The ‘Education, Youth, Culture and Sport’ Council met last week on 15 and 16 May. The ministers adopted conclusions on the mutual and automatic recognition of diplomas and a resolution on the implementation of the European Education Area. The two subjects are closely related (see EUROPE B 13184A26).
The expression ‘European Education Area’ first appeared on 17 November 2017 in the Commission ‘Strengthening European Identity Through Education and Culture’, which was produced ahead of the Gothenburg social summit. What was in it? Principally, mobility for all for the purposes of learning and removing obstacles to the recognition of qualifications. Then, it features objectives that are nothing new: promoting the learning of languages and digital, modernising study curricula, creating European universities, supporting teaching staff, improving lifelong learning and even preserving the cultural heritage. On 28 May 2018, the Council would adopt conclusions on the matter: for both institutions, the target year was 2025.
The word ‘area’ is not unprecedented in the European lexicon: see also Schengen, the European Economic Area and the European Research Area. In all three cases, the geographical reference is clear and the concepts of market and freedom of movement clarify the underlying aims. Additionally, the Bologna Process has become the European Higher Education Area, designating a far wider geographical zone and a wider set of objectives, which have been achieved to widely varying degrees. In contrast, the concept of the European Education Area (EEA) is a child of the European Union and it can be deduced from this that the ‘area’ of its title refers to the territory of that entity, within which the people concerned by the subject of education move freely for that purpose.
In her speech of 16 July 2019, the candidate for the Presidency of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, formally pledged to make the EEA a reality by 2025.
In November 2019, before the Commission had published anything on the topic, the Council adopted a resolution on the creation of the EEA. It is packed with all the usual EU objectives, plus a green and climate-neutral Europe. By far the most signification point contained within it is the call made upon the Commission to take initiatives to ensure that the area in question is “genuine”; if the institution has to be asked to define the aims, objectives and scope of application of the project, then they cannot be all that clear to the ministers.
It was not until 30 September 2020 that the Commission tabled its communication on “Achieving the European Education Area by 2025” (see EUROPE 12571/8). The introduction to the document reads “the European Education Area is rooted in decades of education cooperation at EU level”, which suggests that it is already a fait accompli rather than an objective to be worked towards. Two pages later, we find a description of the future, concerning the efforts to “achieve” the EEA.
Then, the document sets out six dimensions along which to bring the EEA into being: (1) quality, (2) inclusion and gender equality, (3) the green and digital transition, (4) teachers and trainers, (5) higher education and, finally, (6) the geopolitical dimension.
Where, in these six dimensions, is the freedom of movement hiding? It is tucked away in the first, quality (mobility for the purposes of learning), the fourth (“the international mobility of students, teachers and teacher trainers should become part of teacher education”), the fifth (mobility, a well-known aspect of higher education) and, lastly, in the sixth dimension, on making learning more international.
On this issue, the communication has this to say: “Widening the association of non-EU countries to the European Education Area, especially those of the Western Balkans, is an integral part of the vision to achieve by 2025”, which is particularly unexpected given that at the time the text was drawn up, the enlargement of the EU to these countries was blocked. In particular, this shows that the limits of this area are flexible. But as the programme Erasmus+ has forged ties, especially among universities, “between the European Education Area and the rest of the world”, it is clear that the former is completely separate from the latter.
The Commission goes on to describe all the initiatives already taken and that it has still to take to give effect to all six dimensions. Many of them are already part of the respective mandates of the programmes Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps. For the remainder, let us consider the support provided to the member states by the Commission to identify the reforms needed for the acquisition of basic skills, the observation of the Council’s recommendation on language learning, levelling up skills on the gender dimension in teaching and on wellbeing at school, tackling the digital divide, synergies with the framework research programme Horizon Europe and the EIT, bolstering the teaching profession, developing joint master’s courses, Erasmus Mundus, etc...
More specifically, the Commission announced new projects: the ‘Pathways to School Success’, the ‘Researchers at Schools’ initiative to raise scientific awareness among schoolchildren and their teachers, the launch of the ‘Erasmus+ Teacher Academies’ (2021), guidelines on the framework for teaching careers, the creation of a prize for teaching innovation (2021), a proposed Council recommendation on micro-qualifications (2021), a report on the implementation of the 2018 Council recommendation in favour of the automatic mutual recognition of diplomas and learning outcomes (2022), a transformation agenda for higher education (2021), the creation of a European diploma, the revision of the 2006 recommendation on quality guarantees in higher education, the creation of a European student map (2021), to be fully rolled out by 2025, a report on the 2017 recommendation on the monitoring of university graduates (2022), again to be fully rolled out by 2025, the launch of an ‘Education for the Climate’ coalition (end of 2020), a proposed recommendation on education in the field of environmental sustainability (2021) and strategic guidelines to remove obstacles to volunteering (2021).
As regards the governance of the EEA, the institution is breaking new ground with the creation of a “facilitating framework”, which is also based on the work of the Council, the European Education Summits, the European Semester, experts laying down new benchmarks, all with the purpose of working towards the “achievement of a European Education Area by 2025”. The European Parliament gets just one mention in the text, as one of the “institutions” taking part in common debates.
Finally, the Commission proposed targeted objectives. Only one of these is to be met by 2025: 50% of the adult population should take part in learning activities every year.
Everything else has been postponed until 2030 (officially, for reasons of comparisons between decades): “the share of low-achieving 15-year-olds in reading, mathematics and science should be less than 15%; the share of low-achieving eight-graders in computer and information literacy should be less than 15%; at least 98% of children between 3 years old and the starting age for compulsory primary education should participate in early childhood education; the share of people aged 20-24 with at least an upper secondary qualification should be 90%; the share of 30-34 year-olds with tertiary educational attainment should be at least 50%”.
For the first of these targets laid down, the objective of 2020 has been adopted wholesale. Given that this is a major document on achievements to be made by 2025, it is very strange that not even interim targets have been provided for that year.
The ministers would respond in early 2021to this communication, with all its internal contradictions and confusion, by distancing themselves from it. (To be continued)
Renaud Denuit