Europaudvalget 2025
KOM (2025) 0340
Offentligt
3048213_0001.png
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}
EN
EN
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
Table of Contents
ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................... 1
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ................................................ 3
L
IMITATIONS
............................................................................................................................................... 3
1.
2.
3.
I
NCEPTION STAGE
............................................................................................................................... 4
D
ATA COLLECTION STAGE
.................................................................................................................. 5
D
ATA ANALYSIS STAGE
...................................................................................................................... 5
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX ...................................................................................................... 7
E
FFECTIVENESS
........................................................................................................................................... 7
E
FFICIENCY
............................................................................................................................................... 14
C
OHERENCE
.............................................................................................................................................. 15
EU
ADDED VALUE
..................................................................................................................................... 17
R
ELEVANCE
.............................................................................................................................................. 19
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ....................................................................... 20
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ........................................ 25
C
ONSULTATION STRATEGY
....................................................................................................................... 25
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
C
ALL FOR EVIDENCE
........................................................................................................................ 26
P
UBLIC CONSULTATION
.................................................................................................................... 27
I
NTERVIEWS WITH THE MAIN
EEA
ACTORS
...................................................................................... 30
F
OCUS GROUPS WITH
HLG
AND
EDUC
MEMBERS
........................................................................... 33
S
URVEY OF
WG
AND
SGIB
MEMBERS
.............................................................................................. 35
S
URVEY OF THE WIDER EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMUNITY
..................................................... 38
F
OCUS GROUPS WITH
EEA
ACTORS AT NATIONAL LEVEL
................................................................. 40
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0003.png
Glossary
Terms and acronyms are used for both singular and plural forms.
Term or acronym
AI
CB
CSR
DG
DG BUDG
DG CLIMA
DG CNECT
DG EAC
DG ECFIN
DG EMPL
DG ENV
DG HE
DG HOME
DG INTPA
DG JUST
DG NEAR
DG REFORM
DG REGIO
DG RTD
DGVT
EACEA
EASNIE
ECEC
EDUC
EEA
EEAS
EFEE
EFFE
Meaning or definition
Artificial intelligence
Coordination Board (of the High-Level Group)
Country-specific recommendations
Directorate-General
Directorate-General for Budget
Directorate-General for Climate Action
Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology
Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture
Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
Directorate-General for Environment
Directors-General for Higher Education
Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs
Directorate-General for International Partnerships
Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations
Directorate-General for Structural Reform Support
Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Directors-General for Vocational Education and Training
European Education and Culture Executive Agency
European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education
Early childhood education and care
Education Committee
European Education Area
European External Action Service
European Federation of Education Employers
European Forum for Freedom in Education
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0004.png
EFTA
EIT
EP
EPALE
ESF+
ESU
ET2010
ET2020
ETM
ETUCE
EU
EYCS
HLG
JMA
JRC
MS
NFIL
NGO
OECD
RRF
SG
SG.RECOVER
SGIB
SJ
SP
STEM
SWD
TSI
UN
UNESCO
UNICEF
VET
European Free Trade Association
European Institute of Innovation and Technology
European Parliament
Electronic Platform for Adult Learning in Europe
European Social Fund Plus
European Students Union
Education and Training 2010
Education and Training 2020
Education and Training Monitor
European Trade Union Committee for Education
European Union
Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council
High-Level Group on Education and Training
Jean Monnet actions
Joint Research Centre
Member States
Non-formal and informal learning
Non-governmental organisation
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
Recovery and Resilience Facility
Secretariat-General (of the European Commission)
Reform and Investment Task Force
Standing Group on Indicators and Benchmarks
Legal Service (of the European Commission)
Strategic priority
Science, technology, engineering and mathematics
Staff working document
Technical Support Instrument
United Nations
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
United Nations agency for children
Vocational education and training
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0005.png
WG
WG AL
WG DELTA
WG ECEC
WG Equality and Values
WG HE
WG Schools
WG Schools – Pathways
WG Schools – Learning for
Sustainability
WG VET and the Green
Transition
Working groups (EEA strategic framework working groups)
Working Group on Adult Learning: opening up opportunities for all
Working Group on Digital Education: learning, teaching and assessment
Working Group on Early Childhood Education and Care
Working Group on Equality and Values in Education and Training
Working group on Higher Education
Working Group on Schools
Working Group on Schools sub-group Pathways to School Success
Working Group on Schools sub-group Learning for Sustainability
Working Group on Vocational Education and Training and the Green Transition
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0006.png
A
NNEX
I: P
ROCEDURAL
I
NFORMATION
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
17 February 2023
26 April 2023
22 May 2023
16 June-15 September 2023
mid-July to September 2023
6 December 2023
15 December 2023
1 February 2024
29 February 2024
4 April-27 June 2024
Q1-Q4 2024
11 July 2024
25 November 2024
January 2025
3 to 19 February 2025
5 to 12 February 2025
25 April-12 May 2025
July 2025
Step
Evaluation launched in DECIDE (PLAN/2023/264)
Note
Ares(2023)2956155
sent to relevant DGs on
setting-up the
ISG
First ISG meeting:
call for evidence, intervention logic,
evaluation questions
Call for evidence
open on the
Have your say
portal
Written consultation of the ISG:
technical specifications for the
evaluation support contract
Signature of the evaluation support contract
Kick-off meeting
with the external contractor
Theory of Change workshop
with the Commission staff
Second ISG meeting:
inception report
Public consultation
open on the
Have your say
portal
Targeted consultations
Third ISG meeting:
interim report
Fourth ISG meeting:
draft final report
Drafting of the evaluation SWD
and obligatory annexes
Written consultation of the ISG:
external evaluation support
study
Written consultation of the ISG:
draft SWD on evaluation
Inter-service consultation
Publication of the evaluation report (and the support study)
1
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0007.png
Interservice group:
The ISG oversaw the evaluation and met regularly throughout the
evaluation process. The ISG was composed of representatives of 18 Commission
departments
1
. 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
2
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0008.png
A
NNEX
II. M
ETHODOLOGY AND
A
NALYTICAL 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
Stage 1
Inception stage
kick-off meeting
scoping interviews
scoping desk research
theory of change workshop
development of impact
pathways
Stage 2
Data collection
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
Stage 3
Data analysis
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
3
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0009.png
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.
4
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0010.png
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
Call for evidence (Have
your say
portal)
Public consultation (Have
your say
portal)
Interviews with the main EEA actors
Focus groups with HLG and EDUC members
Survey of WG and SGIB members
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
Timing
16 June-15 September 2023
4 April-27 June 2024
Q1-Q4 2024
22, 25, 29 April 2024
16 May-7 June 2024
19 July-23 August 2024
30 September 2024; 1, 2, 4 October 2024
8 October 2024
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 instrument
2
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
5
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
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.
6
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0012.png
A
NNEX
III. E
VALUATION 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
4
Implementation of the strategic EEA initiatives and EU-level projects and calls
5
EQ1:
To what extent have the strategic
The strategic EEA initiatives and EU-level projects and
EEA initiatives and EU-level projects and
calls agreed have been implemented/progressed in a
calls been implemented?
timely manner.
Indicators
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)
Sources
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.
7
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0013.png
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
The strategic EEA initiatives and EU-level projects and calls produce
initiatives and EU-level projects and calls
the expected effects (results/impacts) at EU-level and in MS at the
contribute effectively to the achievement of each
level of:
SP? How could strategic EEA initiatives and EU-
EEA actors (policymakers and practitioners)
level projects and calls contribute further?
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).
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?
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?
Not applicable.
Positive effects are observed in all sectors.
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
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
Quantitative and qualitative:
overview of effects per sector
Contribution
analysis
Interviews
Online focus groups
Portfolio analysis
Public consultation
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
Case studies
Contribution
analysis
Interviews
Contribution
analysis
Interviews
8
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0014.png
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).
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.
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:
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
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
Quantitative and qualitative:
coverage of NFIL in strategic EEA initiatives and
EU-level projects and calls
Qualitative:
perception of NFIL by EEA actors
Case studies
Citation analysis
Contribution
analysis
Interviews
Most significant
change narratives
Portfolio analysis
Qualitative
comparative
analysis
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
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
Interviews
Portfolio analysis
9
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0015.png
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
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
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)
Interviews
Portfolio analysis
EEA has had positive effects on cooperation with non-EU countries.
The level of cooperation has positively affected participation in
learning mobility.
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.
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.
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
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
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
Interviews
Survey of WG
Most significant
change narratives
Case studies
Interviews
Most significant
change narratives
Portfolio analysis
10
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0016.png
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)
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
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.
Case studies
Contribution
analysis
Interviews
Literature review
Online focus groups
Portfolio analysis
Public consultation
Survey of WG
Interviews
Most significant
change narratives
Case studies
Public consultation
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
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
11
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0017.png
EQ15:
Has the HLG become more strategic and
agile?
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?
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.
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.
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
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
Quantitative and qualitative:
assumptions from the impact pathways confirmed
examples of influence
Interviews
Survey of WG
Effects of mutual learning (sub-group of the reformed governance)
EQ17:
To what extent has European cooperation Assumptions of the technical governance pathway are confirmed.
under the EEA strategic framework facilitated
Understanding of good practices in investment in education
the mutual learning, analysis, and sharing of
infrastructure at MS level has been strengthened.
good practices on quality investment in
education and training?
There is evidence of the influence of the EEA.
EQ18:
Have the mutual learning arrangements
Relevant assumptions in the political and technical levels of
enabled progress towards the achievement of
governance pathways are confirmed.
objectives (SP)?
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.
Case studies
Contribution
analysis
Interviews
Online focus groups
Case studies
Most significant
change narratives
Interviews
Online focus groups
Portfolio analysis
Public consultation
Survey of WG
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
12
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0018.png
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.
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 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?
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
Quantitative and qualitative:
match between the targets and performance to date
Qualitative:
perceived need to adjust the targets
Case studies
Citation analysis
Contribution analysis
Interviews
Online focus groups
Public consultation
Expert Delphi panel
Interviews
Portfolio analysis
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?
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?
Not applicable.
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
13
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0019.png
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
Costs and benefits of the EEA implementation instruments
EQ24:
What are the costs and benefits of strategic
The costs of EEA activities under its instruments are proportionate to
EEA initiatives and EU-level projects and calls and the benefits.
European cooperation under the EEA strategic
There is a balance between activities implemented (where available) and
framework during the period 2021-June 2024?
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.
Indicators
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
Sources
Cost-effectiveness
analysis
Portfolio analysis
Case studies
Interviews
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
Contribution analysis
Public consultation
Interviews
Survey of WG
Online focus groups
Cost-effectiveness
analysis
Portfolio analysis
Interviews
Cost-effectiveness
analysis
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?
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?
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
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
14
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0020.png
Coherence
Evaluation question
Internal coherence
EQ27:
To what extent is the EEA internally
coherent?
Judgement criteria
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.
Indicators
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
Sources
Interviews
Portfolio analysis
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
15
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0021.png
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
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
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.
Interviews
Policy context
analysis
Portfolio analysis
Public consultation
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
16
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0022.png
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.
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 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
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
Citation analysis
Interviews
National case
studies
Policy context
analysis
Portfolio analysis
Public consultation
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
Policy context
analysis
Portfolio analysis
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
Interviews
Public consultation
EU added value
Evaluation question
Added value during the evaluation period
EQ32:
To what extent did European cooperation
under the EEA strategic framework achieve
added value?
Judgement criteria
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.
Indicators
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
Sources
Contribution
analysis and
qualitative
comparative
analysis under
effectiveness
Contribution
analysis and
qualitative
comparative
analysis under
17
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0023.png
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)
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
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
effectiveness
Interviews
Interviews
Policy and portfolio
analysis
Public consultation
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
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.
Delphi survey
Public consultation
Task 4 – analysis of
other possible
measures
18
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0024.png
Relevance
Evaluation question
Judgement criteria
Relevance of the EEA SP during the evaluation period
EQ35:
To what extent do the SP for European
The main needs of EEA actors in education and training are
cooperation and reform (as set out in the 2021
addressed by the EEA SP.
EEA strategic framework Resolution) meet the
EEA actors are satisfied with the extent to which the EEA meets their
shared needs of the education and training
needs.
systems in EU MS?
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).
Indicators
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
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
Sources
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.
Interviews
Literature review
Public consultation
Surveys (WG and
wider education and
training community)
19
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0025.png
A
NNEX
IV. O
VERVIEW 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.
20
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0026.png
EEA implementation
instrument/activity or process
Costs
Benefits
Governance
HLG and its CB
EEA strategic framework
WG including peer-learning
activities
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.
External expertise, covered by dedicated
The WG were found to represent an important regular and structured forum for co-creation, mutual learning and
contracts, and physical WG meetings and
dissemination of good practices, with contributions also from social partners, EU-level stakeholder organisations and
peer-learning activities were the main cost-
agencies.
generating items:
The various WG activities resulted in almost 80 deliverables during the period covered by the evaluation, including
32 WG meetings (of which 8 in-person
input papers, reports, factsheets, key policy messages and briefs.
meetings) were held on average annually
The mutual learning and deliverables fed policy development and supported reforms in several MS. For example,
since 2022
they contributed to the reform of ECEC in Bulgaria and Lithuania, the Higher Education and Science Act and the
11 peer-learning activities took place on
Act on Quality Assurance in HE in Croatia, improved governance and modernisation of the VET system in Cyprus,
average per year
the digital education reform in Czechia, citizenship education reform in Spain, legislation on inclusive education and
9 seminars/webinars were organised on
curriculum flexibility in Portugal, or the integration of Ukrainian refugees in Germany.
average annually
WG activities supported the design and follow-up of strategic EEA initiatives (e.g. WG Schools – Pathways, WG
Costs for in person meetings and
Schools - Learning for Sustainability, or WG HE).
peer-learning activities related to travel
Supporting the advancement of the European dimension in education and training (e.g. work of the WG Equality and
and accommodation. For all WG
Values supporting Spanish presidency on the Council conclusions on the contribution of education and training to
activities, costs related to participants’
strengthening common European values and democratic citizenship, or WG HE).
time for preparation, participation and
Supporting the global dimension of the EEA by facilitating exchanges and mutual learning with the EU candidate
follow up.
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.
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.
21
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0027.png
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
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
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.
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:
22
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0028.png
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 students
6
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
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.
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)
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
Education for Climate
Coalition
Main cost-generating items:
platform hosting,
Commission staff time dedicated to the
action.
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
23
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0029.png
EEA implementation
instrument/activity or process
Costs
Benefits
Reporting, monitoring and evaluation of progress
ETM – comparative and
Main cost-generating items:
country reports
external expert contract;
Commission staff time to analyse and draft
reports.
DG EAC – DG EMPL EEA
Taskforce
Main cost-generating item:
Commission staff time to prepare for,
participate in and follow up on meetings.
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
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
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
Communication and dissemination
EEA portal
Main cost-generating items:
European Education
Summits
Social media campaigns
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).
24
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0030.png
A
NNEX
V. S
TAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION
- S
YNOPSIS 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
Call for evidence (Have
your say
portal)
Public consultation (Have
your say
portal)
Interviews with the main EEA actors
Focus groups with HLG and EDUC members
Survey of WG and SGIB members
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
Timing
16 June-15 September 2023
4 April-27 June 2024
Q1-Q4 2024
22, 25, 29 April 2024
16 May-7 June 2024
19 July-23 August 2024
30 September 2024; 1, 2, 4 October 2024
8 October 2024
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
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)
Interviews
Online
surveys
Public
consultation
Focus
groups
The overall stakeholders’ participation in consultation activities is summarised in Figure
2 below.
25
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0031.png
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
26
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0032.png
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=279
7
) 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 respondent
8
Count
%
Academic/research institution
EU citizen
Civil society organisations
Public authority
Trade union
Non-EU citizen
Company/business and business association
Other
Total
7
117
49
41
17
11
10
6
28
279
42 %
17 %
15 %
6%
4%
3%
2%
10 %
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 %).
27
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
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).
28
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
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;
29
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0035.png
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
30
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0036.png
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
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
EFEE, ETUCE, European Parents Association, ESU, EASNIE – 1
each
Interviewees included representatives from OECD, UNESCO,
UNICEF, World Bank, and the Council of Europe
HLG CB: BE, CZ, ES, FR, SE, SI
HLG: IE
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.
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)
Norway and Iceland
EU bodies
30
European social
partners and
associations
International
organizations
HLG CB members
5
6
7
WG
35
MS (including as
part of case studies;
excluding HLG CB,
HLG and WG
members)
118
European
Economic Area /
EFTA countries
2
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,
31
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
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.
32
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0038.png
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,
33
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
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.
34
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0040.png
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
Public authority, other public entities
EU body/office/agency
International organisation
European social partner organisation
European civil society/stakeholder association
Academia/research institution
Other
Total
Count
107
4
4
3
6
3
3
130
%
82 %
3%
3%
2%
5%
2%
2%
35
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0041.png
Table 7. Distribution of WG and SGIB survey respondents
WG/SGIB
Working Group on Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC)
Working Group on Digital Education: learning, teaching and assessment
(DELTA)
Working Group on Vocational Education and Training (VET) and the
Green Transition
Working Group on Higher Education (HE)
SGIB
Working Group on Schools – Pathways to School Success
Working Group on Schools – Learning for Sustainability
Working Group on Equality and Values in Education and Training
Working group on Adult Learning: opening up opportunities for all (AL)
Total
Count
22
20
20
18
14
13
10
11
8
136
9
%
17 %
15 %
15 %
14 %
11 %
10 %
8%
8%
6%
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.
36
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
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).
37
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0043.png
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
Researcher/scholar
Teacher
Educational institution leader
NGO
Learner in higher education
Educational support staff
Other
Policymaker
Educator
Learner (in adult education, secondary education or VET)
Social partner (employers and employees)
International organisation
Total
Count
79
35
18
18
17
11
9
9
8
5
3
1
213
%
37 %
16.4 %
8.4 %
8.4 %
7.9 %
5.1 %
4.2 %
4.2 %
3.7 %
2.3 %
1.4 %
0.4 %
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);
38
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
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.
39
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0045.png
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
40
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
3048213_0046.png
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
Civil society organisations
Researchers/scholars
Educational institution leaders
Educational support staff / teacher
Total
Number of
participants
5
3
2
1
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.
41
kom (2025) 0340 - Ingen titel
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.
42