Croatia has made significant efforts to modernise its education and skills system—raising quality, expanding access, and better aligning learning with labour market needs. These reforms aim to support a more innovative and competitive economy and prepare both young people and adults for a fast-changing world of work. This chapter explains the role of education and skills in this agenda, presenting key findings and recommendations from the report. It looks at how Croatia’s education and skills system compares to that of OECD Members and peers in the Central and Eastern European region, and how evidence and policy examples from across the OECD can help the country come closer to OECD benchmarks for quality, equity and good governance.
Education and Skills in Croatia
Abstract
Over the past decade, the Republic of Croatia has made remarkable progress in developing its economy and improving living standards. A strong tourism sector, growth in wages and employment, and inflows of funding supported by integration into the eurozone and Schengen areas underpin these advances. Further progress towards the country’s long-term goals – of enhancing sustainable development, resilience to crises, the green and digital transitions, and balanced regional development – is now being hindered by structural challenges. In particular, Croatia faces low labour productivity, geographic disparities, and emigration of skilled workers, which are exacerbated by one of the fastest demographic declines among OECD countries.
Raising the level of education and skills is crucial to overcoming these challenges. Fortunately, Croatia has a solid foundation to build on, having already achieved impressive outcomes for a young country. Most students complete upper secondary education, and several education equity indicators are near the OECD average. Moreover, while many OECD countries experienced declines in learning outcomes over recent years, Croatia has managed to generally maintain performance in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). At the same time, longer-term trends suggests that Croatia has made little progress improving the share of students who score below baseline proficiency levels in PISA and disparities in education access and outcomes persist at different levels of the system. Another challenge is that education and training opportunities after secondary school are highly skewed towards academic higher education, which at times, fail to meet the needs of learners and the economy. These factors contribute to a slow transition into work for many Croatian graduates, a rising problem in the face of skills shortages and a shrinking workforce.
To catalyse improvements in education quality and equity, Croatia will need to fine-tune its policies and practices. Part II of this report evaluates Croatia’s education and skills inputs, outcomes, and policies against those of OECD countries, with reference to the Accession Core Principles (see Box 1.1). It also provides recommendations to help Croatia learn from OECD evidence and experience to address existing challenges and improve education outcomes.
On 25 January 2022, the OECD Council invited Croatia to open formal accession discussions. In June 2022, the OECD Council adopted the Roadmap for the accession of Croatia to the OECD Convention (OECD, 2022[1]), setting out the terms, conditions and process for accession to the OECD. Under this roadmap, the OECD Education Policy Committee (EDPC) has been requested to conduct an in-depth technical review of Croatia in the area of education and skills. This report provides input to this process by evaluating national policies and practices in Croatia. It does so according to five Accession Core Principles that are essential to effective education systems: a strong focus on improving learning outcomes; equity in educational opportunity; good governance, in particular collecting and using data to inform policy; leveraging funding to steer reform; and engaging stakeholders in policy design and implementation. Drawing on OECD research and experience in the area of education and skills, the review examines the extent to which Croatia’s policies and practices align with these core policy principles. It also provides recommendations on how Croatia can improve policies in practices to advance the country towards OECD standards of education attainment and outcomes.
As Croatia’s workforce shrinks, maintaining economic growth will require shifting education and skills into a higher gear to enable more people to become lifelong learners, adapt to changing labour demands and raise productivity. Ongoing reforms draw heavily on EU funding and build on previous efforts to improve the quality and labour market relevance of the education and skills system. However, further progress will be increasingly difficult in the face of demographic shifts, geographic disparities and competing policy priorities that stretch resources. To support its aspirations of becoming a more innovative and competitive economy, Croatia will need to intensify efforts to raise learning outcomes and explore ways to help more people advance to and re-engage in education and training at higher levels.
How does education quality in Croatia compare to OECD benchmarks?
Croatia has achieved near universal enrolment in basic schooling and most students continue to the upper secondary level. Results from PISA 2022 show that Croatia prevented the strong decline in learning outcomes that many countries experienced following the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these positive outcomes, longer-term trends suggest that Croatia’s performance in PISA has generally stagnated. For example, there have been no statistically significant changes in the share of top and low performers over the past two decades (see Figure 1.1). To raise learning outcomes, Croatia has embarked on an ambitious reform agenda that includes a new competence-based curriculum and Whole Day Schooling. While these policies are promising, there is scope to harness and draw more fully on the professional contributions of teachers and leaders. For example, Croatian schools have lower levels of perceived decision-making responsibility over the types of courses offered and content (see Figure 1.1). School leaders also report needing more support from authorities compared to their peers in many OECD countries and few teachers report feeling their views are valued by society and policymakers. Empowering these frontline actors will be key to raising the learning outcomes of all young people in Croatia.
Note: In Panel A, low performers refer to students who score below Level 2 in PISA.
Source: OECD (2023[2]), PISA database 2022, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/ (accessed on 10 January 2024).
Another challenge Croatia needs to overcome is the slow transition of students from formal education into work. On one hand, there has been a rapid decline in the share of people not in employment, education or training (NEET) over the last decade and tertiary attainment is steadily approaching the EU average. On the other, there are signs that the design of Croatia’s education and training pathways are not leading to the outcomes individuals and the economy desire. While 70% of students enrol in vocational programmes at the upper secondary level – the highest share among Central and Eastern European countries - most (67%) choose to pursue academic higher education (ISCED 6+) upon graduation. For many such students, tertiary education does not provide a quick pathway to better jobs. In fact, employment rates for Croatian tertiary graduates in the first years after graduation are among the lowest in Europe (see Figure 1.2). National estimates also suggest that dropout from tertiary education is high, at around 40-45%. These trends are attributed, in part, to weak collaboration between education institutions and employers, but also the absence of alternative post-schooling education and training opportunities. At present, Croatia has no post-secondary non-tertiary programmes (ISCED 4) and very few short-cycle tertiary programmes (ISCED 5).
Employment rates of recent graduates from tertiary education, 1-2 years, and 3-4 years after graduation
Note: Countries are ranked in descending order of the employment rate of young adults for one to two years after completing tertiary education.
Source: OECD (2023[3]), Education at a Glance 2023, https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.
What can Croatia learn from OECD research and policies on improving education quality?
Policy message 1 – Support teachers and leaders to raise learning standards
Having already achieved good education outcomes, Croatia is now working to make further progress by expanding access to early childhood education and care (ECEC) and lengthening the school day to help more students meet national learning goals. This involves ending multi-shifting schooling, which is common in many parts of the country as Croatia lacks the infrastructure needed to provide full-day schooling for all. Momentum for change is strong and ongoing reforms have led to significant infrastructure investments, driven largely by EU funding. However, ensuring reforms have a positive impact on students’ educational experiences and outcomes will largely depend on Croatia’s teachers and school leaders. The Whole Day School reform aims to give schools more autonomy over decisions related to instruction and organising a longer school day. This represents a shift away from Croatia’s centrally prescribed education system towards one where educators are expected to exercise more professional judgement in adapting the curriculum to learner needs. In this context, it is positive that Croatia recently introduced a new standardised assessment of student outcomes. This gives educators an objective reference point when making decisions, and also provides the government with a means to monitor the impact of reforms in raising learning outcomes and narrowing gaps across different groups of students.
Developing leadership within schools and ECEC centres can be a powerful way to improve teaching and learning, especially at a time when educators are being asked to make effective use of the extended time students spend in school. Currently, initial training for Croatian leaders is underdeveloped and once on the job, they receive limited feedback and hands-on support. While the Ministry’s Education and Teacher Training Agency is considered a valuable source of guidance, it is severely understaffed. At the time of drafting, the Agency had only three advisors dedicated to working with school leaders across the country. Creating a leadership training programme – like the one in Slovenia and other OECD countries – could help Croatia better prepare future leaders and practicing principals to manage the changing expectations of their role. Relevant training areas might include how to support staff in implementing student-centred and competency-based teaching practices, or how to lead self-evaluation and improvement planning. Croatia could also build on the informal peer networks that exist for leaders by supporting more collaborative and job-embedded professional learning and school development opportunities, like mentorship or structured school networks to promote exchange and share resources.
Another way to support Croatian educators in raising the quality of provision is to reflect on the current distribution of staff roles within ECEC centres and schools. While Croatia’s high qualification requirements for ECEC staff is an asset, the sector faces major staff shortages that force some settings to exceed national standards for child-to-staff ratios. This could make it harder to maintain quality in ECEC settings and risks becoming increasingly problematic as the sector expands. This review suggests that Croatia consider establishing an assistant position to work alongside ECEC educators and other specialist staff. Such arrangements can help widen the pool of motivated candidates to support ECEC staff teams without lowering quality. France and England (United Kingdom) offer examples of these types of complementary ECEC staffing roles. At the school level, Croatia could consider establishing the role of deputy school leader or school management teams to help redistribute leadership and management responsibilities. This change would not only allow school leaders to rebalance their workloads but also give teachers more opportunities to gain practical leadership experience and help shape their school’s development, creating a pipeline of promising future leaders.
Policy message 2 - Diversify the post-secondary education and training offer
For many Croatians, the transition from formal education into work is slow and difficult. Moreover, few adults participate in adult learning, limiting opportunities to upskill and reskill the workforce. The government is actively working to address these challenges. Efforts include a new curriculum and modular framework for upper secondary vocational education and training (VET) that aims to consolidate core competencies while diversifying specialisations that lead to different course credits, as well as Regional Centres of Competence that provide opportunities for practical learning. Objectives related to the relevance and quality of programmes are also embedded in the new funding model used to allocate resources to tertiary education institutions. These changes bring Croatia closer to some of the strongest practices in the OECD. However, the design of post-secondary education and training pathways in Croatia is highly skewed towards academic higher education (ISCED 6+). This is partly because this pathway offers subsidised fees for full-time study and due to relatively few alternatives for those seeking higher level qualifications. More fundamental changes to the design of Croatia’s post-secondary education and training landscape are needed. This can give all learners a chance to benefit from quality education and ultimately help improve learning and labour market outcomes.
This review recommends three policies that can help rebalance Croatia’s post-secondary education and training offer. The first is to expand professionally oriented “mid-level” programmes and qualifications (i.e. at ISCED 4 and 5). Such programmes have become an important driver for broadening attainment in many OECD countries and could help reduce Croatia’s high dropout rates from higher education, as well as narrow the tertiary attainment gender gap. The second is to create a central fund for training providers and employers to collaborate in developing non-tertiary training programmes that are adapted to local labour market needs. The third recommendation is to establish a system of professional examinations in areas where there is support from professional or employer groups. In Switzerland, for example, exams certify skills and provide a way to recognise prior learning. All of these policies will require deeper reflection on how public funding in Croatia can better support a wider range of post-secondary education and training offers, who the providers of different forms of education should be, and clearer communication of their potential value to individuals and the Croatian economy.
Croatia aims to provide equal access to quality education for all. This universalist policy approach has helped expand ECEC participation, enabled nearly all young people to progress to upper secondary school and allowed many to pursue higher education. However, these positive trends conceal important equity challenges in terms of access and performance. As in several OECD countries, Croatians from the wealthiest backgrounds and those living in urban areas typically have access to more prestigious and diverse educational opportunities. This sets them on a trajectory towards better outcomes later in life – a privilege their disadvantaged peers do not get to enjoy as easily. Croatia also faces significant gender gaps. Girls and women have higher levels of educational achievement and attainment but do not reap the expected payoffs. There are also growing concerns about underachievement among males. Croatia cannot afford these gaps, especially in the face of rapid demographic decline and a pressing need to raise productivity. More people in Croatia need to access and succeed in education. This will require policies that intentionally target resources and support to the most vulnerable, helping them reach their potential as they advance through the education system.
How does education equity in Croatia compare to OECD members?
On many key equity indicators, Croatia is already near or converging to the OECD average, such as ensuring that most children, regardless of background, complete school. However, on other indicators, Croatia does less well. Access to ECEC remains unequal, with broader implications for gender equality and life outcomes of marginalised groups. Only 24% of Roma children in Croatia enrol in ECEC, compared to 79% of the general population. Moreover, there is a 24-percentage point gap in ECEC participation for 0–2-year-olds between children from wealthy and poor families, which is larger than the OECD average and one of the largest among peer countries in Europe (see Figure 1.3). Geographic disparities also exist. The Adriatic region and Zagreb have reached 90% ECEC enrolment among 3–6-year-olds. However, despite substantial improvements over the past five years, more rural and remote regions in some southeast counties of Pannonian Croatia remain at less than 70%.
Moreover, while school attainment rates in Croatia are higher than most OECD countries, socio-economic background strongly influences the programmes students follow, and with this, their outcomes, and future opportunities. Croatia exhibits one of the widest gaps in VET enrolments between advantaged and disadvantaged students among PISA participating countries (see Figure 1.3). PISA also reveals that students in Croatia’s general programmes tend to outperform their peers in VET pathways. While such disparities are common to many OECD countries, what is notable in Croatia is how current assessment and selection policies accentuate, rather than help mitigate, the impact student background has on upper secondary placement. In Croatia, students are sorted into different programmes based solely on their classroom grades. This is not only a narrow basis for selection but raises concerns because teachers have few reliable references – such as grade moderation or standardised data – to determine whether students are meeting learning standards. Teachers also lack tools to identify and help students who are falling behind. This risks inconsistency in their judgements, resulting in disadvantaged students being less likely to get the support needed to succeed academically and access more prestigious upper secondary schools.
Note: In Panel A, countries are sorted in ascending order of participation of students from the lowest tertile. In Panel B, vocational programmes also include pre-vocational programmes. A socio-economically disadvantaged (advantaged) student is a student in the bottom (top) quarter of the PISA index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS) in his or her own country/economy. Countries are sorted in descending order of the share of disadvantaged students in vocational programmes. OECD-CEE average does not include Estonia for which data was not available. Score differences of all the countries in the panel are statistically significant.
Source: Adapted from OECD (2023[4]), Family Indicators (Edition 2022), https://doi.org/10.1787/6cb62cd0-en; OECD (2023[5]), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II), https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
After secondary education, Croatia’s equity challenges become primarily marked by geography and gender. Croatia has large spatial disparities in educational attainment (see Figure 1.4). While there are tertiary education institutions (TEIs) across the country, Zagreb has one of the highest concentrations of enrolments of any capital city across OECD European countries. Since 70% of students in the Zagreb region permanently reside elsewhere, people who cannot afford to live in the capital risk being excluded from the most prestigious education opportunities. Croatian adults living in non-urban areas, who tend to be older, at a higher risk of unemployment, and have lower educational attainment, also face challenges in accessing education and training. These trends perpetuate economic stagnation in the country’s lagging regions, as investments tend to gravitate towards areas with a more skilled workforce.
In terms of gender disparities, Croatia has one of the largest gaps in tertiary attainment among EU countries, in favour of young women (see Figure 1.4). However, the educational advantages enjoyed by women tend to erode upon their entry to the labour market. While Croatia’s gender employment gap is narrower than the OECD average – reflecting relatively low employment overall – Croatian women continue to earn less than men. They also report the highest amounts of unpaid work across European countries and many mothers, especially those with lower qualification levels, struggle to re-enter the workforce after maternity leave, worsening gender inequalities.
Note: In Panel A, countries are sorted in descending order of tertiary attainment of 25–54-year-olds in rural areas as a percentage of the attainment rate of the same cohort living in cities. In Panel B, countries are sorted in descending order of gender gap in tertiary attainment among 25–34-year-olds.
Source: Eurostat (2024[6]), Population by educational attainment level, sex, age and degree of urbanisation (%), https://doi.org/10.2908/EDAT_LFS_9913; OECD (2024[7]), Adults' educational attainment distribution, by age group and gender, OECD Data Explorer, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/hi (accessed on 3 October 2024).
What can Croatia learn from OECD policy and practice?
Policy message 3 – Target services and financial support to boost educational access and success for the most disadvantaged
Croatia already has some policies to help mitigate inequalities in the education and skills system. For example, a central equalisation fund tops up resources for sub-national governments to help them co-finance schools and reduce disparities in ECEC services. Tertiary education students can access financial support for living costs based on their socio-economic background, and a new voucher scheme – supported by the National Recovery and Resilience Plan – is helping reduce cost barriers for adult learning. However, there are signs that Croatia’s universalist policy tradition is not meeting the needs of some learners. Despite progress in recent years, gaps in participation and attainment persist at different levels of the system, across regions, income levels and gender. Targeting resources and support to those most vulnerable to educational exclusion can help close these gaps, while promoting more sustainable, inclusive economic growth and social cohesion.
This report discusses several ways that Croatia can target financial resources to address cost barriers to education. These are most pressing in the early years. At present, only the year before primary school is free for families and sub-national governments determine their own enrolment fees and subsidies for the other years of ECEC. Most regional and local authorities do not consider parental income in their calculations, making ECEC unaffordable for low-income families. Introducing a common fee structure based on family income could provide much needed predictability and consistency in what Croatian families pay for ECEC, making access more equitable. Offering fee exceptions for those with very low incomes or other vulnerable groups, as Germany does, can help further guarantee that cost does not prevent any child from accessing quality ECEC.
Greater financial predictability could also benefit tertiary education students. While Croatia already offers free tuition and social supports, these benefits are only granted to full-time students and are not guaranteed for the duration of their studies. Moreover, scholarships currently rely heavily on European Social Funds, raising concerns about their long-term sustainability. Croatia should consider pivoting towards a more stable student funding system that guarantees support for the duration of tertiary study programmes (subject to students meeting academic conditions) and extending benefits to part-time students in some cases. Such polices are common across many OECD systems and could help Croatia reduce tertiary dropout while providing more flexibility for diverse learners. As with this report’s recommendations on policies for ECEC funding, Croatia could consider varying the extent of financial supports for tertiary students according to their ability to pay. This approach could help reduce the risk of spreading financial resources too thinly, improving the sustainability of student benefits.
In addition to tailored financial supports, Croatia can consider other policies to help the most vulnerable access and succeed in education. It will take time for Croatia to create enough ECEC places to accommodate all young children. Even then, some parents and carers may still prefer home-based care. To give all children a strong start, Croatia needs to explore ways to offer early learning and development opportunities outside of formal ECEC. Establishing networks of home-based care providers and/or playgroups, for example, have helped some OECD countries offer enriching experiences to young children. Such initiatives can especially benefit young children who may be less likely to participate in formal ECEC, such as those with special needs, those who come from poor families, or have a minority or immigrant background.
As Croatia’s vulnerable children grow up, policies need to ensure they not only complete school, but graduate with strong foundational competencies. This will require supporting teachers to reliably identify and address learning gaps, as well as use a range of teaching strategies to create more inclusive learning environments. Over time, this should help prepare more learners for advanced studies. In the meantime, however, some tertiary students – especially those in their first year who are most likely to drop out – will need additional support to succeed. This could be done by scaling psychological, health and career counselling services in TEIs. Croatia could enhance existing supports by providing funding for TEIs to develop or expand student support services or reorienting extra capacity (e.g. because of falling enrolments associated with demographic decline) towards improving academic supports.
Policy message 4 – Review selection policies and support learners to successfully navigate key transitions in the education system
There are moments in all education systems when the opportunities a person has and decisions they take have a significant impact on their future. In Croatia, there are two such “transition points”. The first occurs around age 14, when students are separated into different upper secondary pathways. General programmes and longer VET programmes (usually 4-5 years long) are considered the most prestigious options – partly because they are perceived as higher quality and also because they enable direct access to subsidised, academic higher education (upon passing the State Matura). Competition for these places is narrowly based on students’ final classroom grades in lower secondary education. This puts pressure on teachers who serve as gatekeepers to the most desirable upper secondary schools. It also contributes to more disadvantaged students being pushed into shorter VET programmes (1-3 years long).
Croatia could address these challenges by establishing more objective and equitable student progression policies. At the core, this involves using a wider range of evidence to inform selection and supporting teachers to develop reliable assessment practices. Drawing on results from Croatia’s new national assessment could also introduce externality into the process. However, this would need to be implemented carefully to avoid teaching to the test and reduce the risk of other negative backwash effects on teaching and learning. To reduce the pressure on teachers and help make the selection process more equitable, Croatia could expand decision-making responsibilities to include insights from different actors. Class councils in France, for example not only draw on input from teachers but also the school principal, guidance counsellors, as well as parent and student representatives.
The second transition point relates to opportunities beyond upper secondary school. Many school graduates in Croatia transition successfully into tertiary education, including students from longer VET programmes. However, there are few applied education and training opportunities (ISCED 4-5) for students who may not be well suited to higher levels of academic study. Moreover, older learners or others who cannot – or do not want to – enrol in full-time study face limited entry routes and financial supports to access tertiary education. In addition to the recommendations offered above, Croatia could explore ways to simplify and improve pathways into tertiary education to serve a wider population of learners. Work is already underway to design a new recognition of prior learning (RPL) system that could enable older students in Croatia, who may not have taken the Matura, to enter tertiary education. Croatia could pilot different approaches to ensure the RPL system responds to the country’s needs and context. For example, Sweden recently piloted a basic eligibility test to determine the readiness for university-level studies of mature learners without upper secondary qualifications.
Reinforcing these key transition points with policies that help more Croatians develop core competences can lead to better outcomes for individuals, the economy and society. Strengthening academic and career guidance will be important in this regard, as students, teachers and parents will need help to navigate the new modular VET system that is being introduced and understand how it will impact further education and employment opportunities. Some learners will also need additional support to apply for tertiary education. Croatia should reflect on possibilities for simplifying the tertiary admissions system, which currently uses a range of criteria and weights across programmes. This makes it hard for many students to navigate, particularly those without strong parental or school support. Better data on how students in Croatia transition through educational pathways, programmes and institutions, and their resulting outcomes, can inform these policy changes and ultimately help more people succeed in their education, work, and life.
Croatia has made great strides in modernising its education and skills system. Economic progress over the past decade has helped increase public spending on education which, together with substantial EU investments, is now powering major reforms across the sector. These include plans to expand ECEC access and roll out Whole Day School across the country, create a new modular VET system and scale adult learning vouchers. While Croatia’s level of ambition is clear, achieving its objectives will require changes to the governance and funding of education and skills.
Current education governance arrangements in Croatia are complex, contributing to regional disparities and inefficiencies across the system. This review suggests ways to address these challenges and adapt governance and funding arrangements to support reforms. Firstly, Croatia needs to concentrate the capacity of government actors so they can better meet their responsibilities for ensuring quality and equity in education. This implies improving co-ordination vertically, between central and sub-national authorities in ECEC and schooling, as well as horizontally, across the various central ministries and bodies who share responsibilities for education and skills. Funding allocations will also need to be reviewed to reflect changes in the demand for education and skills as Croatia grapples with demographic shifts and a pressing need to raise productivity. Finally, it will be important for Croatia to improve the collection and use of data in key areas where information is currently lacking, notably on the quality of ECEC and schooling, as well as individualised data on learner transitions and outcomes.
How does Croatia compare to OECD members?
The share of government spending on primary to tertiary education in Croatia has steadily increased over the past decade (see Figure 1.5). However, per-student spending (USD PPP 8 009) as of 2021, remained below the OECD average (USD PPP 12 163) and was among the lowest in Central and Eastern Europe. To support its ambitious reform agenda, Croatia relies heavily on external funding, notably from the EU. In fact, Croatia’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan – at 9.5% of Gross domestic product (GDP) in 2021 – has the second largest funding allocation relative to GDP. While this has spurred important investments in the sector, it risks creating challenges in terms of the sustainability and coherence of national education reforms.
Croatia also concentrates public funding for education at the school level, with the central government covering most costs and sub-national authorities covering nearly 25%. Private spending therefore plays a larger role in the provision of ECEC and tertiary education, and while data on funding for adult education in Croatia is lacking, these opportunities have traditionally been privately funded. Cost sharing arrangements for some levels of education are common across OECD countries. However, they have important implications for equity in Croatia as the most vulnerable families and individuals struggle to pay out-of-pocket for learning opportunities. They also have implications for Croatia’s efforts to raise productivity. For example, mothers may struggle to return to work after maternity leave because they cannot access care options for their young children; while adults living in economically lagging regions – who tend to be older and have lower educational attainment – may not be able to reskill or upskill.
Croatia has taken steps to introduce more equitable and performance-based funding policies for education and skills. The central equalisation fund is meant to reduce regional inequalities and ensure that all sub-national governments can meet minimum funding standards for the public provision of ECEC and schooling. A new performance-based funding model has been recently introduced for tertiary education and the new voucher scheme is helping address cost barriers for adult education – though voucher access currently seems to favour more advantaged adults. While these efforts are positive, Croatia’s public budget faces increasing pressure as it tries to deliver national policy goals and adapt to demographic change. For example, Croatia has a growing number of small schools in remote areas and a shortage of full day schooling in more economically developed and densely populated areas. This context, combined with a current overall surplus of school teachers, creates inefficiencies in the school network. Moreover, data on the quality of ECEC and schooling, and data on learner transitions and outcomes through different education pathways are relatively limited. This undermines Croatia’s efforts to take evidence-informed policy decisions and report on system performance.
Addressing the challenges facing Croatia’s education and skills system will require strong funding and governance arrangements. These arrangements are particularly complex in Croatia. In ECEC and schooling, the Ministry of Science, Education and Youth (MSEY) sets policy centrally, while regional and local authorities plan, deliver and fund ECEC, manage the school network and co-finance schools. However, most sub-national authorities rely on central funding transfers, undermining broader aims to further decentralise school management. For Croatia’s skills policies, complexity at the central level poses a challenge. Responsibilities are shared primarily between the MSEY and the Ministry of Labour, with involvement from other bodies. While complex arrangements for skills policies are not unique to Croatia, the weakness of inter-ministerial co-ordination is marked (see Figure 1.5). Croatia’s governance structures for tertiary education are also particularly complex, when compared internationally. Universities can choose to be integrated institutions or for their faculties to serve as separate, legal entities. This arrangement creates inefficiencies in terms of regulatory, funding and quality assurance matters, as authorities must interact with a much larger number of public institutions compared to OECD countries with comparably sized populations (see Figure 1.5).
Note: In Panel A, government expenditure on educational institutions encompasses funding allocated from primary to tertiary levels. In Panel B, country population sizes are based on 2024 data, while institution numbers are based on the latest available year of data. Countries are sorted in ascending order of population size. In Panel C, countries are ranked in descending order of formal inter-ministerial co-ordination score and then alphabetically. Formal co-ordination refers to scores that countries are assigned on the question, “How effectively do ministry officials/civil servants co-ordinate policy proposals?” Informal co-ordination refers to scores that countries are assigned on the question, “How effectively do informal co-ordination mechanisms complement formal mechanisms of inter-ministerial co-ordination?” Scores range from 1 to 10. The higher the score, the better the country's performance. Scores are assigned by country and sector experts and reviewed and approved by scholars and practitioners.
Source: OECD (2024[8]), Distribution of government, private and non-domestic expenditure on educational institutions, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/hs; Eurostat (2024[9]), Population on 1 January, https://doi.org/10.2908/TPS00001; Ministry of Science and Education (2023[10]), Accession candidate country's self-assessment of policies and practices in the area of education and skills; ETER (n.d.[11]), ETER Database, https://eter-project.com/ (accessed on 10 October 2024); Bertelsmann Stiftung (2022[12]), Sustainable Governance Indicators, https://www.sgi-network.org/2022/Good_Governance/Executive_Capacity/Interministerial_Coordination (accessed on 10 October 2024).
What can Croatia learn from OECD policy and practice?
Policy message 5 – Strengthen governance and institutional arrangements to improve co-ordination and respond to challenges facing the education and skills system
Croatia has aligned many characteristics of its education and skills system with European norms and has taken steps to improve transparency and increase public participation in policymaking processes. At the same time, the country struggles with policy co-ordination and limited technical capacity both within and across levels of government, which can hinder the success of national policy goals. For the foundational years, this can be observed in the Education and Teacher Training Agency’s inability to provide adequate hands-on support to ECEC and school leaders, the fact that the Inspectorate only conducts external evaluations in response to wrongdoing, as well as the overlapping responsibilities for monitoring ECEC services between central government bodies and sub-national authorities. However, Croatia’s governance challenges are particularly acute when it comes to skills and tertiary education policies, hindering reforms to improve the quality and equity across the system.
Responsibilities for skills policies in Croatia are currently fragmented across the ministries of education, labour, and the economy. Employer engagement is also relatively fragmented across various councils and agencies. This context slows the alignment between training offers and labour market needs. These challenges are compounded by weak quality assurance mechanisms and certification procedures that have contributed to a proliferation of programmes and providers over time. Some OECD countries have addressed similar challenges by establishing more integrated arrangements for skills governance. Croatia could consider integrating the separate agencies and units that currently manage skills policies into a single Croatian Skills Agency. This new Agency could report to both the ministry of education and ministry of labour, while including social partners directly on the governing board. Such changes could help improve co-ordination across government, providers and programmes, while facilitating more efficient policy design.
Responsibilities for tertiary education in Croatia are also fragmented. While this sector is centrally steered through regulation, the country’s unique governance structure for non-integrated universities poses significant challenges for strategic planning and resource management. Moreover, provision is concentrated in Zagreb, leaving TEIs outside the capital region especially vulnerable to demographic change. To reorient and streamline its tertiary education landscape, Croatia should consider using public funding to incentivise TEIs to legally integrate into single institutions, while encouraging constituents that do not participate in mergers to establish a separate institutional identity. Croatia should also explore ways to better support provision outside of Zagreb. This could be done by concentrating disciplinary excellence in regional locations based on local labour market needs.
Policy message 6 – Review funding allocations to support the sustainability and efficiency of education reforms
Croatia faces mounting policy challenges as it advances education reforms during a time of rapid demographic change. An increasing number of small schools and current surplus of teachers, for example, already contribute to high operational costs for sub-national authorities, as well as high staff costs for the central government. Many of Croatia’s current reforms will also have long-term financial implications, yet at present, these rely significantly on external, mainly EU, funds. For example, sub-national authorities will need to cover the salaries of additional staff working in new ECEC centres, and funding for adult learning vouchers will eventually need to be paid for by the state budget if they are to support learners in the long term. These evolving and competing costs create a need to review Croatia’s public funding allocations to ensure they align with national goals. This includes establishing an education and skills system that is more responsive to labour market needs and can foster a more competitive and innovative economy. Croatia’s universalist approach to education policy has already moved participation rates and outcomes towards OECD benchmarks. Further progress, however, will require directing public funding to areas critical for equity and future growth.
This starts with expanding ECEC in ways that reach vulnerable children who stand to benefit the most from enriching ECEC experiences. This will require investments to address staff shortages and ensure the quality of provision, as well as reducing costs for low-income families. As Croatia already directs the largest share of public funding to school education, further investment in this sector will likely involve continuing to leverage external resources or efficiencies made in response to declining student numbers. This review provides insights on how Croatia can manage some of the financial pressures from across its ECEC and school sectors. For example, the MSEY could articulate a national strategy for expanding ECEC that communicates the financial trade-offs associated with different policy decisions, including network rationalisation, the role of private and home-based ECEC providers, and more predictable and equitable cost sharing arrangements between providers and families.
Croatia will also need to rebalance available resources for post-school education and training, most of which is currently directed at younger adults in full-time higher education. OECD experience suggests that establishing common funding principles for all post-school education and training offers, and the policy mechanisms to implement these, could help support a more diverse range of learning opportunities that better meet the needs of adults and the economy. These core principles include shared funding (e.g. a balanced mix of co-financing shared by individuals, firms and society); needs based targeting (e.g. to support disadvantaged adults and/or address important skills gaps); and incentivised funding (e.g. to encourage providers to deliver quality education and training). England (United Kingdom) established a common funding framework for all types of education and training available to people over age 18, which could offer Croatia insights to develop its own funding principles.
Policy message 7 – Strengthening data on education quality and learner transitions to inform policy and drive improvements in equity
Croatia already collects a range of administrative data on education and skills, including on attainment, staff, and resources. The government has also taken steps to fill important data gaps that can strengthen system monitoring and evaluation, as well as support equity. For example, the new national assessment in grades 4 and 8 will provide valuable comparative data on learning outcomes in earlier years of schooling and an individualised central register of tertiary education enrolments is being developed to support the sector’s new funding model. While these initiatives are positive, Croatia’s current data on education and skills remains limited compared to many OECD countries in two areas that are central to the country’s reform agenda: information on the quality of ECEC and schooling, and data on learner transitions and outcomes through different education pathways.
This review explores how Croatia can establish a system for institutional evaluation that collects reliable system-wide data on quality in a way that is both efficient and focused on improvement. Such data can help ensure Croatia’s growing investments in ECEC deliver benefits for young children and that the Whole Day School reform helps raise learning outcomes. Croatia piloted developmental school evaluations in the past. However, technical education bodies lacked staff capacity and were unable to conduct regular evaluations, which led to the pilot being discontinued. For institutional evaluations to work in practice, Croatia could consolidate monitoring and evaluation functions under the Inspectorate, as these responsibilities are currently shared across multiple bodies. Some OECD countries have also used a targeted, risk-based approach (e.g. drawing on data from the national assessment or self-evaluation results) to monitor a large field of providers with a limited number of inspectors. Croatia will need to develop a new cadre of trained inspectors who can not only monitor the legal compliance of institutions but also aspects like pedagogy and staff interactions with children and students. Drawing on the professional expertise of teachers and leaders can help in this regard.
Croatia also needs to advance and expand plans to collect individualised data on student pathways and outcomes. Experience from OECD countries shows that such data offer a valuable way to track the labour market relevance of education and training programmes and advance national equity goals. This starts with collecting individualised data on the youngest children. At present, Croatia lacks a “child-sensitive data collection and monitoring system” (UNICEF, 2021[13]). Addressing this information gap would help determine the extent to which vulnerable children participate in ECEC, what access barriers they face, and what types of targeted interventions or support they may need. For older children and young adults, having data on how learners transition through educational pathways and into work would help inform students’ choices about their futures, as well as important policy decisions. The government could use this information for example, to finalise the design of the modular VET system or diversify post-secondary education and training opportunities. To collect this information, Croatia could conduct a mapping exercise to link enrolment data from school and tertiary education with employment databases. Some OECD countries also use tracer surveys that follow the outcomes of all leavers from education and training, including dropouts and graduates.
Strengthening data in these two areas will enable Croatia to introduce more transparency and accountability about the performance of the education and skills system. However, the potential of this data to support reforms and drive improvements in quality and equity will depend on the capacity of actors to understand it and disseminate findings in ways that speak to the needs and interests of different stakeholders – including sub-national governments, institutions, and the public. Many OECD countries employ technically trained specialists within their ministries of education, and/or in closely linked government agencies to conduct sophisticated analysis on pressing policy questions and report on system performance. As technical expertise within Croatia’s MSEY is currently limited and statistical data on education is usually handled in other agencies, establishing a dedicated analysis unit within the ministry could help build capacity for using evidence to inform policy within the sector.
References
[12] Bertelsmann Stiftung (2022), Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI), https://www.sgi-network.org/2022/Good_Governance/Executive_Capacity/Interministerial_Coordination (accessed on 10 October 2024).
[11] ETER (n.d.), ETER Database, https://eter-project.com/ (accessed on 10 October 2024).
[6] Eurostat (2024), Population by educational attainment level, sex, age and degree of urbanisation (%), https://doi.org/10.2908/EDAT_LFS_9913 (accessed on 3 October 2024).
[9] Eurostat (2024), Population on 1 January, https://doi.org/10.2908/TPS00001 (accessed on 14 October 2024).
[10] Ministry of Science, Education and Youth (2023), Accession candidate country’s self-assessment of policies and practices in the area of education and skills: Guidelines and questionnaire Croatia.
[7] OECD (2024), Adults’ educational attainment distribution, by age group and gender, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/hi (accessed on 3 October 2024).
[8] OECD (2024), Distribution of government, private and non-domestic expenditure on educational institutions, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/hs (accessed on 15 October 2024).
[3] OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.
[4] OECD (2023), “Family Indicators (Edition 2022)”, OECD Social and Welfare Statistics (database), https://doi.org/10.1787/6cb62cd0-en (accessed on 8 October 2024).
[5] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
[2] OECD (2023), PISA database 2022, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/ (accessed on 10 January 2024).
[1] OECD (2022), “Road Map for the Accession Process of Croatia”, Meeting of the Council of Ministerial Level, 9-10 June 2022, Council document C/MIN(2022)23/FINAL, https://one.oecd.org/document/C/MIN(2022)23/FINAL/en/pdf, (accessed on 22 May 2025).
[13] UNICEF (2021), A deep-dive into the European Child Guarantee in Croatia - Literature Review, https://www.unicef.org/croatia/media/9951/file/Literature%20Review%20-%20EU%20Child%20Guarantee%20in%20Croatia%20-%20ENG.pdf.