up to the Recommendations,
time by Commission staff for preparing
the related Commission proposals and by
MS and Commission for negotiating the
Recommendation texts, time by the
Commission and MS for participation in
related meetings etc.
▪ Progress in implementing the Automatic recognition Recommendation in some but not all countries (e.g. 9 countries
adopted legislation to comply with the Recommendation: AT, BE, EE, ES, FR, HR, HU, IT, LV), with the benefits
of the automatic recognition of qualifications being especially important for students moving across borders and for
higher education institutions seeking to attract such students6
▪ Costs savings for the automatic recognition Recommendation are also possible in the qualification recognition
process itself, given its expected simplification. However, much depends on the specific institutional solutions
adopted. There is evidence of some progress, but the ultimate objective of the Recommendation is yet to be achieved
▪ The benefits of Recommendations can take more nuanced forms. For example, the Recommendation can be seen as
an awareness raising instrument or an encouragement for national follow-up at policy level. This can be seen e.g. in
the case of the Automatic recognition of qualifications Recommendation
▪ Contributions to a common understanding of school success and the key impact of well-being on educational
outcomes, providing guidance and inspiration on improving equity and quality in education through Roadmap
(linked to the Pathways Recommendation)
▪ The Recommendations on digital education and skills brought to light a lack of availability of high-quality digital
education content and pedagogical approaches for teaching computer science. This prompted the establishment of
relevant Commission expert groups in 2024 that will elaborate guidelines to support teachers and school leaders
EU-level projects and calls
Jean Monnet actions (JMA)
for schools and VET
Main cost-generating items:
▪ External contract (communication
activities linked to the launch of the
action)
▪ Commission staff time to prepare project
calls
▪ Outputs: more than 100 teacher training events, school networks, and projects under the Learning EU initiative were
funded, with a total budget of EUR 21.1 million, contributing to the promotion of European values
▪ The ratio between the operational costs of the JMA and the value of project funds awarded suggests high cost-
efficiency
▪ Too early for aggregated evidence on the benefits of projects to be available. Online focus groups with the
respondents to the survey of the wider education and training community suggest that the action has the potential to
achieve results. Respondents to the survey of wider education and training community reported benefits from teacher
training (n=15), as well as benefits from Learning EU Initiatives (n=15). However, the number of responses is too
low to draw overarching conclusions.
Education for Climate
Coalition
Main cost-generating items:
▪ platform hosting,
▪ Commission staff time dedicated to the
action.
▪ Outputs: 166 online events and 8 in-person events of diverse character, with combined audience of around 5,650
persons between 2021 and mid-2024
▪ Consolidation of a participatory community of practice that supports teaching and learning for the green transition:
8,000+ registered users of the online platform
▪ Successful mobilisation of EEA actors to collaborate and work towards the green transition and sustainable
development. Promotion of education communities’ contributions to these areas
▪ In its 2022 Annual Report, the Coalition highlighted its role in enriching the Council's recommendations on learning
for the green transition and sustainable development, as well as contributing to the European sustainability
competence framework (GreenComp)
6
Evaluation Report | Implementation of the 2018 Council Recommendation on promoting automatic mutual recognition of higher education and upper secondary education and training qualifications, doi:
10.2766/904563
24
EEA implementation
instrument/activity or process
Costs Benefits
Reporting, monitoring and evaluation of progress
ETM – comparative and
country reports
Main cost-generating items:
▪ external expert contract;
▪ Commission staff time to analyse and draft
reports.
▪ Outputs: annual reports with regular updates on progress towards targets at EU and national levels
▪ An established source of country-specific and thematic information, e.g. teachers' dashboard. Target audience:
experts, policymakers and EEA actors
▪ Downloads of ETM country reports: 1023 (in 2021); 1553 (in 2022), 1721 (in 2023); total page views: 9172 (in
2022), 14707 (in 2023)
▪ Internal benefits to the Commission: a reliable source of evidence informing broader country-specific work in
support of the EEA SP. Examples: support for analysis used in the European Semester country reports; formulation
and monitoring of country-specific recommendations; setting funding priorities and programming under Cohesion
Policy funds, the RRF and the TSI; monitoring of implementation under these funds; responding to ad hoc country-
specific requests
DG EAC – DG EMPL EEA
Taskforce
Main cost-generating item:
▪ Commission staff time to prepare for,
participate in and follow up on meetings.
▪ Enhanced information sharing and coordination between the DG EAC and DG EMPL units most closely involved in
building the EEA
▪ More effective monitoring and reporting on progress towards the EEA and the identification of challenges that
remain to be addressed
Communication and dissemination
EEA portal
European Education
Summits
Social media campaigns
Main cost-generating items:
▪ External contract covering Summit costs;
▪ Venue and other costs related to the
Summit (in-person format);
▪ Communication contract (the contract
covers diverse activities ranging from
general coordination of the
communication campaigns, to creating the
communication strategy and producing
audiovisual and multimedia content).
▪ Output: EEA portal serving as a single gateway to various information related to European cooperation towards the
EEA
▪ Evidence consistent with potential benefits: high popularity of the portal, with around 1.5 million unique visitors
annually during the period 2021-2024
▪ Broad recognition of the portal within the wider education and training community, with 74 % (n=213) of survey
participants declaring their familiarity with it. Favourable views on the portal’s content: it is seen as relevant (87 %;
n=142), clear (85 %; n=142), and up-to-date (85 %; n=142)
▪ Information on the portal making access to funding opportunities easier: 84 % (n=142) of representatives of the
wider education and training community who were surveyed found the portal useful for identifying funding
opportunities aligned with community needs
▪ The European Education Summits help to raise awareness on key EEA-related topics, foster synergy across EEA
EU-level actions and bring together all key actors in education and training, including policymakers, practitioners,
researchers, social partners and civil society
▪ Summits foster synergies across various SP-related initiatives
▪ Evidence on reach: The 2022 Summit, organised in hybrid format, attracted 240 on-site participants and almost 1
million online participants. The 2023 Summit attracted 500 online participants, more than 24,000 views online, and
reached nearly 600,000 people on social media
▪ Growth in reach, visibility, and engagement with social media campaigns: from monthly averages of 147,374 in
reach, 220,533 impressions, and 2,575 engagements (January 2021 – August 2023) to 3.5 million unique users in
reach, 6.6 million impressions, and 31,529 clicks (since September 2023)
▪ The social media campaigns achieved an average cost-per-thousand impressions (CPM) of EUR 0.76, and a cost-
per-click (CPC) of EUR 0.16, indicating that performance was cost-effective
25
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT
This synopsis report summarises all consultation activities undertaken for the interim
evaluation of the EEA. It also presents an analytical overview of the main results
following the five evaluation criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU added
value, and relevance).
Consultation strategy
The consultation strategy consisted of open public and targeted consultation activities as
summarised in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Stakeholder consultations activities
Activity Timing
Call for evidence (Have your say portal) 16 June-15 September 2023
Public consultation (Have your say portal) 4 April-27 June 2024
Interviews with the main EEA actors Q1-Q4 2024
Focus groups with HLG and EDUC members 22, 25, 29 April 2024
Survey of WG and SGIB members 16 May-7 June 2024
Survey of the wider education and training community 19 July-23 August 2024
Focus groups with EEA actors at national level 30 September 2024; 1, 2, 4 October 2024
Delphi workshop 8 October 2024
Forward-looking workshop with the Commission staff 14 October 2024
Targeted consultations included relevant EEA actors and the wider education and
training community. Specific attention was paid to ensuring diversity of the MS-level
EEA actors and to balancing representation of public authorities, social partners and
wider education and training community. Respondents were selected to ensure
representation of all MS and all education levels.
Table 3. Types of stakeholders consulted
Stakeholder group Interviews
Online
surveys
Public
consultation
Focus
groups
EU institutions/bodies ✓ ✓ ✓
EU-level social partners and associations ✓ ✓ ✓
International organisations ✓ ✓
MS-level public authorities ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
MS-level social partners ✓ ✓ ✓
Researchers in education and training ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Wider education and training community
(teachers, parents, students)
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
The overall stakeholders’ participation in consultation activities is summarised in Figure
2 below.
26
Figure 2. Stakeholders’ participation in consultation activities
1. Call for evidence
The call for evidence was open from 16 June to 15 September 2023 on the Have your say
portal. In total, 23 responses and positions came in, most being from EU citizens and
non-governmental organisations. Most of the responses were received from Belgium (8),
Slovakia and Finland (3 responses for each).
Figure 3. Type of respondents in the call for evidence
Source: Have Your Say portal statistics for this call for evidence
27
The call for evidence gathered feedback on the performance of the EEA. The overall
feedback was positive and welcomed the progress made towards building the EEA. The
EEA SP were confirmed as still being very relevant and requiring even more focus in the
future. In general, there was a strong message on the need for continued development of
the EEA, also beyond 2025.
The received feedback also included suggestions for further improvement:
▪ on SP:
o further promote equity and inclusion, active citizenship and democracy
education, digital education, learning for sustainability
o increase focus on teachers, basic skills, teacher and student mobility,
higher education, VET, adult learning and lifelong learning
▪ on governance and co-creation: further extend the co-creation processes and
promote participatory approaches
▪ on mobilising funding: ensure quality and sustainable investment, and more
visibility of investment and funds, simplify procedures.
2. Public consultation
The public consultation was open from 4 April to 27 June 2024 on the Have your say
portal. The dissemination was done through various channels. The purpose of the public
consultation was to collect inputs from EEA actors, the wider education and training
community and EU citizens to inform future policies.
In total, 279 responses were received. Most respondents (82 %, or 230; n=2797
) came
from 26 different EU MS. The highest number of responses came from Spain and
Belgium (each comprising 11 % of total responses, or 32; n=279), followed by Italy
(7 %, or 20 responses; n=279). A further 18 % of responses were received from 21
different non-EU countries, seven of which are EU candidate or potential candidate
countries. The non-EU country with the most responses was Ukraine, with 3.6 % (10,
n=279) respondents.
Table 4. Distribution of public consultation respondents across types of organisations
Type of respondent8
Count %
Academic/research institution 117 42 %
EU citizen 49 17 %
Civil society organisations 41 15 %
Public authority 17 6 %
Trade union 11 4 %
Non-EU citizen 10 3 %
Company/business and business association 6 2 %
Other 28 10 %
Total 279
7
The basis for each question presented in this factual summary varies, as not all questions were relevant to all of the
respondents and not all questions were compulsory.
8
The table contains data for the public consultation question “I am giving my contribution as:”. Based on the question
“What best describes you”, the distribution is as follows: educators (teachers, trainers, educational support staff and
education institution leaders), 93 (33 %); researchers, 69 (25 %); civil society organisations, 32 (11 %); learners, 23
(8 %); and others, 65 (23 %).
28
Effectiveness
A large majority of the respondents familiar with the European cooperation in education
and training (n=273) perceive higher education as the level where most cooperation takes
place, with 69 % (189, n=273) rating it as ‘very successful’ or ‘successful’. This was
followed by vocational education and training with 47 % (128, n=273) sharing this view.
Other education levels were considered effective by less than half of the sample, with
adult learning (31 %, 84, n=273) and non-formal education (29 %, 78, n=273) perceived
as the least effective. The remaining results showed mixed opinions, with an overall trend
leaning towards positive assessment of cooperation.
Most respondents had participated in or made use of the Erasmus+ programme (80 %,
213, n=265), and mutual learning and exchange of good practices (70 %, 184, n=262).
Participation in other activities showed mixed results, with nearly equal proportions of
participants and non-participants. For instance, 48 % had engaged in delivering evidence
relevant to education and training reforms, compared to 45 % who had not. Similarly,
47 % attended events organised by the Commission on education and training, while
48 % had not. Participation in communities of practice was reported by 44 %, with 49 %
not participating. Lastly, 43 % reported making use of the adoption of Council
Recommendations in the field of education and training, compared with 48 % who had
not.
Among those respondents who had participated in at least one activity, 88 % (214;
n=243) reported gaining new knowledge from others’ experiences in addressing common
challenges. In addition, 84 % (203; n=242) reported an improved understanding of
common European priorities in education and training. Other outcomes included a better
understanding of funds to support reforms and investments in education and training
(73 %, 174; n=240), and increased awareness about new evidence to inform
policymaking (71 %, 172; n=242).
When asked to what extent the activities listed in relation to European cooperation in
education and training had been successful in building the EEA, the majority of
respondents indicated that they believed all of them had contributed positively. The
activities regarded as most successful were mobility and cooperation opportunities under
Erasmus+ (seen as “to some/significant extent” successful by 92 % of respondents, or
237; n=259); mutual learning and the exchange of good practices (88 %, or 230; n=260);
and the setting of common European priorities in education and training.
Of the 263 respondents familiar with at least one activity relating to European
cooperation in education and training, 46 % (121; n=263) believed that progress had been
achieved towards the EEA priorities; 47 % (124; n=263) did not know whether progress
had been achieved; only 7 % (18, n=263) thought no progress had been achieved. Among
those who reported seeing progress (121), the most significant advances were perceived
in strengthening European higher education (79 %, 95; n=121), addressing the
geopolitical dimension of education and training (78 %, 94; n=121), and making learning
mobility accessible to all (78 %, 94; n=121).
29
Efficiency
When asked about the alignment between resources and results in the European
cooperation in education and training, 19 % of respondents (49; n=262) believed there
was correspondence “to a great extent”, and 58 % (152; n=262) “to some extent”. Only
6 % (17; n=262) felt there was no correspondence, while 17 % (44; n=262) were unsure
or unable to answer.
Coherence
When asked how coherent the EEA is with various funds and instruments, on average
70 % of respondents considered the EEA to be either “coherent” or “somewhat coherent”
across all three categories of funds and instruments mentioned in the public consultation:
initiatives and funding at EU level, at international level and at national/regional/local
level. Respondents believed that the EEA is most coherent with EU initiatives and
funding, with 39 % of respondents (61; n=261) viewing it as “coherent” and 44 % (110;
n=261) as “somewhat coherent”. Only 2 % (6; n=264) said the EEA was not coherent
with EU initiatives and funding, while 16 % (41; n=264) said they did not know. In
relation to national/regional/local-level initiatives and funding, 16 % of respondents (42;
n=262) believed the EEA to be ‘coherent’ with these, and 47 % (123; n=262) “somewhat
coherent”. However, 17 % (42; n=262) viewed it as not being coherent. Moreover, 23 %
of respondents (61; n=261) regarded the EEA as being “coherent” and 42 % (110,
n=261) as “somewhat coherent” with international initiatives and funding. However, over
a quarter of respondents (27 %, or 71; n=261) said that they did not know.
EU added value
Respondents were asked how successful they think the European cooperation towards the
EEA has been in achieving various effects beyond what MS could accomplish
individually. Participants believed that the EEA provided the greatest EU added value in
triggering the use of available EU funding to support national/regional/local and cross-
border measures and reforms, with 62 % of respondents seeing it as successful overall.
Additionally, 61% viewed it as successful in exchanging experiences and effective
practices to support national reforms (61 % seeing it as successful overall). Respondents
perceived relatively less EU added value in putting education and training at the top of
the policy agenda at EU and national levels, with an absolute majority (56 %) of
respondents still perceiving it as successful overall.
Relevance
Of the 273 respondents familiar with the European cooperation in education and training,
the majority considered continued support for all education and training priorities to be
important. The priorities that received the most positive responses (“highly important”
and “somewhat important”) were making lifelong learning available for all (97 %, 265;
n=273) and making learning mobility in another country available for all (96 %, or 261;
n=273). The priority rated as highly important by the greatest number of respondents was
“quality, equity, inclusion, and success for all in education and training” (79 %, or 217;
30
n=273). This was followed closely by “enhancement of competences and motivation in
the education profession” (74 %, or 203; n=273) and “making lifelong learning available
for all” (73 %, or 198; n=273).
Out of the 242 respondents who were familiar with the European cooperation in
education and training and responded to a non-compulsory question on whether there
were any other areas in which the EU should support cooperation in education and
training, 54 % (130; n=242) felt there were no additional areas. Those who believed there
were other areas that could be considered (46 %, 112; n=242) mentioned citizenship
education; VET; teacher support and development; inclusion and diversity; digital
education and innovation; lifelong learning and skills development; international
cooperation and mobility; and research and innovation.
Additional written contributions
A total of 24 respondents provided additional written contributions to the public
consultation. Most of these were engaged with the sectors of higher education, VET and
lifelong learning. Written contributions emphasised the significance of the EEA in
enhancing the teaching profession, improving digital and green skills, and fostering
lifelong learning and mobility. Advances in digital education tools and the increasing
recognition of micro-credentials were highlighted as key achievements of the EEA. EEA
actors further stressed the crucial role of the Digital Education Action Plan and the
European Digital Education Hub. Written contributions highlighted the role of the EEA
in addressing challenges in the education and training sector, in particular the shortage of
teachers, the low attractiveness of jobs in the education and training sector, and
disparities in the quality of education. Recommendations for future cooperation in
education and training emphasised increasing the awareness of and access to public
funding for education, enhancing teacher training, and fostering lifelong learning
opportunities. There were strong calls to address underachievement in basic skills, align
curricula with labour market needs, and expand mobility programmes. Respondents also
stressed the importance of facilitating exchange of good practices between EU countries,
as well as increasing the visibility of non-formal and adult learning, and maintaining the
involvement of EU actors.
3. Interviews with the main EEA actors
A total of 203 interviews with EU-level, international and MS-level EEA actors were
conducted between March and October 2024.
Interviews were conducted using an interview guide that focused on the five evaluation
criteria, adapted to the profile of interviewee and their level of awareness of various
topics. The primary objective of these interviews was to gain better understanding of the
evaluation criteria by validating the findings previously generated through desk research.
After all the interviews had been concluded, the data was assessed to identify insights,
patterns and trends, including similarities and differences among the opinions of different
types of interviewees. The inputs of diverse categories of EEA actors informed different
31
parts of the evaluation. Qualitative inputs were primarily used to inform the effectiveness
section and to triangulate data from the surveys and the public consultation that was used
in other sections.
Table 5. Types of stakeholders interviewed
Type Number Additional comments
EU bodies 30
Interviewees included staff from European institutions:
DG EAC: 19
DG EMPL:3
DG REFORM: 2
DG INTPA: 2
SG: 3
DG REGIO, DG NEAR, EEAS, Eurofound: 1 each
European social
partners and
associations
5
EFEE, ETUCE, European Parents Association, ESU, EASNIE – 1
each
International
organizations
6
Interviewees included representatives from OECD, UNESCO,
UNICEF, World Bank, and the Council of Europe
HLG CB members 7
HLG CB: BE, CZ, ES, FR, SE, SI
HLG: IE
WG 35
WG AL: LV, LU, PL, TR
WG DELTA: CZ, MT, RO, TR
WG ECEC: BG, DE, IE, LT, IS
WG Equality and Values: ES, LV, FI, SE, IS
WG HE: HR, IT, AT, SK, NO
WG Schools – Learning for Sustainability: EL, FR, PT
WG Schools – Pathways: BE, NL, SI
WG VET and the Green Transition: DK, EE, CY, PT, SE, AL
Missing countries: HU. Hungarian representatives from all WG
were contacted but no interviews were arranged.
MS (including as
part of case studies;
excluding HLG CB,
HLG and WG
members)
118
Public authorities (including state, regional or municipal
ministries and agencies): 53 (BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, ES,
FR, HR, IT, CY, LV, LT, MT, NL, AT, IE, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI,
SE)
Social partners – education provider associations: 16 (DK, ES,
IE, EL, HR, IT, LT, LU, NL, PT, FI, SE)
Social partners – teacher trade unions: 14 (CZ, DK, DE, IE, EL,
ES, FR, IT, CY, LU, MT, NL, PL, RO)
Researchers (including research bodies, academics and
independent researchers): 21 (BE, DK, IE, EE, EL, ES, IT, LT,
NL, AT, PT, RO, SK, SE)
Educators: 8 (BG, EE, ES, FR, HR, HU, SI)
Parent organisations: 2 (IE, CY)
Student bodies: 1 (IE)
Civil society organisations: 2 (PL)
European
Economic Area /
EFTA countries
2 Norway and Iceland
Effectiveness
EEA actors viewed the EEA as a flexible framework that facilitates cooperation, fosters
strategic discussions, and inspires national reforms – particularly regarding digital skills
and the green transition. Interviewees generally valued the EEA instruments. EU funds
and financial instruments are regarded as pivotal in supporting projects relating to
digitalisation, as well as in VET and higher education. The governance of the EEA,
32
notably through Council Recommendations, and its monitoring via the European
Semester and country-specific recommendations, provide a valuable framework for
aligning national reforms with EU priorities. The EEA was seen by interviewees as a
clear and useful concept. It was regarded as a valuable framework that holds relevance
beyond the EU MS, serving as a model for international educational collaboration and
reform.
However, the respondents also identified several remaining challenges. These include
inconsistent communication between different levels of governance, unclear decision-
making processes, and the voluntary nature of implementation. These factors can hinder
alignment and effective adoption across MS. Respondents expressed the view that a
limited capacity for applying EU policies to local contexts, along with administrative
burdens, further complicated implementation. Interviewees emphasised that a more
targeted communication strategy could enhance the awareness and use of EEA tools,
ensuring more sustainable outcomes.
Efficiency
The most informed responses in relation to this evaluation criterion were received from
the European Commission and from WG representatives. Most WG members considered
EEA activities to be highly beneficial, facilitating professional development and
networking. They appreciated the WG as more agile and inclusive compared with those
under ET2020, fostering better cooperation, broader participation and enhanced
coordination. While the EEA strategic framework was seen by interviewees as generally
effective and well structured, they suggested that simplifying access to information and
strengthening connections between the WG could improve its clarity and efficiency.
According to EEA actors, despite the EEA introducing additional administrative burdens,
the time spent in WG is proportionate to the benefits, as these offer a valuable forum for
dialogue across education levels and actors. Regarding efficiency of the HLG, the
prevailing view of the HLG/EDUC members interviewed, who expressed their opinion
on this matter, was that the benefits outweigh the total time invested in preparation for
and participation in the HLG.
Coherence
EEA actors from the Commission, international organisations and at MS level
acknowledged the coherence of the EEA framework. They noted that the EEA SP
aligned with national policies, particularly in the areas defined by SP1 (equity, equality,
inclusion). The respondents recognised the synergies between the EEA and international
organisations, such as the OECD, UN agencies, the World Bank and the Council of
Europe, which help to ensure consistent progress and avoid duplications. However,
interviewees identified a gap in communication, with a limited awareness of the EEA
beyond education experts, including at the level of schools and even ministries.
33
EU added value
The EEA actors interviewed regarded the EEA as a valuable platform for fostering
cooperation, mutual learning and sharing of best practices among MS, driving collective
improvements in education systems and aligning national reforms with European
priorities. They warned that discontinuing the EEA would dismantle valuable
collaborative platforms, leading to a fragmented approach to policymaking and hindering
progress in areas such as equity, inclusion, quality and the digital transformation.
Nevertheless, some challenges remain: differences in national structures, limited
opportunities for formal exchange, and the need for better dissemination of the EEA’s
benefits at local and institutional levels to ensure its impact.
Relevance
The respondents generally viewed the EEA SP as highly relevant and beneficial,
addressing common issues. These priorities aligned well with national and regional
efforts, providing a flexible framework for MS to tailor to their unique contexts while
fostering cooperation, knowledge exchange and coordinated policy development.
However, the framework has yet to fully address variations between MS. The EEA actors
interviewed believed that more focus should be given to areas such as artificial
intelligence (AI), mental health and demographic challenges in order to meet evolving
educational needs.
4. Focus groups with HLG and EDUC members
A total of four focus groups were organised throughout April 2024 to facilitate
discussions with HLG and EDUC members from 21 countries (CZ, DK, DE (2
representatives), EE, ES, FR, HR, IT, CY, LV, LU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK,
FI, SE). Their input notably informed the assessment of effectiveness of the EEA
implementation instruments and of the efficiency criterion.
Effectiveness of the EEA implementation instruments
Reformed governance
▪ Countries suggested that no significant changes to governance were needed.
Positive opinions of governance included seeing it as being action-oriented,
strategic and agile (e.g. this was demonstrated in the context of external crises).
Some participants did not perceive any major changes in governance compared
with ET2020 (although they noted that it now appears more agile) and suggested
that there is room to enhance the strategic dimension of the HLG.
▪ There is a need for improved balance within the agenda between the priorities set
by each Presidency and more long-term SP on topics of common interest. There
is still scope for improvement, and the goal was to have a comprehensive 18-
month policy agenda in place.
▪ The creation of the HLG CB was highlighted as an improvement to ensure the
continuity of work and to better link the political and technical levels. However,
34
participants felt that synergies between levels could still be further improved.
Some participants reported a lack of clear information on what was happening in
the HLG CB. Those who had been involved in the HLG CB were mostly positive
about its benefits (this also concurs with interviews carried out).
▪ There was an increased interest and participation from national governments in
HLG meetings, leading to a more HLG strategic agenda.
▪ In general, participants perceived a need to improve information flows between
different levels of governance (HLG, EDUC, WG, the Commission DG).
Participants reported a lack of clear information on what was taking place at
different levels.
▪ Participants expressed the opinion that it would be important for MS to nominate
‘high-level’ representatives from the ministries to the HLG, which they perceived
mainly as a space for informal exchange between national governments (e.g.
currently, the composition also includes nominated education attachés).
▪ Participants noted that HLG covered a broad range of topics across educational
sectors, which can hinder in-depth discussions.
▪ Alignment of EU political priorities with national agendas was confirmed.
Participants reported that discussions were transferred to the national level.
However, some noted that it is sometimes difficult to communicate about the
EEA at national level, as it was not a well-known ‘brand’.
▪ Examples of support to national reforms have been noted.
▪ Cooperation in the context of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine was
highlighted as a positive example.
▪ Mutual learning and transnational cooperation and exchange was noted as the
greatest added value provided by the EEA strategic framework (its governance
implementation instrument).
Strategic EEA initiatives
▪ Some participants raised concerns about the number of Council
Recommendations issued, and the capacity of MS to follow upon them (these
included providing an example of two digital recommendations adopted at the
same time). A few participants also noted that some recommendations appeared
to lack any genuinely new elements.
▪ Challenges were reported in relation to monitoring and administrative burden at
both national and EU levels. Participants were against any additional monitoring.
EEA SP
▪ Greater focus on digital and green issues was needed, alongside building more
resilient education and training systems in response to recent shocks.
▪ Equality, digitalisation and vocational education, including adult learning, were
emphasised by participants as being key to future skills development.
▪ Participants supported focusing on a limited number of core priorities, with no
increase in the current priorities.
35
▪ AI was highlighted as a key topic for the next cycle under the green and digital
priority.
▪ Concerns were raised about mobility becoming less visible under the lifelong
learning priority.
EU-Level targets and indicators
▪ Participants had experienced mismatches between data from the ETM and
Eurostat, and difficulties in consistent interpretation due to technical language
used by ETM. They also shared positive experiences of getting in touch with the
Commission for clarifications.
▪ The need for better use of data and the adoption of targets with clear
methodologies was noted.
▪ Participants reported gaps in the links between targets/indicators and EEA SP.
Efficiency
▪ The benefits of HLG participation, including preparation and travel, were seen as
outweighing the amount of time invested.
▪ Clear scheduling, timely sharing of documents and options for online
participation were highlighted as important.
▪ The blended format, which combines in-person events with online meetings on
specific topics, received positive feedback.
5. Survey of WG and SGIB members
The survey was open from 16 May to 7 June 2024 to the WG and SGIB members. In
total, 130 responses were received: 122 from WG members and 14 from SGIB members.
Their distribution by type of organisation and WG/SGIB membership is shown in the
tables below. The survey collected inputs from the members regarding their work,
satisfaction with activities, processes and results, as well as their views on European
cooperation towards the EEA.
Table 6. Distribution of WG and SGIB survey respondents across types of organisations
Type of organisation Count %
Public authority, other public entities 107 82 %
EU body/office/agency 4 3 %
International organisation 4 3 %
European social partner organisation 3 2 %
European civil society/stakeholder association 6 5 %
Academia/research institution 3 2 %
Other 3 2 %
Total 130
36
Table 7. Distribution of WG and SGIB survey respondents
WG/SGIB Count %
Working Group on Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) 22 17 %
Working Group on Digital Education: learning, teaching and assessment
(DELTA)
20 15 %
Working Group on Vocational Education and Training (VET) and the
Green Transition
20 15 %
Working Group on Higher Education (HE) 18 14 %
SGIB 14 11 %
Working Group on Schools – Pathways to School Success 13 10 %
Working Group on Schools – Learning for Sustainability 10 8 %
Working Group on Equality and Values in Education and Training 11 8 %
Working group on Adult Learning: opening up opportunities for all (AL) 8 6 %
Total 1369
Effectiveness
WG activities and results. The activities and outcomes of the WG and SGIB are
generally considered highly beneficial to the work of their members and their
organisations. This was agreed by 84 % of WG members (102; n=122) and 79 % of
SGIB members (11; n=14). WG members were particularly satisfied with the facilitation
and moderation of WG events (95 %, 117; n=122); the discussions and joint decisions on
thematic priorities and the focus of WG activities (93 %; n=122); and WG plenary
meetings (92 %; n=122). Overall, respondents expressed broad satisfaction with other
aspects of WG activities, including the agenda setting, preparatory materials, seminars,
peer learning activities, and general communication and engagement with other
members. SGIB respondents reported similar levels of satisfaction.
Participation in WG activities led to increased knowledge of practices in other countries
(93 %,113; n=122); improved understanding and awareness of the EEA policy agenda
(91 %, 111; n=122); and enhanced understanding of common policy needs within the
thematic scope of the WG (90 %, 109; n=122). For SGIB members, the main outcomes
of their participation in SGIB activities included applied knowledge gained from SGIB in
their work (100 %, 14; n=14); improved knowledge in the field of measuring the
performance of education and training systems (100 %, 14; n=14); and insights into
different experiences and good practices in measuring the performance of education and
training systems (93 %, 13; n=14). WG members found EEA governance to be somewhat
clear. Clarity at the political level was evident to half of respondents (50 %, 65; n=130),
while clarity at the technical level was slightly lower (47 %, 61; n=130).
Familiarity with EEA tools. Respondents showed strong awareness of the activities and
tools associated with the EEA. Most widely recognised are the mobility and cooperation
under Erasmus+ (98 %,128; n=130); Council Recommendations (96 %; 124; n=130); and
9
In some cases, the same individual responded to questions relating to different WG. As result, the actual number of
respondents was 130, but their inputs were distributed across WG and SGIB specific questions. Thus, the number of
contributions for WG was 122 and for SGIB, was 14.
37
EU-level targets in education and training (94 %, 124; n=130). These were also
considered the most successful in building the EEA.
Progress towards SP. According to respondents, progress towards the EEA was made at
all educational levels, with general education perceived as the most advanced (60 %, 78;
n=130). The EEA strategic framework and its activities have inspired national reforms,
particularly those supporting digital transition (71 %, 76; n=107), learning mobility
(66 %, 71; n=107), and enhancement of competences and motivation in the education
profession (65 %, 70; n=107). Regarding Council Recommendations, respondents
believed that progress has been made in implementing high-quality early childhood
education and care systems (73 %, 16; n=22), building bridges for effective European
higher education cooperation (67 %, 12; n=18), and improving the provision of digital
skills in education and training (58 %, 75; n=130). Less progress was perceived in the
mobility of young volunteers across the EU (26 %, 34; n=130).
Coherence
Respondents believed that the EEA activities were well aligned with the EEA SP (78 %,
101; n=130) and were complementary with key international initiatives (73 %, 95;
n=130) as well as with one another (68 %, 88; n=130). They also saw synergies between
the EEA and the broader EU policy agenda, particularly in the areas of skills
development and employment (63 %, 82; n=130), green transition (60 %, 78, n=130),
and a Europe fit for the digital age (55 %, 71; n=130). SP1 – “quality, equity, inclusion
and success for all in education and training” was considered especially well aligned with
existing national, regional and local programmes (81 %, 87; n=107), followed closely by
the part of SP5 regarding “support for the digital transition in and through education and
training” (79 %, 85; n=107).
EU added value
Most respondents agreed that the EEA strategic framework provided significant added
value in its priority areas, with an average of 69 % (90; n=130) affirming this benefit.
The areas in which there was most widespread agreement regarding the added value of
the EEA framework were in SP1 – “quality, equity, inclusion and success for all in
education and training” (overall, 78 %, 101 agree; n=130), part of SP5 – “support for the
digital transition in and through education and training” (74 %, 96; n=130), and part of
SP2 – “making learning mobility in another country available for all” (72 %, 94; n=130).
Relevance
The EEA’s importance across all SP was widely recognised, with SP1 – “quality, equity,
inclusion and success for all in education and training” being seen as the most relevant
(88 %, 114; n=130). Respondents believed the EEA was especially effective in
addressing issues such as low levels of digital skills and competences (72 %, 93; n=130),
low quality of education and training provision (68 %, 89; n=130), and inequalities in
education and training (66 %, 86; n=130).
38
6. Survey of the wider education and training community
The survey was open from 19 July to 23 August 2024. The survey primarily targeted
education and training actors at regional and local level (including researchers,
practitioners and learners).
Potential respondents were identified through a desk review of the websites of national
organisations across EU MS, candidate countries, and European Economic Area / EFTA
countries, as well as by using publicly available databases, including the beneficiaries of
JMA calls. The stakeholders identified were then reached out to via an e-mail campaign
and invited to take part in the survey.
In total, 213 individual responses were received. Types of respondents were diverse,
coming from various education and training levels: 68 % from higher education (144;
n=213); 16 % from vocational education and training (34; n=213); 15 % from adult
learning (32; n=213); 14 % general education (30; n=213); non-formal education (11 %,
24; n=213). Respondents to the survey mainly came from Ukraine (21 %, 43; n=213),
Italy (12 %, 25; n=206) and Spain (11 %, 23; n=206), followed by Belgium (6 %, 12;
n=206), the Czech Republic (5 %, 11; n=206) and Albania (4 %, 8; n=206).
Table 8. Distribution of wider education and training community survey respondents across types of
organisations
Type of respondent Count %
Researcher/scholar 79 37 %
Teacher 35 16.4 %
Educational institution leader 18 8.4 %
NGO 18 8.4 %
Learner in higher education 17 7.9 %
Educational support staff 11 5.1 %
Other 9 4.2 %
Policymaker 9 4.2 %
Educator 8 3.7 %
Learner (in adult education, secondary education or VET) 5 2.3 %
Social partner (employers and employees) 3 1.4 %
International organisation 1 0.4 %
Total 213
Respondents were asked to share their opinions and evidence on the achievements,
impacts and potential challenges of selected EEA activities and tools. The inputs
particularly informed the evaluation criteria on effectiveness and relevance.
Familiarity with EEA activities and tools is high. Respondents are especially familiar
with JMA in other fields of education and training (89 %, 190 said they had heard about
these calls; n=213); the EEA portal (74 %, 158; n=213); the Commission’s social media
posts about the EEA (64 %, 137; n=213); the European Education Summit or other
events organised by the Commission (61 %, 130; n=213); the ETM (54 %, 114; n=213);
39
and Education for Climate Coalition events, activities or community groups (91 %, 194;
n=213).
Effectiveness of selected activities
EEA portal. The most common reasons cited for consulting the EEA portal related to
funding and EU projects. A significant 57 % of respondents (81; n=142) said they visited
the portal to explore funding opportunities, while 55 % (78; n=142) said they do so to
access information on EU-funded projects. Accessing documents is another key reason,
with 43 % (61; n=142) of respondents consulting the portal for this purpose, while 40 %
(57; n=142) said they visit to keep up to date on the latest news and events. Online
learning resources attracted 30 % (42; n=142) of respondents, and 27 % (39; n=142) said
they came to access statistics.
Respondents provided positive feedback about the EEA portal, with the majority of
respondents finding its information effective and relevant. Overall, 87 % (123; n=142)
considered the information relevant to their needs and interests, while 85 % (121; n=142)
found it clear and understandable. A significant 85 % (121; n=142) also felt the
information was up to date. 83 % (118; n=142) used the information to inform policies in
their own countries, and 78 % (111; n=142) used it to inform their teaching practices. In
addition, 77 % (109; n=142) found the information complete and indicated that it
answered their questions, while 71 % (101; n=142) found the information easy to locate.
Respondents acknowledged positive results from using the EEA portal. The vast majority
(89 %, 126; n=142) said it enhanced their understanding of the EEA and its SP.
Furthermore, 84 % (119; n=142) found it helpful in identifying funding opportunities
relevant to their needs. Meanwhile, 82 % (116; n=142) reported an increased interest in
EU initiatives in education and training, and 78 % (111; n=142) had gained inspiration
from good practices in other countries. More than three-quarters of respondents (77 %,
109; n=142) had increased their knowledge of common challenges in education and
training, and 74 % (105; n=142) became more engaged with events in the field, such as
the European Education Summit and webinars. Lastly, 61 % of respondents (87; n=142)
were motivated to join a community of practice such as DigComp, EPALE or the
European School Education Platform.
Events. Respondents who declared having participated in the events (n=99) reported
several positive outcomes from their engagement: 82 % (81; n=17) learnt about common
challenges in education and training and 76 % (75; n=17) gained new knowledge about
EU policies in the relevant field and good practices in education and training in other
countries. Moreover, 65 % (64; n=17) felt motivated to become more involved in EU
events, and 59 % (58; n=17) were introduced to new resources such as research and
funding opportunities. In addition, 59 % (58; n=17) improved their skills, and 54 % (53;
n=17) were able to use these in their work. Lastly, 47 % (47; n=17) had networked with
peers, demonstrating the impact of these events on professional growth, knowledge
acquisition and networking.
40
ETM. Among respondents who reported having consulted the resources of the ETM
(n=114), 52 % (30; n=57) had used the country reports on policy development in
education and training, while 33 % (19; n=57) had referred to the comparative report on
progress towards EU-level targets.
The most common reason for consulting the ETM was to use and download data for
research purposes, with 30 % (25; n=83) of respondents selecting this option. In addition,
24 % (20; n=83) indicated they had used it to keep up to date on EU progress in
education and training, and 23 % (19; n=83) had consulted it to learn about their
country’s performance against EU-level targets. Other reasons included comparing their
country’s performance with that of other EU countries (16 %, 13; n=83) and using the
ETM for policy development or advocacy purposes (2 % each).
JMA. Respondents who had participated in JMA calls (n=34) reported high levels of
satisfaction with several aspects of the application process. The highest levels of
satisfaction were reported in relation to the clarity and transparency of award criteria
(94 %, 30; n=32) and the time required to submit the application (94 %, 30; n=32). In
addition, 88 % (28; n=32) reported being satisfied with the general clarity of instructions
for applications, access to application materials, and the clarity of the eligibility criteria.
Satisfaction with the time to award was also high, at 84 % (28, n=32).
Relevance
In total, 96 % (204; n=213) of respondents believed that education and training foster
global connections and equitable access to quality, inclusive education. Moreover, 95 %
(202; n=213) said they were in favour of learning opportunities being available to
everyone, and for educators to be skilled, supported and motivated. The same percentage
agreed on the importance of the digital transition. Furthermore, 93 % (198; n=213) felt
that learning mobility in another country is available to everyone and that European
higher education has been strengthened, indicating a high level of satisfaction with these
initiatives. Lastly, 87 % (185, n=213) of respondents agreed that the green transition is
supported in and through education and training, demonstrating broad recognition of the
importance of sustainability in educational contexts.
7. Focus groups with EEA actors at national level
Following the survey of the wider education and training community, a series of focus
groups was organised involving the wider education and training community at national
level who had expressed interest in further discussion. The focus groups took place
online on 30 September, and on 1, 2 and 4 October 2024, involving altogether 11
participants.
Participants were invited to elaborate on their perceptions of EEA activities (in particular
the EEA portal, JMA calls, Education for Climate coalition, events and ETM) to assess
their effectiveness, their usefulness to the participants’ work, and areas for potential
improvement. This follow-up offered a deeper understanding of how EEA initiatives are
41
perceived, and provided constructive insights into how they might better support the
needs of the education and training sector.
Table 9. Distribution of national EEA actors focus group respondents across types of organisations
Focus group / interview
Number of
participants
Civil society organisations 5
Researchers/scholars 3
Educational institution leaders 2
Educational support staff / teacher 1
Total 11
General awareness and perceptions about the EEA
▪ The EEA is seen as a crucial part of European integration, fostering European
identity and offering valuable opportunities for exchanging practices (researchers
and scholars).
▪ Civil society organisations appreciate the inclusive, cooperative nature of the
EEA but some expressed concerns about the timeline for implementing EEA
initiatives, need for clearer pathways for collaboration among different types of
EEA actor.
▪ Some civil society organisations also mentioned the need for clearer
communication strategy.
EEA portal
▪ Participants expressed satisfaction with the portal, particularly its user-friendly
interface.
▪ The EEA portal is used for accessing information relating to Erasmus+ projects,
materials for courses, workshops and conferences.
▪ Suggestions for improvement include making the portal more accessible to
non-experts and offering more visuals.
ETM
▪ The ETM is appreciated by researchers and scholars for its usefulness in
comparing data between different MS. They see it as providing useful material for
courses, as well as data and insights that enhance learning and research.
▪ Education leaders use the ETM as a source of information to prepare courses.
They consider it user-friendly and effective in supporting their work.
▪ Civil society organisations are very satisfied with the ETM, using it for advocacy,
policy coordination and detailed country-by-country analysis. They suggest
offering simpler data visualisation options for a broader audience.
Events (e.g. the European Education Summit)
▪ EEA actors are generally aware of the events and show a positive attitude towards
them. Participation and follow-up remain limited, mainly due to time constraints.
42
civil society organisations mentioned the 2023 EEA midterm review event as a
positive experience.
▪ Suggestions for improvement concerned the introduction of more collaborative
formats and increasing both participation of education policy officers and
engagement of EEA actors in the European Education Summits.
JMA calls
▪ JMA calls are recognised as being highly relevant opportunities, but not yet fully
known or explored by teachers.
▪ Some suggestions for improvement included addressing the complexity of the
JMA application process, and creating a more detailed, grassroots-level
communication.