The Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No. 1288/2013)

STUDY

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

Author: Anna Zygierewicz

Ex-Post Impact Assessment Unit

PE 581.414 - July 2016

The Erasmus+

Programme

(Regulation EU

No. 1288/2013)

European Implementation

Assessment

PE 581.414 1

The Erasmus+ Programme

(Regulation EU No. 1288/2013)

European Implementation Assessment

In October 2015, the Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) of the European

Parliament requested to undertake an implementation report on the Erasmus+

Programme (Regulation EU No. 1288/2013). Dr Milan Zver (EPP, Slovenia) was

appointed rapporteur.

Implementation reports by EP committees are routinely accompanied by European

Implementation Assessments, drawn up by the Ex-Post Impact Assessment Unit of the

Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value, within the European

Parliament's Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services.

Abstract

This European Implementation Assessment has been provided to accompany the work

of the European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education in scrutinising

the implementation of the Erasmus+ programme.

The Erasmus+ programme for Union action in the field of education, training, youth

and sport was launched on 1 January 2014 and will run until 31 December 2020.

It brings together seven successful programmes which operated separately between

2007 and 2013 (the Lifelong Learning Programme, five international cooperation

programmes and the Youth in Action programme), and also adds the area of sports

activities.

The opening analysis of this Assessment, prepared in-house by the Ex-Post Impact

Assessment Unit within EPRS, situates the programme within the context of education

policy, explains its legal framework and provides key information on its

implementation. The presentation is followed by opinions and recommendations

of selected stakeholders. A separate chapter is dedicated to the sport, which is the new

element of the Erasmus+ programme.

Input to the EIA was also received from two independent groups of experts

representing the Technical University of Dresden and the University of Bergen, and

the Turku University of Applied Sciences.

- The first research paper presents implementation of Key Action 1 (KA1) – Learning

mobility of individuals in the field of education, training and youth.

- The second research paper presents implementation of Key Action 2 (KA2)

– Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices in the field

of education, training and youth.

The two research papers, containing key findings and recommendations, are included

in full as annexes to the in-house opening analysis.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 2

AUTHORS

- Opening analysis written by Dr. Anna Zygierewicz, Ex-Post Impact Assessment

Unit

- Research paper analysing the implementation of the Erasmus+ programme –

Learning mobility of individuals in the field of education, training and youth

(Key Action 1), written by Prof. Dr. Thomas Köhler from the Technical

University of Dresden and Prof. Dr. Daniel Apollon from the University

of Bergen

- Research paper analysing the implementation of the Erasmus+ programme –

Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices in the field

of education, training and youth (Key Action 2), written by Dr. Juha Kettunen

from the Turku University of Applied Sciences

ABOUT THE PUBLISHER

This paper has been drawn up by the Ex-Post Impact Assessment Unit of the Directorate

for Impact Assessment and European Added Value, within the Directorate–General for

Parliamentary Research Services of the Secretariat of the European Parliament.

To contact the Unit, please email EPRS-ExPostImpact[email protected]uropa.eu

LINGUISTIC VERSIONS

Original: EN

This document is available on the internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank

DISCLAIMER

The content of this document is the sole responsibility of the author and any opinions

expressed therein do not represent the official position of the European Parliament. It is

addressed to the members and staff of the EP for their parliamentary work. Reproduction

and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source

is acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy.

Manuscript completed in July 2016. Brussels © European Union, 2016.

PE: 581.414

ISBN 978-92-823-9477-9

DOI: 10.2861/981220

QA-04-16-518-EN-N

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 3

Contents

Abbreviations.................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 1. The place of the Erasmus+ programme in EU education policy ..................................... 5

Chapter 2. Main rules of the programme.......................................................................................... 8

I – Structure of the programme.................................................................................................... 8

II – Budget of the programme .................................................................................................... 12

III – Basic rules concerning the implementation of the programme..................................... 13

Chapter 3. Implementation of the programme ................................................................................ 17

I – Overall implementation of the programme........................................................................ 17

II – Adult education..................................................................................................................... 23

III – International dimension of higher education .................................................................. 25

IV – Multilingualism.................................................................................................................... 29

V – Conclusions............................................................................................................................ 32

Chapter 4. Sport.............................................................................................................................. 34

I – Background to sport activities in the EU............................................................................. 34

II – Selected documents of the European Parliament ............................................................. 38

III – Sport in the Erasmus+ programme ................................................................................... 39

IV – Implementation of Sport activities .................................................................................... 42

V – Conclusions............................................................................................................................ 47

Selected references........................................................................................................................... 48

Annexes:

Annex I: The implementation of the Erasmus+ programme – Learning mobility

of individuals in the field of education, training and youth (Key Action 1)

Research paper by Prof. Dr. Thomas Köhler from the Technical University of Dresden

and Prof. Dr. Daniel Apollon from the University of Bergen

Annex II: The implementation of the Erasmus+ programme – Cooperation for innovation

and the exchange of good practices in the field of education, training and youth

(Key Action 2)

Research paper by Dr Juha Kettunen from Turku University of Applied Sciences

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 4

Abbreviations

DCI

Development Cooperation Instrument

European Commission, Directorate General

DG EAC

European Commission, Directorate General Education and Culture

CULT

European Parliament, Committee on Culture and Education

EACEA

Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

EAEA

European Association for the Education of Adults

ECAS

European Commission Authentication Service

EDF

European Development Fund

ELL

European Language Label

EMJD

Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorates

EMJMD

Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees

EMMC

Erasmus Mundus Master Course

EMPL

European Parliament, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs

ENI

European Neighbourhood Instrument

EPALE

Electronic Platform for Adult Education

ET 2020

EU cooperation in education and training

European Union

EUCIS-LLL

European Civil Society Platform on Lifelong Learning

EUROSTAT

Statistical office of the European Union

FYROM

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

ICM

International Credit Mobility

ICT

Information and communication technology

INI

Own-Initiative Report

IPA2

Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance

KA1

Key Action 1

KA2

Key Action 2

KA3

Key Action 3

LLP

Lifelong Learning Programme

MFF

Multiannual Financial Framework

Member State

National Agency

NGO

Non-governmental organisation

Official Journey of the European Union

OLS

On-line Linguistic Support

OMC

Open Method of Cooperation

Partnership Instrument

RSP

European Parliament resolution

STEM

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

VET

Vocational Education and Training

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 5

Introduction

Methodology of the Introduction

This introduction is based on an analysis of the Erasmus+ programme documents,

including the regulation establishing the programme and the rules concerning

the implementation, and the analysis of the implementation data and reports.

The opinions and recommendations of selected stakeholders on the implementation

of the Erasmus+ programme were also analysed.

The EPRS peer-reviewed the opening analysis. In addition, the European Commission

was requested to comment on the opening analysis.

The author would like to thank the different contributors for all the comments

and recommendations.

Chapter 1. The place of the Erasmus+ programme in EU

education policy

The importance of education is recognised within the European Union. The reference

to education can be found in the Preamble to the Treaty on the Functioning of the

European Union (TFEU), where it is stated that Member States are ’determined

to promote the development of the highest possible level of knowledge for their peoples

through a wide access to education and through its continuous updating’.

Article 6 TFEU provides that the EU has competence to carry out actions to support,

coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States in certain specified areas, one

of which concerns education, vocational training, youth and sport.

The basis of the Erasmus+ programme for the period 2014-2020 is Regulation (EU)

No. 1288/2013 establishing the programme

Article 4 of the Regulation defines the objectives of the programme as being to contribute

to the achievement of:

1) the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy

, which are focused on:

- resolving the problem of early school leavers by reducing the dropout rate;

Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December

2013 establishing ‘Erasmus+’: the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and

repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC, OJ L 347/50

of 20.12.2013.

Communication from the Commission: Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and

inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020 and Europa 2020 webpage.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 6

- increasing the share of the population aged 30-34 having completed tertiary

education.

2) the objectives of the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and

training ('ET 2020'), including the corresponding benchmarks:

a) strategic objectives:

- Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality with education and vocational

training being more responsive to change and to the wider world;

- Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training, by raising the levels

of basic skills such as literacy and numeracy, making mathematics, science

and technology more attractive and strengthening linguistic abilities;

- Promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship so that all citizens can

continue to develop job-specific skills throughout their lifetime;

- Enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship, at all levels

of education and training; in particular, individuals should be helped to become

digitally competent and to develop initiative, entrepreneurship and cultural

awareness;

b) benchmarks

- at least 95% of children (from 4 to compulsory school age) should participate

in early childhood education;

- fewer than 15% of 15-year-olds should be under-skilled in reading,

mathematics and science;

- the rate of early leavers from education and training aged 18-24 should be

below 10%;

- at least 40% of people aged 30-34 should have completed some form of higher

education;

- at least 15% of adults should participate in lifelong learning;

- at least 20% of higher education graduates and 6% of 18-34 year-olds with

an initial vocational qualification should have spent some time studying

or training abroad;

- the share of employed graduates (aged 20-34 with at least upper secondary

education attainment and having left education 1-3 years ago) should be

at least 82%.

3) the sustainable development of partner countries in the field of higher education;

4) the overall objectives of the renewed framework for European cooperation in the

youth field (2010-2018): a) to create more and equal opportunities for all young people in

education and in the labour market and b) to promote the active citizenship, social inclusion

and solidarity of all young people;

The 2015 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the strategic

framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020) (OJ C 417 of 15.12.2015)

showed that serious challenges remain.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 7

5) the objective of developing the European dimension in sport, in particular grassroots

sport, in line with the Union work plan for sport

; and

6) the promotion of European values in accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty on the

European Union (TEU), which are:

respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for

human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are

common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination,

tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

Given the new competences of the EU in the area of sport, the role of Erasmus+ in this area will be

broadly presented in chapter 4.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 8

Chapter 2. Main rules of the programme

I – Structure of the programme

The Erasmus+ programme for the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020

brought together seven programmes which were operating separately between 2007 and

2013, namely:

- the Lifelong Learning Programme

: Erasmus for higher education, Leonardo da Vinci

for vocational education and training, Comenius for school education, Grundtvig

for adult learning, Jean Monnet for promoting European integration;

- five international cooperation programmes: Erasmus Mundus

, Tempus, Alfa,

Edulink, bilateral cooperation programmes in the field of higher education (with

Canada, the United States, Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea);

- the Youth in Action

programme.

It also added sport as a new element (which had already been introduced in

a preparatory phase since 2009). In addition, the Erasmus+ programme continues

supporting the Jean Monnet activities.

Figure 1. Erasmus+ programme 2014-2020 and its predecessors

Source: European Commission: Slide 3 and Slide 8

Decision No 1720/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006

establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning, OJ L 327, 24.11.2006, p. 45–68

and Decision No 1357/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December

2008 amending Decision No 1720/2006/EC establishing an action programme in the field

of lifelong learning, OJ L 350, 30.12.2008.

Decision No 1298/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008

establishing the Erasmus Mundus 2009-2013 action programme for the enhancement of quality

in higher education and the promotion of intercultural understanding through cooperation with

third countries, OJ L 340, 19.12.2008.

Decision No 1719/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006

establishing the Youth in Action programme for the period 2007 to 2013, OJ L 327, 24.11.2006.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 9

Based on the combination of best experiences from the previous programmes, Article 1

of the Regulation establishing Erasmus+, determines that the programme covers

the following fields:

a) education and training at all levels, in a lifelong learning perspective, including

school education (Comenius), higher education (Erasmus), international higher

education (Erasmus Mundus), vocational education and training (Leonardo

da Vinci) and adult learning (Grundtvig);

b) youth (Youth in Action), particularly in the context of non- formal and informal

learning;

c) sport, in particular grassroots sport.

Jean Monnet activities also form part of the Erasmus+ programme (see below).

In the field of education and training (Article 6), the Erasmus+ programme shall pursue

its objectives through the following types of actions:

a) learning mobility of individuals;

b) cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices;

c) support for policy reform.

Ad a) Learning mobility of individuals (Article 7) may support:

- the mobility of students in all cycles of higher education and of students, apprentices

and pupils in vocational education and training, which may take the form

of studying at a partner institution or traineeships or gaining experience as an

apprentice, assistant or trainee abroad. Degree mobility at Master's level may be

supported through the Student Loan Guarantee Facility

;

- the mobility of staff, within the programme countries

, which may take the form

of teaching or assistantships or participation in professional development

activities abroad;

- the international mobility of students and staff to and from Partner Countries

as regards higher education, including mobility organised on the basis of joint,

double or multiple degrees of high quality or joint calls.

Ad b) Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices (Article 8) may

support:

- strategic partnerships between organisations and/or institutions involved in

education and training or other relevant sectors aimed at developing and

implementing joint initiatives and promoting peer learning and exchanges of

experience;

- partnerships between the world of work and education and training institutions

in the form of:

 knowledge alliances between, in particular, higher education institutions and

the world of work aimed at promoting creativity, innovation, work-based

Referred to in Article 20.

Referred to in Article 24(1): EU Member States plus Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,

Ireland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Turkey.

The list of the programme countries is available at the Erasmus+ programme website.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 10

learning and entrepreneurship by offering relevant learning opportunities,

including developing new curricula and pedagogical approaches;

 sector skills alliances between education and training providers and the world

of work aimed at promoting employability, contributing to the creation

of new sector-specific or cross-sectoral curricula, developing innovative

methods of vocational teaching and training and putting the Union

transparency and recognition tools into practice;

- IT support platforms, covering all education and training sectors, including in

particular eTwinning, allowing peer learning, virtual mobility and exchanges of

good practices and opening access for participants from neighborhood countries;

- development, capacity-building, regional integration, knowledge exchanges and

modernisation processes through international partnerships between higher

education institutions in the EU and in partner countries, in particular for peer

learning and joint education projects, as well as through the promotion

of regional cooperation and National Information Offices, in particular with

neighbourhood countries.

Ad c) Support for policy reform (Article 9) shall include the activities initiated at EU level

relating to:

- the implementation of the EU policy agenda on education and training in the

context of the OMC

, as well as to the Bologna and Copenhagen processes;

- the implementation in Programme countries of EU transparency and recognition

tools

, and the provision of support to Union-wide networks and European non-

governmental organisations (NGOs) active in the field of education and training;

- the policy dialogue with relevant European stakeholders in the field of education

and training;

- NARIC, the Eurydice and Euroguidance networks, and the National Europass

Centres;

- policy dialogue with partner countries and international organisations.

Jean Monnet activities (Article 10) are aimed to:

- promote teaching and research on European integration worldwide among

specialist academics, learners and citizens, in particular through the creation

of Jean Monnet Chairs and other academic activities, as well as by providing aid

for other knowledge-building activities at higher education institutions;

Article 2: Open Method of Coordination (OMC) means an intergovernmental method providing

a framework for cooperation between the Member States, whose national policies can thus be directed

towards certain common objectives; within the scope of the Programme, the OMC applies to education,

training and youth.

In particular the single EU framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences

(Europass), the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), the European Credit Transfer and

Accumulation System (ECTS), the European Credit System for Vocational Education and

Training (ECVET), the European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational

Education and Training (EQAVET), the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher

Education (EQAR) and the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education

(ENQA).

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 11

- support the activities of academic institutions or associations active in the field

of European integration studies and support a Jean Monnet label for excellence;

- support six European institutions

pursuing an aim of European interest;

- promote policy debate and exchanges between the academic world and policy-

makers on Union policy priorities.

In the field of youth (Article 12) the programme pursues its objectives through

the following types of actions:

a) learning mobility of individuals;

b) cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices;

c) support for policy reform.

Ad a) Learning mobility of individuals (Article 13) supports:

- the mobility of young people in non-formal and informal learning activities between the

Programme countries; such mobility may take the form of youth exchanges and

volunteering through the European Voluntary Service, as well as innovative

activities building on existing provisions for mobility;

- the mobility of persons active in youth work or youth organisations and youth leaders;

such mobility may take the form of training and networking activities;

- the mobility of young people, persons active in youth work or youth

organisations and youth leaders, to and from partner countries, in particular

neighbourhood countries.

Ad b) Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices (Article 14)

supports:

- strategic partnerships aimed at developing and implementing joint initiatives,

including youth initiatives and citizenship projects that promote active

citizenship, social innovation, participation in democratic life and

entrepreneurship, through peer learning and exchanges of experience;

- IT support platforms allowing peer learning, knowledge-based youth work,

virtual mobility and exchanges of good practice;

- development, capacity-building and knowledge exchanges through partnerships

between organisations in Programme countries and partner countries,

in particular through peer learning.

Ad c) Support for policy reform (Article 15) includes activities relating to:

- the implementation of the Union policy agenda on youth through the OMC;

- implementation in the Programme countries of Union transparency and

recognition tools, in particular the Youthpass, and support for Union-wide

networks and European youth NGOs;

- policy dialogue with relevant European stakeholders and structured dialogue

with young people;

The European University Institute of Florence; the College of Europe (Bruges and Natolin

campuses); the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA), Maastricht; the Academy of

European Law, Trier; the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education,

Odense; the International Centre for European Training (CIFE), Nice.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 12

- the European Youth Forum, resource centres for the development of youth work

and the Eurodesk network;

- policy dialogue with partner countries and international organisations.

The Commission monitors the implementation of the EU youth policy based

on established indicators.

The sport activities within the Erasmus+ programme are presented in chapter 4 of this

introduction.

II – Budget of the programme

The overall budget for the new Erasmus+ programme totals EUR 14.7 billion (Heading

1). Additionally, to strengthen the international dimension of the programme, EUR 1.68

billion was added under Heading 4. The latter part of the programme budget comes from

the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI), the European Neighbourhood

Instrument (ENI), the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA2), the Partnership

Instrument (PI) and the European Development Fund (EDF).

Figure 2. The Erasmus+ budget division

Source: Erasmus+ programme website in the UK.

According to Article 18.2 of the Regulation, out of the 8.8% dedicated to ’Other‘

(as in Figure 2):

- 3.5% will be spent on the Student Loan Guarantee Facility;

- 3.4% on operating grants to national agencies, and

- 1.9 % to cover administrative expenditure.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 13

The budget of the programme represents an increase of about 40% compared to the

amount allocated to the education, learning and youth programmes for the years 2007-

2013. At the same time, however, this represents a decrease in comparison to the initial

proposal of the European Commission, in which the budget was planned to amount

to EUR 17.29 billion under Heading 1 and EUR 1.81 billion under Heading 4

The annual programme budget foreseen for 2016 for the EU Member States, countries

belonging to the European Economic Area (EUR31), other countries participating in the

programme (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and Western Balkans

countries) together with internal assigned revenues, amounts to EUR 2.229 billion, and

will come from following appropriations

— from the budget of the Union (EUR28) under Heading 1: EUR 1.69 billion;

— from the budget of the Union (EUR28) under Heading 4: EUR 247.17million;

— arising from the participation of the EFTA/EEA countries: EUR 53.67 million;

— from the European Development Fund (EDF) (EUR28): EUR 15 million;

— from external assigned revenues arising from the participation of other countries

in the programme (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and

Western Balkans): EUR 141.58 million;

— corresponding to internal assigned revenues from recoveries: EUR 73.72 million.

III – Basic rules concerning the implementation of the programme

1. Programme Guide and annual work programmes

The Commission prepared the Erasmus+ Programme Guide

for potential applicants,

meaning those who wish to be participating organisation or participants in the

programme. The guide describes the rules and conditions for receiving a grant from the

programme and has three main parts:

— Part A presenting the general overview of the programme, its objectives,

priorities and main features, the programme countries, the implementing

structures and the overall budget available;

— Part B provides specific information about the actions of the programme covered

by the guide;

— Part C gives detailed information on procedures for grant application and

selection of projects, as well as the financial and administrative provisions linked

to the award of an Erasmus+ grant.

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing ‘ERASMUS

FOR ALL’, The Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport, COM(2011) 788

final.

Amendment of the 2016 annual work programme for the implementation of 'Erasmus+': the

Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport’ C(2016)1122 of 26 February 2016.

Erasmus+ Programme Guide. Version 2 (2016): 7 January 2016 and Addendum to the Erasmus+

Programme Guide. Version 1 of 25 April 2016 prepared following the re-opening, in Greece, of the

Erasmus+ actions in the field of youth.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 14

The Programme Guide forms an integral part of calls of proposal.

The financial arrangements under the Erasmus+ programme have been simplified

in comparison to previous editions, inter alia, through the use of lump sums, the

reimbursement on the basis of unit costs and the flat-rate financing. The rules

of application were described by the Commission in a separate document

The Erasmus+ programme is implemented also on the basis of the annual work

programmes adopted by the European Commission. As stated in Article 35 of the

regulation establishing the Erasmus+ programme, each annual work programme shall

ensure that the general objectives (Article 4) and specific objectives (Articles 5 –

on education and training, Article 11 - on youth and Article 16 - on sport) are

implemented annually in a consistent manner and shall outline the expected results,

the method of implementation and its total amount.

2. Implementation bodies, decentralised and centralised actions

Article 27 of the regulation establishing Erasmus+ programme identifies the

implementing bodies:

— the Commission at EU level;

— the national agencies at national level in the programme countries.

The programme countries established one (in most of the countries) or more (e.g. two

in Ireland and Italy, three in Belgium and Germany) national agencies. The list of the

agencies is available at the European Commission website.

In 27 partner countries (outside the EU), the national Erasmus+ offices are responsible

for the management of the international dimension of the higher education aspects of the

programme. The list of the offices is available at the EACEA website.

The actions of the Erasmus + programme are divided into:

— decentralised actions, which are managed in each programme country by one

or more national agencies appointed by their national authorities;

— centralised actions, which are managed at the European level by the Directorate

General for Education and Culture (DG EAC) of the European Commission and

by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) located

in Brussels.

The budget of the programme is divided amongst the actions, with approximately:

— 82% spent through decentralised actions;

— 18% spent through centralised actions

The use of lump sums, the reimbursement on the basis of unit costs and flat-rate financing under

the ’Erasmus+’ Programme, C(2013)8550 of 4 December 2013.

2014 annual work programme for the implementation of "Erasmus+", the Union Programme

for Education, Training, Youth and Sport, C(2013)8193 of 27 November 2013.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 15

3. Selection of best proposals

A crucial role in the choice of the proposals to be financed within the Erasmus+

programme is played by independent experts specialising in the field of education,

training, youth and sport who peer-review proposals.

To ensure that the same standards concerning the peer review of proposals are applied

in all national agencies, the European Commission prepared a Guide for Experts on Quality

Assessment

, which provides information on:

- the role and appointment of experts;

- the principles of the assessment;

- the assessment process in practice;

- information on how to assess the award criteria for each action and field.

General rules concerning the evaluation of proposals at the national level, as described

in the guide for experts, are:

- the assessment and selection of grant applications is organised on the basis

of a peer review;

- based on the experts' assessment, a list of grant applications per action and per

field ranked in quality order is established, which serves as a basis for the

national agency to take the grant award decision, following the proposal of the

Evaluation Committee;

- experts are appointed on the basis of their skills and knowledge in the areas and

the specific field(s) of education, training and youth in which they are asked

to assess applications. Experts must not have a conflict of interest in relation

to the proposals. To ensure their independence, the names of the experts are not

made public;

- an application can receive a maximum of 100 points for all criteria relevant for

the action (see table 1); in order to be considered for funding, an application has

to score at least 60 points in total and score at least half of the maximum points

for each award criterion.

The EACEA and national agencies organise their own pools of experts. The recruitment

of experts to evaluate project in the EACEA was opened in September 2013

and

corrected a year later. The call is open until the end of September 2020. Candidates must

agencies open calls for experts nationally or internationally. The calls can be opened for

short or long term. National agencies usually ask candidates for experts to register

in their on-line databases or to send offers within the procurement procedures.

2016 ERASMUS+. Guide for Experts on Quality Assessment. Actions managed by National

Agencies.

Call for expressions of interest EACEA/2013/01 for the establishment of a list of experts to assist the

Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency in the framework of the management of European

Union programmes in the field of education, audiovisual, culture, youth, sport, EU aid volunteers, and

citizenship or any other programmes delegated to the Agency, and Corrigendum.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 16

There were claims, e.g. from national agencies and organisations acting in the area

of education and training, that Member State evaluation criteria for proposals are not

sufficiently harmonised and should be improved.

There were also claims that most of the deadlines for applications fall at the same time.

Some experts specialise in more than one field of education, training and youth, and

therefore assess proposals in more than one Erasmus+ action. As a result, they suffer

from periodical work overload, which may impact on the quality of the assessments.

Additionally, some stakeholders claim that there should be more the one deadline per

year (e.g. in adult education), which could also help to solve the problem.

Table 1. Award criteria for projects evaluated at the national level

Award criteria

Maximum scores of award criteria per action

Key Action 1

Key Action 2

Key Action 3

Accreditation

of higher

education

mobility

consortia

Mobility

projects

in the field

of Higher

Education

between

Programme

and Partner

Countries

Mobility

projects

in the fields

of school

education,

vocational

education

and training,

adult

education

and youth

Strategic

partnerships

in the field

of Education,

Training and

Youth

Structured

Dialogue:

meetings

between

young people

and decision

makers in the

field of youth

Relevance

of the project

Quality of the

project design and

implementation

Quality of the

project team and

the cooperation

arrangements

Impact and

dissemination

TOTAL

100

Source: 2016 ERASMUS+. Guide for Experts, op.cit

1) Corresponding criterion for higher education mobility consortia: "relevance of the consortium"

2) Corresponding criterion for higher education mobility consortia: "quality of the consortium activity design

and implementation"

3) Corresponding criterion for higher education mobility consortia: "quality of the consortium composition

and the cooperation arrangements"

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 17

Chapter 3. Implementation of the programme

Key findings

 The Commission data on the implementation of the Erasmus+ programme

are available only for 2014; the data for 2015 will be published later in 2016.

However, part of the raw data for the implementation of the centralised actions

for 2015 is available at the EACEA website.

 The success rate of applications in most of the Erasmus+ actions is relatively

low, which can be related to insufficient budget compared to the high demand,

and/or to the quality level of the proposals. The Commission data does

not provide clear evidence concerning the quality of accepted proposals.

The success rate in Key Action 1 was generally higher that in Key Action 2.

 In 2014, within Key Action 1 the biggest part of the budget (58%) was spent

on projects in higher education, while within Key Action 2 the biggest part

(36%) was spent on projects in school education.

I – Overall implementation of the programme

The European Commission published data on the implementation of the Erasmus+

Programme in 2014 in the Erasmus+ Programme Annual Report 2014 and the Erasmus Impact

Study Regional Analysis. Both reports were published in January 2016. The data for 2015

is planned to be published in autumn 2016.

According to the report, in 2014, inter alia:

– over EUR 2 billion were distributed to support actions in education and training

(69% of the budget), youth (10%) and sport (1%), as well as the other actions

covered by the programme;

– above 650 000 individual mobility grants were offered for people to study, train,

work or volunteer abroad (400 000 higher education and vocational students'

exchanges, 100 000 volunteers and young people undertaking youth work

abroad, 150 000 teachers, youth trainers and other staff who gained mobility

grants for their professional development);

– 11 new Joint Master Degrees were set up with non-EU countries within the first

year of Erasmus+, to be added to some 180 Joint Master Degrees and Joint

Doctorates available previously under Erasmus Mundus;

– over 1 700 cooperation projects across the education, training and youth sectors,

addressing key challenges such as early school leaving, the need to equip young

generations with digital skills, and promoting tolerance and intercultural

dialogue were funded;

– around 50 not-for-profit sports events, collaborations between sports bodies and

grass-roots organisations, as well as the first EU Sport Forum, were funded;

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 18

– 212 projects were funded supporting the improvement of the excellence

of European Studies programmes within the Jean Monnet Actions .

Table 2. Projects granted in Key Action 1 and Key Action 2 in 2014

KA1 and KA2

Projects

Grant

(million EUR)

Participants

Organisations

KA1 - Mobility

15 951

1 191

647 694

57 825

KA2 - Cooperation

1 732

346

172 681

9 823

Total:

17 683

1 537

820 375

67 648

Source: Erasmus+ Programme. Annual Report 2014.

Table 3. Projects granted in Key Action 1 in 2014 in detail

KA1 - Mobility

Projects

Grant

(million

EUR)

Organisations

Participants

Granted

Success

rate

School education

staff mobility

2 806

31%

43.01

4 252

21 037

VET learner and

staff mobility

3 156

53%

264.12

18 094

126 004

Higher education

student and staff

mobility

3 620

71%

600.82

3 620

341 393

Adult education

staff mobility

424

18%

9.92

961

5 593

Youth mobility

5 749

49%

125.70

29 851

151 395

Large-Scale

Volunteering Events

50%

0.35

196

Erasmus+ Joint

Master Degrees

18%

21.24

437

Erasmus Mundus

Joint Doctorates

100%

32.51

246

257

Erasmus Mundus

Master Degrees

138

100%

48.76

750

1 379

Other actions (OLS, …)

44.19

Total:

15 951

1 190.61

57 825

647 691

Source: Erasmus+ Programme. Annual Report 2014.

According to the Commission’s report for 2014, in Key Action 1, the grants were

distributed between the education and training sectors and youth in the following

proportions:

— Higher education

58%

— Vocational education and training

25%

— Youth

12%

— School education

— Adult education

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 19

Table 4. Projects granted in Key Action 2 in 2014 in detail

KA2 - Cooperation

Projects

Grant

(million EUR)

Organisa-

tions

Participants

Granted

Success

rate

Partnerships for

School Education

206

19.49%

46 127 908

1 265

13 563

Strategic Partnerships

for Schools only

522

17.41%

78 272 387

2 566

93 351

Strategic Partnerships

for Adult Education

215

16.32%

45 764 442

1 289

8 238

Strategic Partnerships

for Higher Education

154

16.79%

42 016 082

1 046

17 130

Strategic Partnerships

for Vocational

Education and Training

377

22.75%

96 034 874

2 492

9 575

Strategic Partnerships

for Youth

258

14.91%

30 033, 152

1 165

16 948

Transnational

Cooperation Activities

for Youth

6 938 693

12 957

Transnational

Cooperation Activities

for other Sectors

774 281

919

Total:

1,732

17.90%

345 961 819

9 823

172 681

Source: Erasmus+ Programme. Annual Report 2014.

According to the statistical annex to the Commission’s report for 2014, in Key Action 2,

total amount of grant were distributed between the education and training sectors and

youth in the following proportions:

— School education

36%

— Vocational education and training

28%

— Adult education

13%

— Higher education

12%

— Youth

11%

Table 5. Projects granted in Key Action 3 in 2014

KA3 - Policy

Projects

Grant

(million EUR)

Average

per project

(EUR)

Organisations

Granted

Success

rate

Education & Training

35%

11 261 310

1 608 759

Youth

50%

1 934 009

Total:

36%

13 195 319

1 649 415

127

Source: Erasmus+ Programme. Annual Report 2014.

General findings of the Commission’s report for 2014:

— KA1 – Learning Mobility of Individuals:

 66% of the total budget was granted to the KA1 projects;

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 20

 about 500 000 young people studied, trained, volunteered or participated

in youth exchanges abroad;

 150 000 staff members of educational institutions and youth

organisations got the opportunity to improve their competencies

by teaching and training abroad;

 some 180 Erasmus Mundus Masters Degrees/ Joint Doctorates, initially

funded under the LLP programme were financed under KA1, as well as

11 new Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters Degrees;

 On-line Linguistic Support (OLS) allowed 126 000 participants to assess

their knowledge of the language in which they will work or study;

45% followed an OLS language course afterwards.

— KA2 – Cooperation for Innovation and the Exchange of Good Practices:

 over 1 700 projects, involving around 10 000 organisations and 160 000

participants in learning, teaching and training activities, and 13 000 more

in transnational cooperation activities, received support (from the total

amount of EUR 345.96 million) for enhancing the labour market

relevance of education and training systems and for tackling the skills

gaps Europe is facing. 65% of the projects produce intellectual outputs

while in learning, teaching and training (LTTs), preference is given

to short term learning, training and teaching activities;

 high demand from high quality applications in all fields, combined with

the limited budget, resulted in a rather low success rate (18%);

 79 capacity building cooperation projects with youth organisations

in partner countries were financed, aiming at helping the modernisation

and internationalisation of their youth systems;

 10 knowledge alliances projects, which bring businesses and higher

education institutions together to develop new ways of creating,

producing and sharing knowledge, were selected amongst high

competition (4% success rate) and granted EUR 8.4 million;

— KA3 – Support to Policy Reform:

 8 European policy experimentations projects were granted EUR 13.2

million with the aim to test innovative measures through rigorous

evaluation methods;

 cooperation with international organisations was pursued in particular

with the OECD on country analysis and with the Council of Europe

in the field of human rights/citizenship education, youth participation,

citizenship and social inclusion and dialogue between Roma

communities and mainstream society;

 IT platforms such as eTwinning, the Electronic Platform for Adult

Learning (EPALE) or the European Youth Portal, and the VALOR project

dissemination platform, were further developed and used to facilitate the

communication within and about the programme and to promote the

dissemination of its results.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 21

— Jean Monnet Activities:

 212 projects, aiming at promoting excellence in teaching and research

in the field of EU studies worldwide, were financed with a total grant

of EUR 11.3 million;

 65% of the applications concerned teaching and research with a vast

majority concerning Chairs and Modules, while 25% were projects

aiming at creating and applying new methodologies or spreading

knowledge about the European integration process among a wider target

audience;

 7 institutions pursuing an aim of European interest received an operating

grant for a total amount of EUR 3.8 million.

The regional analyses of the projects funded under the previous Erasmus programme

show that:

— overall, at least 90% of Erasmus students in all regions participated in the

Erasmus programme in order to experience living abroad, meet new people,

learn or improve a foreign language and develop their soft skills; 87% did so in

order to enhance employability abroad, which for 77% is more important than

employability at home;

— former Erasmus students are half as likely to experience long-term

unemployment than those who did not go abroad; and students in eastern

Europe even reduced their risk of long-term unemployment by 83% by taking

part in Erasmus;

— similarly, traineeships and work placements had a positive impact on finding

a job – this was particularly valuable for students from countries in southern

Europe, such as Italy and Portugal, where half of those training abroad were

offered a position by their host company;

— overall, Erasmus students were not only more likely to be employed, but also

more likely to secure management positions; on average 64% of Erasmus

students, compared to 55% of their non-mobile peers, held such positions within

5-10 years from graduation; this was even more true for Erasmus students from

central and eastern Europe, where around 70% of them end up in managerial

positions; but

— lack of financial support prevented 53% of students in southern Europe and 51%

in eastern Europe from taking part in Erasmus. Financial barriers are even higher

for students from a non-academic family background: 57% in southern Europe

and 54% in Eastern Europe of students from a non-academic family background

do not participate in mobility for this reason. This is why additional financial

support was provided to students from a disadvantaged background since the

start of Erasmus+ in 2014.

One of the most striking finding of the analysis is the low success rate in most of the

Erasmus+ programme actions. The low success rate can potentially lower the level

of interest of applicants in future. The preparation of proposal is time-consuming and

also often costly, which may be especially difficult for smaller applicants. The

Commission suggests increasing the budget of the programme to allow financing a larger

number of proposals. This would appear to be a reasonable recommendation, given that

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 22

the studies show that the impact of the projects on education, training and youth is

significant, and especially important for organisations and project participants with less

experience in international cooperation and in applying for grants supporting mobility.

Nevertheless, more profound analysis of the reasons lying behind the low success rate is

needed. The Commission report does not present information on the number of grant

applications assessed by external experts above and below the thresholds, or on how

many points a proposal had to receive to be financed in different actions and in different

countries. This information would allow for a better diagnose of the reasons for the low

success rates, and would enable steps to be taken to raise the level of applications,

if necessary, and to better distribute funds in the Erasmus+ budget, both current and

additional, if such are approved by the European Parliament.

The perception of the Erasmus+ programme among stakeholders is generally very

positive, but there are still claims concerning, especially, the need for more simplification

and harmonisation. As an example, the opinion of the European Civil Society Platform on

Lifelong Learning (EUCIS-LLL) on the Erasmus+ programme is presented with selected

comments and recommendations which are as follow:

a. Positive:

i. the Erasmus+ programme as a whole;

ii. the increased budget of the programme;

iii. the flat rate system and lump sums;

iv. the trans-sectoral dimension of the programme.

b. Negative:

i. the programme guide is generally perceived as being complicated, and some

national agencies started to prepare simplified versions;

ii. better harmonisation between national agencies is needed – there is a need for

common implementation guidelines;

iii. the increased bureaucracy (e.g. for adult education and for smaller projects);

iv. the filling-in of the e-form tool is time-consuming;

v. the lack of clear definitions (e.g. intellectual output);

vi. the trans-sectoral dimension of the programme is positive, but in practice

it does not work well, e.g. it is not possible any more within the Key Action 2;

vii. the lump sums are appreciated, but they are considered as too small;

viii. the overall project coordination is not covered by the administrative lump

sum;

ix. travel costs do not fully reflect the geographical realities;

x. due to the decentralisation, Brussels-based European civil social organisations

apply for funding through one of the Belgian National Agencies which made

the situation more difficult for them and for other Belgian applicants.

Concerning the last claim, the Commission explained that additional funding was

transferred to the Belgian agencies facing this problem; it should nevertheless

be monitored if the Belgian organisations can successfully compete for grants with

European organisations.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 23

II – Adult education

Adult education actions (previously implemented within the Grundtvig programme)

should address the challenges of the renewed European Agenda for Adult Learning

(EAAL) included in the Council's resolution of 28 November 2011. The aim of the

Agenda, which is referred to in recital 18 of the regulation establishing the Erasmus+

programme, is to enable all adults to develop and enhance their skills and competences

throughout their lives.

Based on the Programme Guide

, within:

1) Staff mobility the support is offered to:

- teaching or training assignments, which allow staff of adult education organisations

to teach or to provide training at a partner organisation abroad;

- staff training, which allows the professional development of adult education staff

in the form of: a) participation in structured courses or training events abroad;

b) a job shadowing/observation period abroad in any relevant organisation active in

the adult education field.

2) Strategic partnerships the support is offered to

- activities that strengthen the cooperation and networking between organisations;

- testing and/or implementation of innovative practices in the field of education,

training and youth;

- activities that facilitate the recognition and validation of knowledge, skills and

competences acquired through formal, non-formal and informal learning;

- activities of cooperation between regional authorities to promote the development

of education, training and youth systems and their integration in actions of local

and regional development;

- activities to support learners with disabilities/special needs to complete education

cycles and facilitate their transition into the labour market, including by combating

segregation and discrimination in education for marginalised communities;

- activities to better prepare and deploy the education and training of professionals for

equity, diversity and inclusion challenges in the learning environment;

- activities to promote the integration of refugees, asylum seekers and newly arrived

migrants and raise awareness about the refugee crisis in Europe;

- transnational initiatives fostering entrepreneurial mind-sets and skills, to encourage

active citizenship and entrepreneurship (including social entrepreneurship), jointly

carried out by two or more groups of young people from different countries.

According to the European Commission’s report on the implementation of Erasmus+

programme in 2014 and the statistical annex to the report, within:

Erasmus+ Programme Guide. Version 2 (2016) and Addendum, op.cit.

Presented Strategic Partnerships are not restricted to adult education but are equally applicable

in e.g. VET or HE.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 24

– Adult education staff mobility (Key Action 1):

 the interest remains high;

 the average success rate in 2014 was at the level of 18.5%, but it varied

between national agencies from 86% in Norway, 75% in the German-

speaking part of Belgium, 67% in Lichtenstein and 63% in Austria, to 2%

in Turkey and 3% in Bulgaria;

 424 projects were granted (out of 2 296 submitted), with 5 593 adult

education staff participations, and with an average funding of EUR 1 773

per participant;

 94% of participants were planning to undertake staff training abroad

(participation in a structured course or job shadowing), while the other

6% planned to deliver teaching or training at partner organisations

abroad;

 5 countries register more than half of all adult education staff

participants: Germany, Poland, Turkey, France and Italy.

– Strategic partnerships in the field of adult education (Key Action 2):

 the interest remains high;

 the average success rate in 2014 was at the level of 16 3%;

 215 projects were granted (out of 1 317 submitted), with 1 289

organisations and 8 391 participants involved and with an average

number of 6 partners per project;

 53% of partnerships are focused on short term learning, teaching

or training activities and 94% of partnerships projects aimed to produce

intellectual outputs.

The Electronic Platform for Adult Learning in Europe (EPALE) was created for teachers,

trainers and volunteers, as well as policy-makers, researchers and academics involved in

adult learning, to facilitate the cooperation and the promotion of activities as well as the

exchange of good practice. The available materials are organised according to five main

themes: Learner Support, Learning Environments, Life Skills, Policy and Quality. EPALE

is implemented by a Central Support Service and in 2014-2015 a network of 30 National

Support Services in Erasmus+ Programme countries. In 2016 there were 35 EPALE

National Support Services applications founded within the Erasmus+ programme.

The European Association for the Education of Adults (EAEA) prepared

recommendations and a feedback document for the improvement of the Erasmus+

programme. The main suggestions of the EAEA are as follows:

- to allow larger-scale projects to be implemented at the EU level (via EACEA),

as well as to allow bigger and European organisations to apply for funding at the

EU level and not at the national level;

- to standardise the NAs’ information, selection and administrative procedures;

- to improve the participation of the partner countries in the programme and

especially from the European Neighbourhood countries;

- to promote the programme in countries where level of participation is relatively

low;

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 25

- Staff mobility:

 to allow umbrella organisations to apply for funding on behalf of their

member organisations and then administer the individual mobilities;

 to reintroduce the database of approved training;

 to introduce two (or three) application deadlines instead of one.

- Strategic partnerships:

 to simplify the application procedure (which, while being universal

for the whole programme, in the area of adult education is more

complicated now that it was before);

 to reintroduce the preparatory visits, which allowed organisations

to know each other and to better prepare their applications;

 to increase the budget for adult education within the Erasmus+

programme, as the budget decline and the new procedure for allocating

funds for projects and the new formula for distributing funding across

Member States, led to a significant fall in the number of transnational

cooperation projects;

 to standarise the definition of ’intellectual output’.

The analysis of the adult education activities within Key Action 1 can be also found

in Annex I.

III – International dimension of higher education

1. General rules

The international dimension is one of the biggest new elements of the Erasmus+. It brings

together, under the supervision of the European Commission’s DG Education and

Culture, several separate programmes (inter alia, Tempus, Alfa, Edulink, Erasmus

Mundus,) which were overseen in the previous financing period by other DGs, mainly

DG Development.

The recent UNESCO Science Report showed that there has been a growth in the number

of tertiary-level education students worldwide, rising from 1.1 million in 1985, to 1.7

million in 1995, 2.8 million in 2005 and 4.1 million in 2013.

According to the regulation establishing the Erasmus+ programme, 'international' relates

to any action involving at least one programme country and at least one third country

(partner country). Within the international dimension of Erasmus+ in the field of higher

education, according to the Programme Guide, support is offered to:

— Key Action 1:

 International credit mobility of individuals and

 Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees

promoting the mobility of learners and staff from and to Partner Countries;

— Key Action 2: Capacity-building projects in higher education promoting cooperation

and partnerships that have an impact on the modernisation and internationalisation

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 26

of higher education institutions and systems in Partner Countries, with a special focus

on Partner Countries neighbouring the EU;

— Key Action 3: Support to policy dialogue through the network of Higher Education

Reform Experts in Partner Countries neighbouring the EU, the international alumni

association, policy dialogue with Partner Countries and international attractiveness

and promotion events;

— Jean Monnet activities with the aim of stimulating teaching, research and reflection

in the field of European Union studies worldwide.

In addition, other Actions of the Programme (Strategic Partnerships, Knowledge Alliances,

Sectors Skills Alliances, and Collaborative Partnerships) are also open to organisations from

Partner Countries in so far as their participation brings an added value to the project.

The presentation of the international dimension of the programme can be also found

in Annex I. The examples of strategic partnership cooperation projects are described

in Annex II.

New rules to attract non-EU students, researchers and trainees to the EU were approved

by Parliament in May 2016, with the aim to make it easier and more attractive for people

from third countries to study or do research at EU universities. Based on them, inter alia:

- students and researchers are allowed to stay in the Member State for at least

9 months after completing their studies/research to look for work or set up

a business;

- students have the right to work at least 15 hours a week;

- researchers have the right to bring their family members with them and these

family members are entitled to work during their stay in Europe;

- students and researchers may move more easily within the EU during their stay;

in future, they will not need to file a new visa application, but only to notify the

Member State to which they are moving; researchers will also be able to move for

longer periods than those currently allowed.

2. Funded projects

According to the Commission’s Erasmus+ Programme. Annual Report 2014:

1) Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees (EMJMDs): within the call published

in December 2013, 11 projects were selected, which involve the participation of 46

higher education institutions from 18 different Programme Countries and 437

participants. Success rate was at the level of 18%. Total grants awarded

amounted to EUR 21.2 million.

In 2014 there were still 42 ongoing Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorates (EMJDs)

involving 246 organisations and still recruiting students or PhD candidates.

A total amount of EUR 32.5 million was allocated to cover the ongoing EMJDs.

Doctoral fellowships were awarded to:

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 27

 80 PhD candidates from programme countries (including 11 fellowships

awarded through the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and

Turkey ‘window’) and

 177 candidates from partner countries (including 5 fellowships awarded

through a western Balkans ‘window’).

There were no new calls for EMJDs, as doctoral degrees have been part of the

Horizon 2020 programme since 2014.

2) Erasmus Mundus Master Courses (EMMCs): in 2014 there were 138 ongoing

EMMC involving 750 organisations. A total amount of EUR 48.8 million was

allocated to cover the ongoing EMMCs. Erasmus Mundus scholarships were

awarded to:

 452 programme country Master students (including 114 scholarships

awarded through a geographic ‘window’, 17 for nationals of the FYROM

or Turkey) and

 927 partner country Master students (including 89 scholarships awarded

through a Western Balkans ‘window’ and 45 scholarships awarded

through a Syria ‘window’).

3) Jean Monnet Activities: within the total number of 219 projects awarded a grant,

most were from Member States, but there were also 10 projects from Ukraine,

6 from Turkey, 4 from Belarus and Moldova, 2 from Serbia and 1 from Albania.

From other regions there were 5 projects from China, 4 from the United States,

3 from New Zealand, 2 from Chile and 7 from seven other partner countries.

According to the EACEA data, in 2015 there was a rise in the number of projects

from partner countries receiving grants:

 Jean Monnet Modules, Chairs and Centres of Excellence – for 181 granted

projects, 93 came from partner countries and among them: 34 from

Russia, 16 from the United States, 9 from Taiwan, 6 from Ukraine and

5 from Turkey;

 Jean Monnet Support to Institutions and Associations – of 14 projects

awarded grants, 7 came from partner countries;

 Jean Monnet Networks and Jean Monnet Projects – of 66 projects awarded

grants, 27 came from partner countries.

4) Credit mobility: according to the Commission data:

 the total budget for 2014-2020 amounts to EUR 761.3 million (coming

from different funding for different world regions);

 the budget for 2015 amounted to EUR 121 million (of which EUR 68.8

million for neighbourhood countries and the Western Balkans) was

almost entirely spent after two rounds of calls with only EUR 11 million

remaining (out of which more than EUR 4 million in the United

Kingdom);

 in 2015 among the total number of mobilities funded were: 1) 10 673

learners and 6 697 staff members incoming to the EU and 2) 3 242

learners and 4 505 staff members outgoing from the EU. The biggest

number of participants was from Russia, with more than 3 000, Ukraine

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 28

and Serbia, with more than 2 000, and China and Israel, with almost 1 500

for each country.

3. Impact of the Erasmus Mundus Master courses on participants

The Erasmus Mundus provides support with the aim to promote European higher

education, to help improve and enhance the career prospects of students and to promote

intercultural understanding through cooperation with third countries (in accordance with

EU external policy objectives in order to contribute to the sustainable development

of third countries in the field of higher education) (Article 3 of the Regulation).

The implementation of the programme is undertaken by means of the following actions:

1) Erasmus Mundus joint programmes (masters and doctoral programmes)

of outstanding academic quality, including a scholarship scheme;

2) Erasmus Mundus partnerships between European and third-country higher

education institutions as a basis for structured cooperation, exchange

and mobility at all levels of higher education, including a scholarship scheme;

3) Promotion of European higher education through measures enhancing

the attractiveness of Europe as an educational destination and a centre

of excellence at world level.

Mobility of successful students coming from programme and partner countries

is financed under Heading 1. Successful students from other countries - partner countries

- are financed under Heading 4

The last Graduate Impact Survey which involved almost 1 500 graduates (71%)

and students (29%) of the Erasmus Mundus Master Courses, showed that around:

- 90% of the participants were satisfied with the programme, with more than 65%

extremely and very satisfied. Only 2.5% were clearly not satisfied;

- 81% of participants were satisfied with the quality of the courses offered at the

host universities. Some fields were rated as particularly satisfactory, such

as Health and Welfare (4.19 points out of 5 on the satisfaction scale), while others,

such as the Humanities and Arts, as well as Social Sciences, Business and Law,

were slightly less satisfactory (3.99 and 3.96 points respectively);

- 73% of graduates identified ’contacts to potential employers‘ as being the aspect

most lacking in the programme, with ’practical experience‘ being the second

(55%),’integration activities in the host countries’ (38.5%) as third, and

’mentoring‘ as fourth (36%);

- 59% of participants found their first job while studying or within 2 months after

graduation and an additional 26% between the third and sixth month after

graduation; only 15% looked for a job for longer than six months;

The Erasmus+ programme countries are the member states of the EU plus non-EU programme

countries: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway

and Turkey.

Guidance note: Terminology used in Erasmus Mundus scholarship statistics.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 29

- 59% of participants said that the field of their study matched best with their field

of work;

- 93% of graduates believe that their language skills increased due to Erasmus

Mundus, 67% of whom felt this increase to be very high or rather high.

Participants declared that the programme had the highest impact on their:

- intercultural competencies – 58.7%

- career – 43.5%

- subject related expertise – 33.7%

- personality – 26.3%

- attitude towards Europe and the EU – 20.1%

- private life – 9.9%

The Graduate Impact Survey also showed that the Erasmus Mundus programme is still not

very well known in the programme and partner countries, even if it proved to be

an efficient tool for improving labour market related skills as well as the linguistic skills

and intercultural competencies of participants.

IV – Multilingualism

The significance of multilingualism for the professional and private life of Europeans

is well-known and confirmed in several analyses and studies.

The language skills are a form of human capital as: 1) they are productive on the labour

market through enhancing earning and employment; 2) they require costs – real costs

as well as time and effort; and 3) they are embodied in the person

The latest study (2016) on foreign language proficiency and employability prepared for

the Commission showed that there is clear evidence that foreign language skills are a career

driver – if they form part of a broader package of relevant (specific) skills. In combination with the

right educational background and relevant work experience, foreign language skills provide access

to jobs in international trade and services for which they are a prerequisite.

The study also showed that one third of employers experience difficulties in filling positions as a

result of a lack of applicants’ foreign language skills. Two thirds of these difficulties are due to

insufficient foreign language levels of job applicants, one third is due to the inability of finding

suitable candidates with proficiency in a particular language.

As for the importance of different languages, the study showed that English is by far the

most important language in international trade and the provision of services. Over four in five

employers interviewed and three quarters of advertised online vacancies stating that this was the

most useful language for the jobs discussed/reviewed in all sectors and in almost all non-English

speaking countries. For a fifth to a quarter of employers a language other than English is the most

Barry R. Chiswick, Paul W. Miller: The Economics of Language: International Analyses, Routledge,

2007.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 30

useful foreign language. At the EU level, the three languages other than English mentioned most

often are German, French and Russian. The most cited second most useful languages are German,

Russian, English, French, Spanish and Italian, with no single language having a clear majority.

The significance of multilingualism was recently highlighted in the May 2014 Council

conclusions on multilingualism and the development of language competences. The Council

pointed out that linguistic diversity is a fundamental component of European culture and

intercultural dialogue, and that the ability to communicate in a language other than one's mother

tongue is acknowledged to be one of the key competences which citizens should seek to acquire, as

well as the fact that language competences contribute to the mobility, employability and personal

development of European citizens, in particular young people (…). The Council also agreed

that the EU and the Member States should assess progress in developing language

competences and that assess could be funded by the Erasmus+ programme.

According to the Programme Guide

Multilingualism is one of the cornerstones of the European project and a powerful symbol

of the EU's aspiration to be united in diversity. Foreign languages have a prominent role

among the skills that will help equip people better for the labour market and make the most

of available opportunities. The EU has set the goal that every citizen should have

the opportunity to acquire at least two foreign languages, from an early age.

The promotion of language learning and linguistic diversity is one of the specific objectives

of the Programme. The lack of language competences is one of the main barriers

to participation in European education, training and youth programmes.

Within the Erasmus+ programme

- Key Action 1: linguistic support is available for the language used by participants

for studying, carrying out a traineeship or volunteering abroad in the framework

of long-term mobility activities. The support is mainly offered via the Erasmus+

Online Linguistic Support (OLS), as e-learning offers advantages for language

learning in terms of access and flexibility.

The language assessment is compulsory for Erasmus+ mobility participants with

German, English, Spanish, French, Italian or Dutch as their main language

of instruction, work or volunteering (with the exception of native speakers).

In future, OLS should be covered all languages. The assessment is undertaken

by participants before mobility with another assessment to be carried out at the

end of the mobility period to monitor progress in language competences. The

assessment lasts approximately 40-50 minutes and consists of 70 questions:

grammar - 20 questions; vocabulary - 15 questions; key communicative phrases -

15 questions; listening comprehension - 10 questions; reading comprehension -

10 questions. The participant can then participate in the OLS language course;

The analysis of the OLS can be found in Annex I.

Erasmus+ Programme Guide. Version 2 (2016) and Addendum, op.cit.

Ibidem.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 31

- Key Action 2: Strategic Partnerships in the area of language teaching and learning

are encouraged, in particular: innovation and good practices aiming to promote

language skills including e.g. teaching and assessment methods, development of

pedagogical material, research, computer assisted language learning and

entrepreneurial ventures using foreign languages. Funding for linguistic support

can also be provided when necessary to beneficiaries of Strategic Partnerships

who organise long-term training and teaching activities for staff, youth workers

and learners;

- National competitions in the programme countries can be organised - on

a voluntary basis regular (annual or biennial) by National Agencies, as regards

the European Language Label (ELL) awards; the ELL award should function as

a stimulus to exploit and disseminate the results of excellence in multilingualism,

and promote public interest in language learning.

The Commission decided to also support the integration of migrants with their

multilingualism policy. Their ‘Multilingual Families’ project aims to preserve the

linguistic treasure of immigrants living in the EU and families with linguistically diverse

parents. The project provides support by answering the questions: Why should we

support continuing use of the family language? What can we do to support them and

how? The project provides support materials to teachers, immigrant groups and all

relevant stakeholders. Many of the resources produced are available in more than

20 languages so as to allow the widest possible dissemination.

The importance of multilingualism in the life of Europeans was also demonstrated by

reports of the Eurobarometer and Joint Research Centre. The main findings of both

reports are presented below.

The 2012 Eurobarometer report ‘Europeans and their languages’ shows that:

- the most widely spoken mother tongue in the EU is German (16%), followed by

Italian and English (13% each), French (12%), then Spanish and Polish (8% each);

- 54% of Europeans are able to hold a conversation in at least one additional

language, 25% are able to speak at least two additional languages and 10% are

conversant in at least three;

- the five most widely spoken foreign languages are: English (38%), French (12%),

German (11%), Spanish (7%) and Russian (5%);

- at a national level English is the most widely spoken foreign language in 19 of the

25 Member States where it is not an official language;

- 44% of Europeans say that they are able to understand at least one foreign

language well enough to be able to follow the news on radio or television and

an equally 44% say that they are able to read a newspaper or magazine article in

a foreign language;

- 88% of Europeans think that knowing languages other than their mother tongue

is very useful;

- 84% of Europeans agree that everyone in the EU should be able to speak at least

one foreign language;

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 32

- 72% of Europeans agree that people in the EU should be able to speak more than

one language in addition to their mother tongue;

- 67% consider English as one of the two most useful languages for themselves,

followed by German (17%), French (16%), Spanish (14%) and Chinese (6%);

- 98% of Europeans consider mastering other foreign languages as useful for the

future of their children;

- 34% of Europeans lack motivation to learn foreign languages, 28% lack time, for

25% it is too expensive and 19% felt discouraged by not being good at languages;

- 44% prefer subtitles to dubbing when watching foreign films or TV programmes.

The Joint Research Centre’s 2015 report on languages and employability shows that in the

EU:

- 36% of Europeans know one foreign language, 21% know two foreign languages,

less than 10% know three or more foreign languages and 34% do not know any

foreign language;

- the younger the age groups, the higher the number of languages known and the

proficiency level reported;

- the number of languages known increases with the level of educational

attainment;

- around 25% of adults who know one or more foreign languages know at least

one of them at the proficient level;

- English, German and French are the most widely known foreign languages in

Europe;

- in the EU24, there is a positive relationship between knowing English and

Russian and the likelihood of being employed for the entire population (25-64)

surveyed and also for distinct age groups: 25-40 and 41-64;

- in the EU24, being proficient in English is positively associated with being

employed only for the 25-40 age group and knowing German has a positive

association with employment status for the 41-64 age group.

V – Conclusions

 The perception of the programme by participating organisations, participants

and stakeholders is generally very good.

 However, they call for more simplification in the procedures (especially in the

area of adult education and school education) and in the documents (especially

in the Programme Guide), as well as more standarisation between National

Agencies, especially because these agencies are responsible for implementation of

more than 80% of the Erasmus+ programme. Many actions have already been

undertaken by the Commission which may improve the implementation.

The Commission explained in June 2016, that ’for 2016, a general overhaul of the

grant agreements used across all Erasmus+ actions has been conducted to reduce

the complexity and length of the documents. The Commission is currently

conducting an analysis for the next generation of technology to be used for

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 33

application forms in Erasmus+. More flexibility and better user friendliness are

key goals of this exercise’.

The Commission also explained that ’strengthening the network of National

Agencies, their cooperation and exchange of best practices has been jointly

identified by the NAs and the Commission as one of the priorities to improve the

implementation and management of the programme. A number of so called

"business" meetings organised by the National Agencies have been either held or

proposed and a staff training event has taken place in Portugal in April 2016 with

the support of the Commission. The network of officers for Transnational

Cooperation Activities is becoming increasingly active in the fields of school

education, adult education and vocational education and training’.

 Stakeholders are also generally very satisfied with the decentralisation of the

Erasmus+ programme, although in some actions more centralidation could

be profitable. For instance, it would allow European organisations to apply for

grants at the European and not at the national level, which makes access

to funding for smaller applicants more difficult.

 The low success rate of applications is a striking problem in the implementation

of the Erasmus+ programme. To solve the problem, it may be necessary to raise

the budget of the Erasmus+ programme. But at the same time, further

monitoring is necessary to ensure that only proposals of a very high quality are

financed under the programme.

On 17 June 2016, the Commission explained, that ’concerning school education

(Ka2), the Commission supports strengthening the funding for this action.

A strong budget increase (25% more compared to 2016) is proposed for 2017 Call

for proposals. According to the data on selections 2014 and 2015, the level

of quality of applications is very good and in most countries many more good

projects (scoring over 80% at quality assessment) could be funded with

additional money’.

 The temporary overloads in the work of external experts evaluating proposals

should be examined with possible change of the deadlines for applications or the

extension of its number, if possible. The simplification of the assessment forms

and their better adjustments to the application forms could also be helpful.

 The Commission’s study showed very positive correlation between students’

mobility and the employability of students with mobility experience; this

is an important factor in combating the high level of youth unemployment.

 Given the importance of multilingualism in the life of the EU citizens, and

especially in raising the employability of young people, more effort should be

made to promote and support multilingualism in the Erasmus+ programme.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 34

Chapter 4. Sport

Key findings

 Sport is important in the lives of Europeans. It is important from the point

of view of their health and leisure - 41% of Europeans exercise or play sport

at least once a week. But it is also important from the economic point of view,

as sport contributes to economic growth and employment in Europe.

 Sport became a new EU competence in 2009, when the Lisbon Treaty entered into

force.

 According to the Commission’s report, the preparatory phase of sport in 2009-

2013 activities (preparatory actions 2009-2013, approved by the European

Parliament) brought very positive results and prepared the future Erasmus+

Programme in an efficient way.

 Data on the implementation of the sports activities for 2014-2016 show high

interest from applicants in the Erasmus+ programme, but the success rate has

been relatively low during the two first years of implementation (2014-2015).

 The involvement of organisations per country differs considerably.

 The first European Week of Sport (EWoS) was organised in the second week

of September 2015, and the second EWoS will be organised during the same

period in 2016.

I – Background to sport activities in the EU

1. Legal and political background

Sport became a new competence of the European Union when the Lisbon Treaty entered

into force in 2009. Together with education, vocational training and youth, the EU

competence in the area of sport (under Article 6 of TFEU) is to support, coordinate and

supplement actions of the Member States.

Article 165 of TFEU defines the role of the EU in the area of education, vocational

training, youth and sport. In the domain of sport, the EU shall contribute to the promotion of

European sporting issues, while taking account of the specific nature of sport, its structures based

on voluntary activity and its social and educational function. Furthermore, EU action shall

be aimed at developing the European dimension in sport, by promoting fairness and openness

in sporting competitions and cooperation between bodies responsible for sports, and by protecting

the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen, especially the youngest

sportsmen and sportswomen.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 35

The European Court of Justice has had a role in empowering sport activities in the EU.

It has dealt with several case studies in the area of sport, with – probably the most well-

known – Bosman case from 1995, concerning freedom of movement for workers and

freedom of association, and in this case the freedom of movement of football players.

Based on the new EU competences, the Commission can now initiate actions leading

to promotion of sport at the EU level and to develop the European dimension in sport.

However, the Commission activities in the domain of sport started earlier.

A White Paper on Sport (COM(2007) 391) was published by the Commission on 11 July

2007. The document focused on the societal role of sport, its economic dimension and its

organisation in Europe. In this document, the Commission proposed to enhance the role

of sport in education and training by making health-enhancing physical activity

a cornerstone of its sport related activities and by taking this priority better into account

in relevant financial instruments, inter alia: the Youth in Action and the Lifelong Learning

Programme. The Youth in Action and the Lifelong Learning programmes were the

predecessors of the Erasmus+ programme. The Commission also suggested that:

Promoting participation in educational opportunities through sport is thus a priority topic

for school partnerships supported by the Comenius programme, for structured actions in

the field of vocational education and training through the Leonardo da Vinci programme,

for thematic networks and mobility in the field of higher education supported by the

Erasmus programme, as well as multilateral projects in the field of adult training

supported by the Grundtvig programme.

The White Paper was accompanied by Commission staff working documents, one of

which presented the ’Pierre de Coubertin‘ action plan (SEC(2007) 934). This was intended

to guide the Commission in its sport-related activities in the coming years.

Developing the European Dimension in Sport is a communication published by the

Commission in January 2011 (COM(2011) 12) which outlined an EU policy agenda for

sport. In the first paragraph it referred to the above mentioned ’Pierre de Coubertin‘

action plan, underlining, that almost all actions had been completed or were being

implemented. The document defined the first priorities of the EU for sport and identified

actions to support them.

2. Eurobarometer surveys

Eurobarometer has commissioned three public surveys dedicated to sport:

- Special Eurobarometer (2004): The Citizens of the European Union and Sport, Nr 213

- Special Eurobarometer (2010): Sport and physical activity, Nr 334

- Special Eurobarometer (2014): Sport and physical activity, Nr 412

According to the latest Eurobarometer study, from 2014:

- 41% of Europeans exercise or play sport at least once a week;

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 36

- 48% do some form of other physical activity (such as cycling, dancing

or gardening) at least once a week; 60% walk for at least ten minutes at a time

on four or more days a week;

- generally, men are more likely than women to exercise or play sport: 45% of men

do so at least once a week, compared with 37% of women; meanwhile, 37%

of men never exercise or play sport, compared with 47% of women; the

difference between men and women is strongest in the younger age groups: 74%

of men aged 15-24 exercise or play sport at least once a week, compared with 55%

of women in the same age group;

- generally, citizens in the northern part of the EU are more physically active -

the proportion that exercises or plays sport at least once a week amounts to: 70%

in Sweden, 68% in Denmark, 66% in Finland, 58% in the Netherlands and 54% in

Luxembourg, while at the other end of the scale, Bulgaria (78%) and Malta (75%)

have large proportions of respondents who never exercise or play sport at all;

- 74% of EU citizens say that they are not members of any club;

- 62% engages in sport or physical activity to improve health, 40% to improve

fitness, 36% for relaxing and 30% for having fun;

- 42% points a shortage of time is by far the main reason given for not practicing

sport more regularly, 20% - lack of motivation or interest, 13% – having

a disability or illness and 10% points that it is too expensive;

- 76% agrees that in their local area there are opportunities to be physically active,

and the majority of EU citizens (74%) think that their local sport clubs and other

providers offer them such opportunities.

3. Eurostat statistics

Eurostat published the Sport statistics compact guide in 2016, according to which, inter

alia:

- the share of persons attending live sporting events in 2011 ranged from 57.7%

in Slovakia, 53.5% in Luxembourg and 52.9% in Finland to 14.3% in Turkey,

19.3% in Romania and 26.4% in Bulgaria;

- 1.562,8 thousand persons were employed in the sports sector in 2014, of whom

one third (538 000) were persons with tertiary education (levels 5-8);

- the average employment in the sports sector in 2014 in EU-28 amounted to 0.72%

of total employment and varied from 0.12% in Romania and 0.4% in Greece

to 1.54% in Sweden and 1.27% in Finland;

- the consumption expenditure of private households per year in 2010 varied from

EUR 9.334 in Bulgaria and EUR 9.623 in Romania to EUR 33.219 in Austria and

EUR 31.264 in Belgium (for further details see Eurostat sprt_pcs_hbs database).

The study on the contribution of sport to economic growth and employment, prepared

for the Commission in 2012, showed that the role of the sports sector in the European

economy is important, and three specific sectors were pointed out as being particularly

important in enhancing the size of the sports industry: 1) tourism, 2) fitness and the

media and 3) education.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 37

4. Preparatory actions and work plans for sport

Before sport become part of the Erasmus+ programme, preparatory actions and special

events in the field were undertaken from 2009 to 2013. Two reports on actions and events

were published by the European Commission: Towards an EU Funding Stream for Sport:

Preparatory actions and special events 2009-2011 in 2012, and updated Preparatory actions and

special events 2009-2013 in 2014. According to the latter report:

The European Parliament initiated the Preparatory Actions and Special Events in the field

of sport implemented between 2009 and 2013. The budget of EUR 37 million funded 88

projects aimed at tackling cross-border threats such as doping, match-fixing, violence and

intolerance; promoting grassroots and traditional sports; encouraging good governance,

volunteering, gender equality, mobility and dual careers of athletes; and at supporting

social inclusion and health through sport. The first results presented at the 2011 EU Sport

Forum in Budapest were impressive and the new, high quality projects launched each year

confirm that we are on the right track.

Work Plan for Sport (2011-2014)

The Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States resolution

on a European Union Work Plan for Sport for 2011-2014 was published in June 2011 (2011/C

162/01) and established following guiding principles in the sport field for 3 years:

- to promote a cooperative and concerted approach among Member States and the

Commission to delivering added value in the field of sport at EU level over the longer

term,

- to align the existing informal structures with the priorities defined in this Work Plan,

- to give impetus and prominence as appropriate to Commission actions in the field,

- to address transnational challenges using a coordinated EU approach,

- to promote the specific nature and contribution of sport in other EU policy domains,

- to work towards evidence-based sport policy.

Work Plan for Sport (2011-2014) in short:

3 Priorities:

- The societal role of sport

- The economic dimension of sport

- The organisation of sport

6 Expert Groups:

- Anti-doping

- Good governance in sport

- Education and training in sport

- Sport, health and participation

- Sport statistics

- Sustainable financing of sport

Report from the Commission on the implementation of the European Union Work Plan

for Sport 2011-2014 (COM(2014) 22), published in January 2014, showed that:

Overall, activities carried out under the Work Plan led to very good results in the defined

priority areas. This is confirmed by the consultation: The vast majority of Member States

agreed that the Work Plan had a positive impact for the sport sector in their country

(24 MS) and that it was of relevance for the development (24 MS) and for the

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 38

implementation (19 MS) of sport policy at national level. The Work Plan generally met the

expectations of the governments (25 MS), focused on the right priorities (25 MS) and led

to fruitful outcomes for policy processes (24 MS). This positive assessment was generally

shared by sport stakeholders. Member States valued less positively the influence of the

Work Plan on sport policy processes outside the EU (16 MS).

Work Plan for Sport (2014-2017)

The Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States resolution

on the European Union Work Plan for Sport (2014-2017) was published in June 2014 (2014/C

183/03) and established following guiding principles in the sport field for 3 years:

- to promote a cooperative and concerted approach among Member States and the

Commission to delivering added value in the field of sport at EU level over the longer

term;

- to address transnational challenges using a coordinated EU approach;

- to take into account the specific nature of sport;

- to reflect the need for mainstreaming sport into other EU policies;

- to work towards evidence based sport policy;

- to contribute to the overarching priorities of the EU economic and social policy agenda,

in particular the Europe 2020 Strategy;

- to build on the achievements of the first EU Work Plan for Sport;

- to complement and reinforce the impact of activities launched under the Erasmus+

programme in the field of sport.

Work Plan for Sport (2014-2017) in short

3 Priorities:

- Integrity of sport

- The economic dimension of sport

- Sport and society

5 Expert Groups:

- Match-Fixing

- Good governance

- Human Resources Development

- Health-Enhancing Physical Activity (HEPA)

- Economic Dimension

The future EU Work Plan for Sport should be negotiated in 2017 under the Maltese

Presidency.

II – Selected documents of the European Parliament

The European Parliament adopted a resolution on the role of sport in education

(2007/2086(INI)) in November 2007. In the document, the EP reaffirmed the EU's

legitimate interest in sport, in particular its social and cultural aspects, as well as the educational

and social values that sport transmits such as self-discipline, challenging personal limitations,

Erasmus+: Sport Info Day, presentation by Yves Le Lostecque, Head of Unit, sport policy and

programme Unit, European Commission DG EAC

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 39

solidarity, healthy competition, respect for opponents, social inclusion, opposition to any form

of discrimination, team spirit, tolerance, and fair play.

In the report on the European dimension in sport (2011/2087(INI)) which was adopted

in February 2012, the EP underlined the importance of sport for 35 million amateurs

as well as the economic value of sport. The EP also, inter alia:

- called for good governance in sport, with zero tolerance for corruption in sport;

- stressed the need to fight against doping, and urge Member States to treat trafficking

in illegal performance-enhancing substances in the sports world in the same way

as trafficking in illegal drugs; and

- called to refuse access to stadiums to supporters who have displayed violent

or discriminatory behavior and to create a coordinated approach in setting and

enforcing sanctions against them.

In its resolution on match-fixing and corruption in sport, adopted in March 2013

(2013/2567(RSP)), the European Parliament, inter alia:

- asked the Commission to develop a coordinated approach to the fight against match-fixing

and organised crime, to include coordinating the efforts of the main stakeholders.

- urged the Memeber States sports organisations to establish a code of conduct for all staff

and officials which includes: (i) a clear prohibition on manipulating matches, (ii) the

associated sanctions (iii) a ban on gambling on own matches; (iv) an obligation to report

any approaches concerning match-fixing, coupled with an adequate whistleblower

protection mechanism.

The Sport Intergroup conference on the accessibility of the Erasmus+ Sport for grassroots

sport took place on 28 June 2016.

III – Sport in the Erasmus+ programme

1. General rules and actions

Base on Article 16 and 17 of the regulation establishing Erasmus+ (and in line with the

general objective of the programme Erasmus+ and the Union work plan for sport), sport

actions shall focus in particular on grassroots sport and shall pursue the following

specific objectives:

a) to tackle cross-border threats to the integrity of sport, such as doping, match-fixing and

violence, as well as all kinds of intolerance and discrimination;

b) to promote and support good governance in sport and dual careers of athletes;

c) to promote voluntary activities in sport, together with social inclusion, equal

opportunities and awareness of the importance of health-enhancing physical activity

through increased participation in, and equal access to, sport for all.

According to the regulation (Article 2):

o dual career means the combination of high-level sports training with general

education or work;

o grassroots sport means organised sport practiced at local level by amateur

sportspeople, and sport for all.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 40

The objectives of cooperation within the sport chapter of Erasmus+ programme shall be

pursued through the following transnational activities, which shall focus in particular

on grassroots sport

a) support for collaborative partnerships;

b) support for not-for-profit European sport events contributing to the objectives described

above;

c) support for strengthening the evidence base for policy-making;

d) dialogue with relevant European stakeholders.

Actions in the field of sport are designed to promote participation in sport, physical activity and

voluntary activities. They are also designed to tackle threats to the integrity of sport, promote dual

careers for athletes, improve good governance, and foster tolerance and social inclusion, as well as

contribute to the implementation of the European Week of Sport

. According to the

Programme Guide

, actions in the field of sport should support:

- Collaborative Partnerships, aimed at promoting the integrity of sport (anti-doping,

fight against match fixing, protection of minors), supporting innovative

approaches to implement EU principles on good governance in sport, EU

strategies in the area of social inclusion and equal opportunities, encouraging

participation in sport and physical activity (supporting the implementation of EU

Physical Activity Guidelines, volunteering, employment in sport as well as

education and training in sport), and supporting the implementation of the EU

guidelines on dual careers of athletes;

- Small Collaborative Partnerships, were introduced in a call for the first time in May

2016, offering the opportunity to conceive, implement and transfer innovative

practices in different areas relating to sport and physical activity between various

organisations and, including in particular public authorities at local, regional and

national levels, sport organisations, sport-related organisations and educational

bodies. The small collaborative partnerships have allowed to ensure the follow-

up of the preparatory actions, voted by the European Parliament in 2013

(for instance, support to the traditional sport and games).

- Not-for-profit European sport events granting individual organisations in charge

of the preparation, organisation and follow-up to a given event. The activities

involved will include the organisation of training activities for athletes and

volunteers in the run-up to the event, opening and closing ceremonies,

competitions, side-activities to the sporting event (conferences, seminars), as well

as the implementation of legacy activities, such as evaluations or follow-up

activities;

- Strengthening of the evidence base for policy making through studies; data gathering,

surveys; networks; conferences and seminars which spread good practices from

Programme Countries and sport organisations and reinforce networks at EU

EACEA

Commission webpage on Sport in Erasmus+

Erasmus+ Programme Guide and Addendum, op.cit.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 41

level so that national members of those networks benefit from synergies and

exchanges with their partners.

The Sport actions are centralized. Their implementation is managed at a European level

by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) located

in Brussels:

Sport

Collaborative partnerships

- projects related to the European Week of Sport

- projects not necessarily related to the European Week of Sport

Centralised

actions

Small collaborative partnerships

Non-for-profit European sport events

- events organised during the European Week of Sport

- events not necessarily organised during the European Week of Sport

2. Budget for Sport activities

The budget for the Sport activities amounts for 1.8% of the total budget of the Erasmus+

programme; which is almost € 266 million for 7 years. Budget in 2014 amounted to: 22.3

M€, in 2015 – 22.9 M€ and in 2016 – 34.1 M€.

According to regulation (Article 18.2e), no more than 10% of the budget for sport may

support not-for-profit European sport events involving several programme countries.

The Sport activities may leverage supplementary funding from third parties such

as private undertakings.

In 2016, the budget will be divided in equal parts between following 4 areas:

- 25% HEPA and dual careers;

- 25% anti-doping, match fixing;

- 25% violence, racism, volunteering, good governance;

- 25% social inclusion and equal opportunities.

3. Selection of best proposals

Each proposal may receive maximum 100 points. Only proposals which received at least

50% for each award criterion and reached the minimum total score of 60 points can be

considered for funding from the programme.

Award criteria:

– Collaborative partnerships and Small Collaborative Partnerships:

o Relevance of the project (maximum 30 points);

o Quality of the project design and implementation (maximum 20 points);

o Quality of the project team and the cooperation arrangements (maximum

20 points);

o Impact and dissemination (maximum 30 points).

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 42

– Not-for-profit European Sport Events

o Relevance of the project (maximum 30 points);

o Quality of the project design and implementation (maximum 40 points);

o Impact and dissemination (maximum 30 points).

IV – Implementation of Sport activities

1. Applications received and selected in 2014 -2016

2014:

The initial budget for the two rounds of calls was EUR 16.6 million.

Actions

Applications

Success

rate

Grants

Organi-

sations

received

selected

Total

(million

EUR)

Average

per project

(EUR)

Not-for-profit

European Sport

Events 2014

3 203

86 556

Not-for-profit

European Sport

Events 2015

135

1 952

14 462

Collaborative

partnerships in the

sport field

305

13%

15 221

49 907

335

Total:

477

20 376

341

Source: Statistical Annex to Erasmus+ Programme Annual Report 2014.

According to the Commission data

, in 2014 there were 335 partners in the selected 39

applications of collaborative partnerships, who represented as followed:

– Sport Federations/Leagues/Clubs

118

– Higher Education Institutions & Research Centres

– Public bodies (national, regional and local)

– General NGOs

– Sport NGOs

– Others

Prepared based on the data of the European Commission and the EACEA

Presentation: Erasmus+ Sport, Call for proposals 2014 – Statistics, Luciano Di Fonzo, EACEA,

Brussels, 27 January 2015

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 43

The biggest number of applications (118) was submitted from Italy, out of which 12

of were selected. Next was Poland with 35 applications submitted and 2 selected.

Topics covered by applications

Collaborative partnerships

in the sport field

Not-for-profit European

sport events

Applications

received

Applications

selected

Applications

received

Applications

selected

Enhance social inclusion, equal

opportunities, volunteering and

participation in sports

55%

42%

74%

67%

EU physical activity guidelines

13%

32%

16%

European Week of Sport

10%

33%

EU guidelines on dual careers of

athletes

10%

Approaches to contain violence

and tackle racism and

intolerance in sport

EU principles on good

governance in sport

Fight against doping at

grassroots level

Fight against match-fixing

Source: EC, DG EAC

2015:

The budget for the two rounds of calls was EUR 16.8 million

Actions

Deadline

for submission

of applications

Applications

selected

Total grant

(million EUR)

Collaborative partnerships in the sport field

January 2015

1 279

Collaborative partnerships (EU Guidelines)

May 2015

7 783

Collaborative partnerships (Other topics)

May 2015

7 900

Not-for-profit European sport events

January 2015

987

May 2015

896

Total:

18 845

Source: EACEA

related to the European Week of Sport 2015 only

not related to the European Week of Sport 2015

According to the Commission data

, in 2015 there were 380 partners in the selected 40

applications of the 2

round of collaborative partnerships, who represented as followed:

– General NGOs

113

– Sport Federations/Leagues/Clubs

– Sport NGOs

Presentation: Information from the Commission, Council Working Party on Sport, Brussels, 26 October

2015

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 44

– Higher Education Institutions & Research Centres

– Public bodies (national, regional and local)

– Others

2016:

The budget for the two rounds of calls with deadlines in 2015 was EUR 27.4 million

Actions

Deadline

for submission

of applications

Applications

selected

Total grant

(million EUR)

Collaborative partnerships in the sport field

January 2016

1.041

May 2016

Small collaborative partnerships

May 2016

Not-for-profit European sport events

January 2016

2.265

May 2016

Total:

3.307

Source: EACEA

related to the European Week of Sport 2016 only

not related to the European Week of Sport 2016

2. European Week of Sport (EWoS)

The European Week of Sport aims to promote sport and physical activity across Europe.

The Week is for everyone, regardless of age, background or fitness level. With a focus

on grassroots initiatives, it will inspire Europeans to #BeActive on a regular basis and

create opportunities in peoples’ everyday lives to exercise more. The EWoS is organised

on 2nd week of September with an official opening, a Flagship event and 4 focus days

of events, each day with a focus theme

2015

The first European Week of Sport was organised from 7 to 13 September 2015.

The Flagship event took place on 9 September in Brussels and its theme was: ‘The role

of sport in promoting tolerance and open societies in Europe’. The European Week

of Sport was organised around 4 Focus Days: 1) Education environment, 2) Workplaces,

3) Outdoors and 4) Sport Clubs & Fitness centers.

10 EWoS Ambassadors supported the Week in 2015:

- Clarence Seedorf (NL), former football player

- Marie Bochet (FR), skier

- Danka Bartekova (SK), skeet shooter

- Steven Gerrard (UK), football player

- Caroline Wozniacki (DK), tennis player

- Tapio Korjus (FI), javelin thrower

- Gerlinde Kaltenbrunner (AT), mountaineer

The Commission’s website on Sport.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 45

- Joël Gonzalez (ES), taekwondo fighter

- Paula Radcliffe (UK), runner

- Jean-Michel Saive (BE), table tennis player

Source: EUSA

In December 2015, the Commission published report on the implementation of the

European Week of Sport 2015. According to the report:

- the flagship event, organised in the form of a conference, gathered some 250

participants (i.e. sport stakeholders, selected networks, policy makers, EWoS

Ambassadors, practitioners);

- 9 European partners of the Week organised conferences, fora, events or sport

activities, in Brussels, Paris or Turin (which was the European Capital of Sport

in 2015);

- a big achievement of the Week was the number of local events: over 7000,

with a variety of sport and physical activities:

o individual sports (archery, tennis, etc.);

o team sports (football, handball, basketball, etc.);

o group classes (yoga, zumba, salsa, etc.);

o outdoor physical activity (running, cycling, Nordic walking, etc.);

o new trend sports (cross-fit, air squash, pana football, etc.);

- at national level, participating countries appreciated the degree of flexibility

to organise their national activities - 77% was in favour of keeping this flexibility;

- 93% of EWoS key players used the EWoS promotional materials put at their

disposal by the European Commission;

- the dedicated website (http://ec.europa.eu/sport/week) was visited over 20.000

times between 1 and 14 September 2015;

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 46

- many more tools were developed for the communication campaign around the

Week, e.g. template posters, banners, Facebook covers, website banners,

a communication handbook, 3 videos (a mini-documentary, an inspirational

movie and an animated clip). Example of promotional materials is presented

above.

2016

The 2016 European Week of Sport will start on 10 September 2016 with a flagship event

organised on 15 September 2016. The concept of the EWoS will remain the same as in

2015. The main objective will continue to be promoting participation in sport and

physical activity. We will continue to raise awareness about the numerous benefits of

both. The main campaign elements established in 2015 will remain in 2016, including key

messaging and visual branding of the Week.

The overarching campaign theme for the European Week of Sport remains “#BeActive”.

As in 2015, the implementation of the 2016 European Week of Sport will be supported

through specific funding under Erasmus+: Sport.

All Member States except for Sweden have decided to participate in the EWoS.

3. Opinion and recommendations of the EOC EU Office

The EOC EU Office prepared the assessment of the implementation of Sport activities

in the Erasmus+ programme after the first call for proposals in 2014. The analysis

revealed that the programme did not fully reach the objective of developing grassroots

sport in Europe.

The EOC EU Office consulted stakeholders, including local and regional actors

in Member States, on their view regarding the possibilities for grassroots sports in the

Erasmus+ programme. Many considered that the administrative burden and other

requirements currently outweighed the possible benefits. In call of proposal in 2014,

limited number of grassroots sport clubs was involved as partners in the selected

projects.

The EOC EU Office prepared some recommendations for future calls to enhance

the participation of grassroots sports:

- limit the required number of partners;

- allow volunteering as a source of own contribution;

- encourage the setting up of projects with smaller budgets;

- reduce the administrative and financial burden;

- announce the selection results as early as possible;

- finalise the grant agreements before the actual start of the project.

Assessment of Erasmus+ Sports, Background paper N

3, February 2015 and Erasmus+ Sports

Programme. Recommendations for future calls for proposals: How to ensure the participation

of grassroots sports?

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 47

V – Conclusions

 There is a noticeable interest from various organisations in applying for grants

under the Erasmus+ programme. Monitoring of the types of participating

organisations should be continued, however, especially to ensure that grassroot

sports organisations have sufficient access to funding.

 The analyses show that physical activity is beneficial to EU citizens and that

support from the EU budget is important.

 Nevertheless, stakeholders claim that more simplification is needed in the

programme to enable greater participation of grassroots sports organisations and

better achieving the goal of developing grassroots sport in Europe.

 The focus on grassroots sport is clear in the Erasmus+ Regulation, even if more

emphasis could be put in this area.

 While the access of grassroots sports organisations to the Erasmus+ Sport funds

is already possible at this stage, the Commission might consider further

simplifications in order to ease the access of these organisations to Erasmus+

Sport.

 Looking at the positive legacy of the Sport Preparatory Actions 2009-2013,

the Commission could be invited to assure their follow-up.

 Building on the positive results of the first edition of the EWoS, and – hopefully –

positive results of the second edition of the EWoS to take place in September

2016, the Commission could be invited to develop the concept and to promote

the participation of even more organisations and Member States.

 Due to fact that the annual European Week of Sport, organised in the second

week of September, coincides with the European Parliament session in Strasburg,

the Commission has declared that it will seek to organise the main events

in Brussels as from 2017 in ‘non-collision’ time

Request of MEP Hannu Takkula (ALDE, Finland) of 30 March 2016 (E-002528-16) concerning the

coincidence of the European Week of Sport with the European Parliament plenary sessions

in Strasbourg, both in 2015 and 2016. The Commission answer (E-002528/2016) of 27 May 2016,

including the information that ‘when considering a possible new date, the Commission will take account

of the need to avoid the plenary session in Strasbourg, as far as possible, so as to ensure that the European

Parliament and its members can fully participate in this initiative’.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 48

Selected references

2014 annual work programme for the implementation of "Erasmus+", the Union

Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport, C(2013)8193 of 27 November 2013.

2015 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the

strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020) (OJ C

417 of 15.12.2015) showed that serious challenges remain.

2016 ERASMUS+, Guide for Experts on Quality Assessment. Actions managed

by National Agencies, The European Commission, Version 2: 17/02/2016.

Alfa programme website.

Amendment of the 2016 annual work programme for the implementation of 'Erasmus+':

the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport C(2016)1122

of 26 February 2016.

Assessment of Erasmus+ Sports, Background paper N

3, February 2015 and Erasmus+

Sports Programme. Recommendations for future calls for proposals: How to ensure the

participation of grassroots sports?

Bilateral cooperation programmes website.

Call for expressions of interest EACEA/2013/01 for the establishment of a list of experts

to assist the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency in the framework of

the management of European Union programmes in the field of education, audiovisual,

culture, youth, sport, EU aid volunteers, and citizenship or any other programmes

delegated to the Agency and Corrigendum.

Chiswick Barry R., Miller Paul W.: The Economics of Language: International Analyses,

Routledge, 2007.

Communication from the Commission: Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable

and inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020

Council Resolution of 27 November 2009 on a renewed framework for European

cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018), OJ C 311, 19.12.2009.

Council Resolution on a renewed European agenda for adult learning, OJ C 372,

20.12.2011.

Decision No 1719/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15

November 2006 establishing the Youth in Action programme for the period 2007 to 2013,

OJ L 327, 24.11.2006.

Decision No 1720/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15

November 2006 establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning, OJ L

327, 24.11.2006, p. 45–68 and Decision No 1357/2008/EC of the European Parliament and

of the Council of 16 December 2008 amending Decision No 1720/2006/EC establishing

an action programme in the field of lifelong learning, OJ L 350, 30.12.2008.

Decision No 1298/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of

16 December 2008 establishing the Erasmus Mundus 2009-2013 action programme for the

enhancement of quality in higher education and the promotion of intercultural

understanding through cooperation with third countries, OJ L 340, 19.12.2008.

EAEA recommendations for the improvement of Erasmus+, the European Association for

the Education of Adults (EAEA).

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 49

Edulink website.

Erasmus+ Programme Guide. Version 2 (2016): 07/01/2016 and Addendum to the

Erasmus+ Programme Guide. Version 1 of 25/04/2016 prepared following the

re-opening, in Greece, of the Erasmus+ actions in the field of youth.

Erasmus+ Programme. Annual Report 2014.

Erasmus+ programme website.

Erasmus+: Sport Info Day, presentation of Yves Le Lostecque, Head of Unit, Sport policy

and programme Unit, European Commission DG EAC.

Erasmus+: Sport, Sport powszechny (grassroots sport). Presentation of Michał

Rynkowski, DG Edukacji i Kultury, Sport Unit, Komisja Europejska

Europa 2020 website.

EU cooperation in education and training (ET 2020). Summary.

Graduate Impact Survey, Erasmus Mundus Association.

Guidance note: Terminology used in Erasmus Mundus scholarship statistics.

Implementing Erasmus Better. Opinion of the European Civil Society Platform

on Lifelong Learning (EUCIS-LLL).

New rules to attract non-EU students, researchers and interns to the EU, European

Parliament, Press release of 11.05.2015.

Presentation: Erasmus+ Sport, Call for proposals 2014 – Statistics, Luciano Di Fonzo,

EACEA, Brussels, 27 January 2015

Presentation: Information from the Commission, Council Working Party on Sport,

Brussels, 26 October 2015.

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing

"ERASMUS FOR ALL" The Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport,

COM(2011) 788 final.

Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11

December 2013 establishing “Erasmus+”: the Union programme for education, training,

youth and sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No

1298/2008/EC, OJ L 347/50 of 20.12.2013.

Science Report, UNESCO.

Sport in Erasmus+ website.

Strategic framework – Education & Training 2020.

Tempus programme website.

The use of lump sums, the reimbursement on the basis of unit costs and the flat-rate

financing under the “Erasmus+” Programme, C(2013)8550 of 4 December 2013.

The Erasmus Impact Study Regional Analysis. European Comission.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 51

Annex I

The implementation of Erasmus+ Programme

- Learning mobility of individuals in the field

of education, training and youth (Key Action 1)

Study by

Thomas Köhler

and Daniel Apollon

Abstract

The focus of this study is on assessing the strengths, weaknesses, perceived

opportunities and threats of the implementation of mobility for individuals

in the field of education and training, as well as youth in Erasmus+ Key

Action 1, as well as relevant aspects of interaction between these sectors. The

authors favour a case-based approach and prioritise a global educationalist

perspective, while including, when and where necessary, organisational and

logistic factors, and macro-data. Where case studies and data are readily

available, the authors have compiled these and combined key findings with

knowledge gained from e.g. interviews with National Agencies. As a result,

policy recommendations contain demands and suggestions for

improvement in the implementation of several aspects of Key Action 1.

Beyond the recommendations included in the different chapters, chapters 13

and 14 deal with “concluding remarks” and “key findings and

recommendations”.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 52

AUTHOR

This study has been written by Prof. Dr. Thomas Köhler, TU Dresden (Germany), and

Prof. Dr. Daniel Apollon, University of Bergen (Norway), at the request of the Ex-Post

Impact Assessment Unit of the Directorate for Impact Assessment and European

Added Value, within the Directorate General for Parliamentary Research Services (DG

EPRS) of the General Secretariat of the European Parliament.

LINGUISTIC VERSIONS

Original: EN

DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and

do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.

Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided

the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.

Manuscript completed in July 2016

Brussels © European Union, 2016.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 53

Table of Contents

Contents.......................................................................................................................................... 53

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 60

List of Tables................................................................................................................................... 61

Acronyms........................................................................................................................................ 63

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 65

New challenges, but is the response adequate?....................................................................... 65

Publicised simplification, but at which cost for individuals?................................................ 65

Objectives...................................................................................................................................... 66

Scope.............................................................................................................................................. 66

Methods......................................................................................................................................... 66

Guiding questions........................................................................................................................ 67

Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 68

1.Implementation of Key Action 1, simplification of efforts ........................................................... 68

Implementation model................................................................................................................ 68

Simplification, but at which price? ............................................................................................ 68

2. Context of the study.................................................................................................................... 70

Ongoing and future evaluations of Erasmus+......................................................................... 70

New economic and political contingencies .............................................................................. 71

3. Scope of the study ....................................................................................................................... 71

Guiding questions........................................................................................................................ 71

Guiding questions for the research ........................................................................................... 71

4.Structure of the study.................................................................................................................. 72

Chapter 2: Structure and Methodology .......................................................................................... 77

1 SWOT style methodology ............................................................................................................ 77

Internal vs. external factors ........................................................................................................ 77

Internal factors.............................................................................................................................. 78

Strengths ....................................................................................................................................... 78

Weaknesses................................................................................................................................... 78

External factors............................................................................................................................. 79

Opportunities ............................................................................................................................... 79

Threats........................................................................................................................................... 79

Assembling the SWOT puzzle to produce a situational analysis.......................................... 80

2.Construction of assessment and recommendations ..................................................................... 81

WT recommendations (mini-mini)............................................................................................ 81

WO recommendations (mini-maxi)........................................................................................... 81

The ST strategy (maxi-mini) ....................................................................................................... 82

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 54

SO recommendations (maxi-maxi)............................................................................................ 82

Time dimension............................................................................................................................ 82

SWOT compared with scoreboard indicator methods ........................................................... 82

Use of SWOT approach in interviews and panels................................................................... 83

3. Qualitative research process ....................................................................................................... 84

Interviews and workshops ......................................................................................................... 85

4. Data sources, surveys and studies.............................................................................................. 86

Mixed methods research approach ........................................................................................... 86

A patchy landscape...................................................................................................................... 87

Key surveys and reports ............................................................................................................. 87

Surveys and studies of mobility in higher education ............................................................. 88

Surveys and studies of mobility in the school sector.............................................................. 88

Surveys and studies of mobility in Vocational Education and Training ............................. 88

Surveys and studies of mobility in Adult Education.............................................................. 89

Surveys and studies of mobility in the Youth Sector.............................................................. 89

PART II Implementation of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 - Empirical Investigation ........................... 90

Chapter 3: Synthesis from interviews and panels........................................................................... 90

1.Introduction................................................................................................................................. 90

Framing conditions to be introduced in the implementation report on the Erasmus+

Programmes’ Key Action 1......................................................................................................... 90

2. Responses to the five main questions .......................................................................................... 91

Experiences with Erasmus+ mobility in the different sectors ............................................... 91

Background of respondents (selected extracts) ....................................................................... 91

Respondents’ experiences with mobility (synopsis) ............................................................... 92

Views of the respondents on the implementation of Erasmus+............................................ 95

Difficult start................................................................................................................................. 95

Political framing in Europe and beyond................................................................................... 98

Organisational and financial aspects....................................................................................... 101

Organisational aspects .............................................................................................................. 101

Financial aspects ........................................................................................................................ 104

Aspects that need further attention or intervention.............................................................. 107

Integration into the curriculum and promotion of Erasmus+ knowledge ........................ 107

Language related aspects.......................................................................................................... 109

User criticism and evaluation aspects..................................................................................... 110

Knowledge about official target figures among respondents.............................................. 111

Statistics of different origin and with different scope........................................................... 111

3.Key Findings extracted from the interview material ................................................................. 112

Key findings I: experiences with mobility.............................................................................. 112

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 55

Key findings II: the implementation of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 during the start phase

2014-2016..................................................................................................................................... 113

Key findings III: administrative and management aspects.................................................. 114

Key findings IV: new aspects of Erasmus+ or need for political intervention .................. 116

Key findings V: realism of the official target figures ............................................................ 118

4. Data from the sectoral specific questions .................................................................................. 119

Sectoral specific questions I: Higher Education..................................................................... 119

Sector-specific questions II: (Vocational) Education and Training & Youth ..................... 125

Sector specific questions III: Adult Education ....................................................................... 126

Key findings on the education-sectoral specific questions .................................................. 127

PART III Implementation of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 - Mobility of Individuals in the Field of

Education and Training ............................................................................................................... 129

Chapter 4: Implementation Structure........................................................................................... 129

1. Erasmus+ Key actions and interaction between implementation levels ................................... 129

Erasmus+ target groups............................................................................................................ 129

The Implementation Model Governing Key Action 1 .......................................................... 130

The basic equation: Levels, Bodies, Actions........................................................................... 130

The complex equation: interactions between Bodies, Levels, and Actions........................ 130

Side-effects of internal vs. external mechanism..................................................................... 131

Ideological tenets of Erasmus+ and side-effects on Key Action 1....................................... 131

The “No Support Given To Individual Participants” Ideology .......................................... 131

Variants of multilevel governance........................................................................................... 132

Governance of Erasmus+ considered as a virtual organisation .......................................... 133

Free Movers and Key Action 1 - a test case............................................................................ 134

The slow death of the Free Mover? ......................................................................................... 134

Side-effects of the full institutionalised model adopted in Key Action 1........................... 135

Influence of the Implementation Model of Erasmus+ on local institutions ...................... 136

Concluding remarks and further recommendations ............................................................ 137

Shrinkage of the perimeter of action for mobility candidates ............................................. 137

Individual mobility participants reduced to disenfranchised “beneficiaries” .................. 137

Need for reappraising the institutionalisation model in Key Action 1 .............................. 138

The mobility of individuals and the practices of autocratic states...................................... 138

2. Implementation Bodies ............................................................................................................. 139

Implementation model prescribed by Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013.............................. 139

Role of National Authorities .................................................................................................... 140

Monitoring of National Agencies ............................................................................................ 140

Centralised and decentralised implementation..................................................................... 141

Analysis of the Commission’s organisational model for Key Action 1.............................. 141

The Commission’s narrative about the Implementation of Key Action 1.......................... 142

Interpreting the narrative from the perspective of New Institutionalism ......................... 144

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 56

Less virtuous outcomes of virtuous implementation processes in Key Action 1 ............. 145

3. ........ Public communication about general budgetary aspects with relevance to Key Action 1146

Communication practices of the Commission about the Erasmus+ budget ..................... 146

The Commission’s narrative about the Erasmus+ budget situation................................... 148

4. Grant level discrepancies .......................................................................................................... 149

Socio-Economic selectivity of Student Mobility .................................................................... 149

Conclusions and recommendations from the 2006 survey are still valid .......................... 149

Eurostudent V 2012 - 2015 confirms that social selectivity is still an issue........................ 150

Educational selectivity in mobility enrolment....................................................................... 151

Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 152

Analysis of the Commission’s position concerning grant amounts.................................... 153

Erasmus not truly for everyone? Parliamentary criticism of grant amounts .................... 155

Concluding remark.................................................................................................................... 156

Chapter 5: Mobility of School Staff............................................................................................... 158

1. Key Action 1 offers only institutionalised school staff mobility ............................................... 158

Institutionalisation of school staff mobility in Key Action 1................................................ 159

Rationale...................................................................................................................................... 159

Possible negative effects of institutionalised mobility on local change-makers................ 160

2. Funding of staff mobility .......................................................................................................... 161

Threats originating in insufficient funding following increased demand for staff mobility161

Views expressed by the Commission...................................................................................... 161

Parliamentary criticism of the implementation school staff mobility ................................ 162

Funding of school mobility projects under Key Action 1..................................................... 163

Increased interest for job-shadowing in the school sector ................................................... 163

Contribution of eTwinning to fostering school staff mobility ............................................. 164

Chapter 6: Mobility of Higher Education Students and Staff ...................................................... 166

1. General characteristics of Key Action 1.................................................................................... 166

Three of four actions target higher education........................................................................ 166

Activities addressing the mobility of student and staff........................................................ 166

Old and new ingredients .......................................................................................................... 166

2. General trends in student mobility worldwide ......................................................................... 167

Evolution of host destinations for mobile students from 2001 to 2014............................... 168

3. SWOT analysis of student mobility during the period 2012-2015 .......................................... 169

Strengths ..................................................................................................................................... 169

Weaknesses................................................................................................................................. 171

Opportunities ............................................................................................................................. 172

Threats......................................................................................................................................... 172

4. Novel aspects of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 in higher education ................................................. 174

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 57

Specific objectives for higher education in Regulation No 1288/2013 applicable to Key

Action 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 174

5. ET 2020 Benchmarks relevant to Key Action 1........................................................................ 175

6. Budget allocation for higher education mobility ....................................................................... 176

7. Staff mobility in higher education ............................................................................................ 177

Criticism of the new teaching assignment conditions by higher education teachers177

Parliamentary criticism of teaching assignment conditions ................................................ 178

Position of the Commission regarding teaching assignment conditions ........................... 179

Concluding remarks.................................................................................................................. 180

8. New aspects of Erasmus+ in higher education – the view of the Commission ......................... 180

9. Erasmus+ Exchanges and Erasmus+ International Credit Mobility (ICM)............................ 182

Budgetary sources...................................................................................................................... 182

Targeted volume of mobile students and staff ...................................................................... 183

First selection round .................................................................................................................. 184

Planned budget use for Erasmus+ ICM.................................................................................. 185

10. Current views and prospects of the Commission regarding mobility in Higher Education ... 186

Regarding Erasmus+ ICM ........................................................................................................ 186

Regarding the recognition of Learning Outcomes – ECTS Credits..................................... 187

Regarding the improvement of integration between local and international students at

some European universities ..................................................................................................... 188

Chapter 7: Mobility of VET learners and Staff............................................................................. 190

1. Approximation of potential mobility patterns in VET from an institutional perspective ........ 190

Findings on the implementation of TVET in Erasmus+ from the interviews ................... 192

Consideration of TVET mobility in the European Parliament ............................................ 193

2. Lack of data about IVET and TVET mobility in Europe .......................................................... 195

Erasmus+ Scoreboards by EURIDYCE and CEDEFOP ........................................................ 195

Youth Guarantee........................................................................................................................ 196

Chapter 8: Mobility of Adult Education Staff .............................................................................. 197

1. Policy priorities in adult education........................................................................................... 197

2. Data on the implementation of mobility in adult education ..................................................... 200

Findings from the interviews on the implementation of adult education in Erasmus+.. 201

Virtual mobility in adult education......................................................................................... 201

Chapter 9: Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees (EMJMD) .................................................. 203

1. General characteristics and transition from LLP...................................................................... 203

Brief evolution of EMJMD since 2014 ..................................................................................... 203

2. Key Findings............................................................................................................................. 204

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 58

Low interest for JMD in Programme countries ..................................................................... 204

The low volume of applications for JMD funding requires action. .................................... 205

Minority impact ......................................................................................................................... 205

3. SWOT analysis of Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees (EMJMD) .................................. 206

Chapter 10: Erasmus+ Students Loan Guarantee Facility........................................................... 208

1. Main characteristics ................................................................................................................. 208

2. Earlier initiative in the European Higher Education Area....................................................... 209

3. Position and views of the Commission ..................................................................................... 212

4. Various criticisms about portable student support................................................................... 214

5. Key findings.............................................................................................................................. 216

Questionable integration in Key Action 1 and with Key Action 2...................................... 216

Still few banks in few countries, actually one bank fully operational................................ 216

Hard to access decision-making processes............................................................................. 216

Neglected scenarios about negative side-effects ................................................................... 217

Poorly documented mapping of the alleged demand .......................................................... 217

Poorly documentation of the comparative advantages of Master Loans........................... 217

6. SWOT analysis of Master Loans .............................................................................................. 219

PART IV Implementation of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 - Mobility of Youth and Workers ........... 221

Chapter 11: Mobility of individuals in the Field of Youth............................................................ 221

1. Situational Snapshot................................................................................................................. 221

2. Integration of Youth In Action into the Erasmus+ Programme .............................................. 223

Simplification efforts from the perspective of the Commission .......................................... 223

Possible side-effects of the implementation of the Youth activities.................................... 224

National Agencies in Charge of Youth Activities.................................................................. 225

Prioritised Activities in the Key Action 1 Youth Activities.................................................. 226

Status Spring 2016...................................................................................................................... 226

Users with special needs........................................................................................................... 226

Inclusion and Diversity Strategy (IDS) ................................................................................... 227

Challenges from 2017 ................................................................................................................ 228

3. European Voluntary Service (Youth)....................................................................................... 228

4. Recognition of non-normal learning outcomes......................................................................... 230

Potential for improvement........................................................................................................ 230

PART V Interaction between Sectors in Erasmus+ Key Action 1 ............................................... 232

Chapter 12: Online Linguistic Support (OLS) Services............................................................... 232

1. Main characteristics of the OLS service ................................................................................... 233

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 59

The service provider.................................................................................................................. 233

Target languages........................................................................................................................ 234

Use of OLS .................................................................................................................................. 234

Licencing ..................................................................................................................................... 234

Evidence of improvement in foreign language proficiency................................................. 236

Compliance with ALTE standards .......................................................................................... 237

The integration of OLS into Key Action 1 .............................................................................. 237

OLS testing is mandatory for some, but not all participants ............................................... 239

Early user criticism .................................................................................................................... 240

SWOT analysis of OLS .............................................................................................................. 241

Chapter 13: Concluding remarks.................................................................................................. 243

1. Recent developments that call for further attention.................................................................. 243

2. Refugees and migrants.............................................................................................................. 244

Measures envisaged in Key Action 1 ...................................................................................... 244

Allocation of OLS licences to refugees.................................................................................... 245

Chapter 14: Key findings and recommendations .......................................................................... 247

Annexes ........................................................................................................................................ 259

1. Bibliography.............................................................................................................................. 259

2. References ................................................................................................................................. 265

3. Web sites ................................................................................................................................... 278

4. The Interview Grid ................................................................................................................... 279

5. Panel interview WITH DG EAC: guiding questions............................................................... 287

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 60

List of Figures

FIGURE 1. ERASMUS+ PROGRAMME 2014-2020 AND ITS PREDECESSORS .................. 8

FIGURE 2. THE ERASMUS+ BUDGET DIVISION................................................................. 12

FIGURE 3: THE FOUR FACTORS OF SWOT ANALYSIS..................................................... 78

FIGURE 4: SPILLOVER EFFECT BETWEEN IMPLEMENTATION LEVELS AND

ERASMUS+ KEY ACTIONS........................................................................................... 131

FIGURE 5: GDP 2014 (EU=100) BY PERCENTAGE EU-FUNDED STUDENT MOBILITY.

............................................................................................................................................. 151

FIGURE 6: OBSERVED AND PROJECTED YEARLY VOLUME OF GLOBAL STUDENT

MOBILITY. ........................................................................................................................ 169

FIGURE 7: 2014-2020 BUDGET ALLOCATION (€14.7 MILLION) WITH A

BREAKDOWN OF THE EDUCATION AND TRAINING BUDGET BY ACTIONS.

............................................................................................................................................. 176

FIGURE 8: 2014-2020: EDUCATION AND TRAINING BUDGET BY SECTOR............... 177

FIGURE 9: SPILT OF TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAMME COUNTRY........................... 182

FIGURE 10: ERASMUS+ ICM BUDGET ENVELOPE (2015) .............................................. 183

FIGURE 11: VOLUME OF MOBILITIES IN ERASMUS+ ICM BY REGION..................... 184

FIGURE 12: TYPES OF ICT IN 2008 VS. TYPES OF ICT IN 2013........................................ 202

FIGURE 13: LICENSE ATTRIBUTION FLOW CHART. ...................................................... 236

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 61

List of Tables

TABLE 1: THE SWOT DIMENSIONS ...................................................................................... 80

TABLE 2: EXAMPLE OF A SWOT MATRIX WITH FICTITIOUS CONTENT................... 84

TABLE 3: INDIVIDUAL, INTERVIEWS, PANEL INTERVIEWS AND WORKSHOPS

HELD APRIL-JUNE 2016........................................................................................................... 86

TABLE 4:TARGET NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS FOR ERASMUS+ (2014-2020).......... 129

TABLE 5: FREE MOVERS VS. EU FUNDED MOBILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN

SOME MEMBER STATES: ........................................................................................................ 135

TABLE 6: SCHOOLS HAVING RECEIVING ERASMUS+ MOBILITY FUNDING IN 2014

AND 2015.................................................................................................................................... 164

TABLE 7: EVOLUTION OF ETWINNING 2005-2016........................................................... 165

TABLE 8: GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION OF MOBILE STUDENTS IN 2001 AND 2014........ 168

TABLE 9: ET 2020 BENCHMARKS APPLICABLE TO KEY ACTION 1 WITH 2015

ATTAINMENTS......................................................................................................................... 175

TABLE 10: 2014 PRELIMINARY RESULTS A NEW ERASMUS+ ACTIONS AND

SERVICES IN HIGHER EDUCATION. .................................................................................. 180

TABLE 11: ERASMUS+ ICM – PLANNED MOBILITIES FOR PROJECTS SELECTED

UNDER THE 2015 CALL.......................................................................................................... 184

TABLE 12: ERASMUS+ INTERNATIONAL CREDIT MOBILITY, FIRST SELECTION

ROUND 2015. ............................................................................................................................. 185

TABLE 13: PLANNED BUDGET USE FOR ERASMUS+ ICM ............................................ 185

TABLE 14: TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING (TVET)

ORGANISATIONS .................................................................................................................... 190

TABLE 15: EUROPEAN COMMISSIONS’ NETWORK OF NATIONAL

COORDINATORS OF ADULT LEARNING.......................................................................... 198

TABLE 16: SWOT MATRIX OF ERASMUS MUNDUS JOINT MASTER DEGREES

(EMJMD) ..................................................................................................................................... 206

TABLE 17: SWOT MATRIX OF ERASMUS+ STUDENTS LOAN GUARANTEE

FACILITY .................................................................................................................................... 219

TABLE 18: SWOT MATRIX SUMMARISING EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL ASPECTS

AFFECTING THE YOUTH SECTOR. ..................................................................................... 221

TABLE 19: NATIONAL AGENCY SYSTEM IN BELGIUM AND GERMANY ................ 225

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 62

TABLE 20:NUMBER OF EVS PARTICIPANTS PER NATIONAL AGENCY (GRANTING

COUNTRY) IN 2015 .................................................................................................................. 229

TABLE 21: TARGETED NUMBER OF USERS FOR THE OLS SERVICE. SOURCE:

TENDER EAC-24-2013 .............................................................................................................. 238

TABLE 22: TARGETED NUMBER OF COURSES PER YEAR. SOURCE: TENDER

EAC/24/2013 ............................................................................................................................. 238

TABLE 23: ONLINE LINGUISTIC SUPPORT (OLS). PARTICIPATION FIRST YEAR 2014

...................................................................................................................................................... 239

TABLE 24: ONLINE LINGUISTIC SUPPORT (OLS). PARTICIPATION 2ND YEAR 2015

...................................................................................................................................................... 239

TABLE 25: ONLINE LINGUISTIC SUPPORT (OLS). CUMULATED PARTICIPATION

2014-4/5/2016 ............................................................................................................................ 239

TABLE 26: SWOT MATRIX OF ONLINE LINGUISTIC SUPPORT (OLS) ........................ 241

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 63

Acronyms

Adult Education

ALDE

Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE)

ALTE

Association of Language Testers in Europe

BIBB

Bundesinstitut für Berufliche Bildung

BMBF

Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung

CEDEFOP

Centre Européen pour le Développement de la Formation

Professionnelle

CEFR

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

DAAD

Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst

Direction General

DGEAC

European Commission, Directorate General Education and Culture

Executive Agency

EEA

European Economic Area

EACEA

European Commission, Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive

Agency

ECHE

Erasmus Charter for Higher Education

ECTS

European Credit Transfer System

ECVET

European credit system for vocational education and training

EFTA

European Free Trade Association

EHEA

European Higher Education Area

EIF

European Investment Fund

EILC

Erasmus intensive language course

EMJMD

Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees

EQAVET

European Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training

EQF

European Qualification Framework

ESIB

The National Unions of Students in Europe

ESU

European Students’ Union

ET 2020

EU cooperation in education and training

EULF

Legal framework of the European Union

EUPARL

European Parliament

EURIDYCE

European network on issues to European education systems

EUROSTAT

Statistical office of the European Union

EVS

European Voluntary Service

EVSI5

Eurostudent V Synopsis of indicators

HE-NA

National Agency (NA) in charge of Higher Education (HE)

HEI

Higher Education Institution

Implementing Body as defined in REGULATION (EU) No 1288/2013

OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11

December 2013

ICM

International Credit Mobility

ICT

Information and communication technology

IIE

Institute of International Education www.iie.org

IND

Industry (sector)

IPR

Intellectual Property Rights

ISCED

UNESCO International Standard Classification of Education

IVET

Initial vocational education and training

KA1

Erasmus+ Key Action 1

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 64

KMK

Kultusministerkonferenz

LLP

Lifelong Learning Programme

MLG

Multilevel governance

MOOC

Massive Open Online Course

National Agency

NAU

National Authority

NGO

Non-governmental organisation

NLF

National legal framework

NMG

New modes of governance

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OER

Open Educational Resource

OLS

Online Language Support

Social Enterprise

SIU

Senter for internasjonalisering av utdanning/ Norwegian Centre for

International Cooperation in Education

STUD

Student

SWOT

SWOT Analysis, Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and

Threats.

TOWS

TOWS Analysis, Analysis of Threats, Opportunities, Weaknesses, and

Strengths

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

VET

Vocational Education and Training

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 65

Executive Summary

The European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) has launched

an own-initiative report on the Implementation of the Erasmus+ programme (Regulation

EU No 1288/2013) (2015/2327(INI)). In view of the upcoming report this study analyses

the implementation of the Erasmus+ programme within the scope of the learning

mobility of individuals in the field of education, training, and youth (Key Action 1) and

the interaction between the sectors (Article 6.1.a and article 12.a of the Regulation EU No

1288/2013).

This study has been conducted close to the end of the first implementation phase of

Erasmus+ (2014-2020). The fundamental references for these study are the Education and

Training 2020 EU Strategy (EAT 2020) and Regulation EU No 1288/2013 which establish

the general principles and regulatory basis for the implementation of Erasmus+. The

research took place from mid-April to mid-June 2016. This study offers an external and

independent perspective on Key Action 1 which addresses primarily the mobility of

individuals. As the Commission (DG EAC) launched an evaluation of Erasmus+ to run

from May 2016 to the end of 2017, the authors of the present study have maintained an

analytical distance to the views expressed by the Commission.

New challenges, but is the response adequate?

New challenges and possible threats have emerged or persisted since the launch of

Erasmus+: the financial crisis, the refugee crisis, political tensions in some member states,

a tenacious labour market crisis in several member states, evolving and challenging

patterns of learning and professional global mobility, possible Brexit, new cultural

tensions, terrorism, and armed conflict in close vicinity of the EU. All this threats and

challenges place new demands on European societies in general, and more specifically on

the various mobility programmes under Erasmus+ Key Action 1.

Publicised simplification, but at which cost for individuals?

The Erasmus+ programme (2014-2020) has integrated all former programmes in the

previous Lifelong Learning Programme (2007-2013) in the domains of Education,

Training, Youth and Sport. The programme now embeds an international dimension that

is funded by different external action instruments.

This integration has been and is widely publicised by the Commission as representing a

“significant simplification”, e.g. in statements such as “We are continuing our efforts to

further simplify the programme implementation by reducing unnecessary bureaucracy for the

beneficiaries.”

The message conveyed in this study is that not all measured progresses (there is indeed

evidence of such progresses in the patterns and volumes of mobility), and simplifications

of the management and organisation of Key Action 1 (there is undeniably evidence of an

efficient streamlining of many operations and procedures), necessarily guarantee the

overall success of the implementation, if one chooses to consider all the facets that make

up a good learner, citizen, and professional.

Hence, many of the potential beneficial side-effects of the mobility of individuals in

education and training are not easily and not solely apprehended by measures of

volumes, patterns of displacement, and formal recognition (indeed, such first-order

outcomes, are, no doubt, crucial indicators of progress). Being knowledge-seeking, skill-

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 66

seeking, and experience-seeking individuals, mobile learners, teachers, trainers and

workers choose to go abroad and interact in unfamiliar environments with other people,

to learn, teach, experience, and reflect. Actions, sub-actions, programmes, regulations, are

to be understood as elements of an infrastructure that are meant to be just enablers, not

drivers.

Objectives

The focus of this study is on assessing the perceived and observed strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and threats of the implementation of mobility of individuals in the field of

education and training, and youth in Erasmus+ Key Action 1. Particular attention is

given to novel initiatives and services, e.g. Online Linguistic Support (OLS), Master

Loans, and Erasmus+ International Credit Mobility (ICM). This study highlights also

important development within Vocational Education and Training (VET).

Scope

The study addresses the various sectors targeted in Key Action 1 as well as the actions

addressing these sectors:

1. in the field of education and training:

– mobility of higher education students and staff (programme

countries and partner countries)

– mobility of VET learners and staff

– mobility of school staff

– mobility of adult education staff

– Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree

– Erasmus + Master Loans

2. in the field of youth:

– mobility of young people and youth workers

Interaction between the different sectors is also examined

Methods

This study is based on the analyses of regulations, data and available reports. It presents

case studies from different sectors of education, training and youth. The authors have

also conducted surveys and interviews with official actors, Erasmus+ teams in local

institutions, selected National Agencies, the Executive Agency EACEA, National

Authorities, e.g. Ministries, and The Directorate-General Education and Culture.

It provides a qualitative appreciation, where possible underpinned by quantitative or

qualitative data, of the implementation of Key Action 1 focusing on the achievements and

side-effects of the implementation.

The authors use a case-based approach in a global educationalist perspective, including,

when and where necessary, organisational and logistic factors, as well as macro-data.

Where both case-studies and data are readily available, the authors have compiled these

and have combined key findings with knowledge gained from e.g. interviews with

implementing bodies and beneficiaries. The authors have endeavoured to draw an up-to-

date and valid picture of the various activities organised under Key Action 1, in a global

educationalist perspective.

Furthermore, this study uses a SWOT methodology (Strengths, Weaknesses,

Opportunities and Threats) to organise the findings and offer the readers a platform for

further recommendations. All findings are interpreted as external environmental factors,

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 67

positive (Opportunities) or negative (Threats), or as internal factors, positive (Strengths)

or negative (Weakness). External and external factors are then related to each other. Best

practices are highlighted, as well as severe problems in the implementation of Key

Action 1.

As a result, policy recommendations contain demands and suggestions for improvement

in the implementation of several aspects of Key Action 1.

Guiding questions

 Are the objectives and targets of the programme met?

 In which ways does the programme enhance the mobility of individuals in the field

of education, training and youth?

 How does the mobility of individuals in Key Action 1 help to raise knowledge and

skills of participants?

 How does Key Action 1 contribute to promoting foreign language skills?

 How does the programme contribute to develop e-skills?

 How are labour market needs correlated with educational efforts in Key Action 1?

 How does the interaction between different sectors of education and training and

youth work?

 How does the global dimension of the programme work?

 Does the programme rise innovativeness?

 How are budget allocations and grant amounts related to the quality of projects?

 How satisfied with the programme and its implementation are (selected)

participants? What would they change?

 How satisfied with the programme and its implementation are (selected) national

agencies and the EACEA (when involved)? What would they change?

 Which groups are better or worse represented in the Erasmus+ Key Action 1

compared with LLP?

 What are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the new structure of the

Key Action 1?

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 68

Chapter 1: Introduction

The European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) has launched

an own-initiative report on the Implementation of the Erasmus+ programme (Regulation

EU No 1288/2013) (2015/2327(INI)). In view of the upcoming report this study analyses

the implementation of the Erasmus+ programme within the scope of the learning

mobility of individuals in the field of education, training, and youth (Key Action 1) and

the interaction between the sectors (Article 6.1.a and article 12.a of the Regulation EU No

1288/2013).

The focus of this study is on assessing the strengths, weaknesses, perceived opportunities

and threats of the implementation of mobility of individuals in the field of education and

training, and youth in Erasmus+ Key Action 1. Specifically, the authors address the

mobility of individual in the sectors of Education and Training and Youth, as well as

relevant aspects of interaction between these sectors. The authors favour a case-based

approach and prioritise a global educationalist perspective, while including, when and

where necessary, organisational and logistic factors, and macro-data. Where case studies

and data are readily available, the authors have compiled these and combined key

findings with knowledge gained from e.g. interviews with National Agencies and

stakeholders. As a result, policy recommendations contain demands and suggestions for

improvement in the implementation of several aspects of Key Action 1.

1. Implementation of Key Action 1, simplification of efforts

Implementation model

Erasmus+ is implemented decentrally through the National Agencies in the programme

countries and centrally through the Executive Agency EACEA. Key Action 1 deals with

the mobility of individuals in the field Education, Training and Youth, including the

Student Loan Guarantee Facility, Joint Master degrees, Master courses/Joint Doctorates,

Large Scale Voluntary Services and Online Linguistic Support. The National Agencies

implement the mobility actions in Key Action 1 through indirect management: mobility

actions. EACEA manages the following actions under Key Action 1: Joint Master degrees,

Master courses and Joint Doctorates, Large-scale European Voluntary Service.

Simplification, but at which price?

“We are continuing our efforts to further simplify the programme implementation by reducing

unnecessary bureaucracy for the beneficiaries.”

The Erasmus+ programme (2014-2020) has integrated all former programmes in the

previous Lifelong Learning Programme (2007-2013) in the domains of Education,

Training, Youth and Sport. The programme now embeds an international dimension that

is funded by different external action instruments. This integration has been and is

widely publicised by the Commission as representing a “significant simplification”

compared with LLP. The magic term used repeatedly in various legal and promotional

European Commission (2016). ‘CULT Committee, EP Exchange of views on Annual work

programmes’, Brussels, 25 April 2016. Unpublished document communicated by DG EAC to the

authors.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 69

documents of the EU, “simplification”, is indisputably more palatable than its less

appealing sibling “structural rationalisation”.

In a sense, all kinds of structural rationalisations in organisations tend to oppose

processes, values, transactions, and practices to results and efficiency. Whichever term is

used to characterise the managerial changes which Erasmus+ embodies in comparison

with the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP), such changes entail processes which must

necessarily replace not only procedures and rules, but also values and emotions tied to

practices that are programmed to disappear or to be repurposed. Promoters of such

change-oriented processes may also be tempted to offer less laudatory narratives about

previous structures, i.e., the Lifelong Learning Programme, which is now defunct. It may

be tempting to sell the story about simplifying the implementation of Erasmus+ as a

rejuvenation cure, or as a pure product of necessity that is needed in order to mobilise

sufficient energy to achieve the new ambitions of Erasmus+. However, whichever

rationale is chosen, there may be a price to pay before the expected benefits may be

reaped. The main cost may not be directly observable through measuring the sheer

volume of budget means activated, or by counting and locating the millions of

individuals enrolled, or by monitoring the level of formal recognition of stays abroad. A

more pernicious side-effect of simplification may be the unintended but very real

increase of the perceived power distance between individuals, users, learners, teachers,

youth, etc. and European institutions. The main message underlying this study is that not

all measured progresses necessarily guarantee the overall success of the implementation,

if one contemplates all the facets that make up a good learner, citizen and professional.

Paraphrasing Dan Hill’s widely disseminated and profusely cited essay on the smart city,

one could consider that the whole of Erasmus+, like a city, is made of all its architects,

builders, stakeholders and beneficiaries. Erasmus+ was not primarily created to produce

frameworks, rules and regulations, or administrative infrastructures. The primary raison

d’être of Erasmus+, and the mobility of individuals in Key Action 1, is to let learners,

teachers, educators, trainers, workers and youth come together, to acquire and exchange

knowledge, to open oneself up for new professional environments, to immerse in cross-

cultural experiences, and acquire both informal and formal skills, and, in a deeper sense,

to quote Paul Ricœur, ‘to experience oneself as another’.

As a consequence, many of the potential beneficial side-effects of the mobility of

individuals in education and training are neither easily nor solely apprehended by

measures of volumes, patterns of displacement, and formal recognition (indeed, such

first-order outcomes, are, no doubt, crucial indicators of progress). As knowledge-seeking

individuals, mobile learners, teachers, trainers and workers choose to go abroad and

interact in unfamiliar environments with other people, where they also learn, teach,

experience, and reflect. Actions, sub-actions, programmes, regulations, are to be

understood as elements of an infrastructure that are meant to be just enablers, not drivers,

to reuse Hill’s key concepts. The structures, processes and procedures that characterise

Key Action 1 should be approached and studied as a side-effect of people and culture,

rather than well-oiled, or inversely, malfunctioning mechanisms.

Akin to the smart city vision defended by Dan Hill, the ultimate vision in this study sets

the focus not only on first-order outcomes in the implementation of Key Action 1, but,

also on the second-order outcomes, which are potentially more interesting for the long-term

impact of Erasmus+ and its potential successors.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 70

Smartening the infrastructure enables citizens to make informed decisions

”The city is its people. We don’t make cities in order to make buildings and infrastructure. We

make cities in order to come together, to create wealth, culture, more people. As social animals,

we create the city to be with other people, to work, live, play. Buildings, vehicles and

infrastructure are mere enablers, not drivers. They are a side-effect, a by-product, of people and

culture. Of choosing the city.

The smart city vision, however, is focused on these second order outcomes, and often with one

overriding motivation: efficiency. Yet the city’s primary raison d’être is to be found amidst its

citizens. If we look there, we find that there is more, much more, to urban life than efficiency. In

fact, many of those primary drivers are intrinsically inefficient, or at least at a tangent to the

entire idea of efficiency. Can a city be “smart” and inefficient at the same time? Perhaps this is a

fundamental question, un-voiced by smart city advocates. We might argue that smartening the

infrastructure enables citizens to make informed decisions, and this is certainly true. But the

infrastructure’s output is hugely limited—it might speak to patterns of resource use, but gives us

little detail or colour in terms of those original starting points for the city, which tend to be

qualitative rather than quantitative, slippery, elusive, transient, subjective.

So to see the city as a complex system to be optimised, made efficient, is to read the city along

only one axis, and hardly a primary one at that.”

Dan Hill (2013). ’Essay: On the smart city; Or, a 'manifesto' for smart citizens instead’

It may be timely therefore to emphasise the difference between an efficient and a smart

implementation. An efficient implementation, considered as functional implementation

mechanisms, is no means a guarantee for a smart implementation that encourages, e.g.

mobile learners and educators, to make informed decisions.

2. Context of the study

Ongoing and future evaluations of Erasmus+

This study has been conducted close to the end of the first implementation phase of

Erasmus+ (2014-2020). The fundamental references for these study are the Education and

Training 2020 EU Strategy (EAT 2020) and Regulation No 1288/2013 which establish the

general principles and regulatory basis for the implementation of Erasmus+. The

planning, interviews and authoring took place during a short period (mid-April to mid-

June 2016) with limited resources. The ambition of this study is not to replace ongoing or

future parliamentary evaluations of the programme, but primarily to offer members of

the European Parliament external and independent perspectives on Key Action 1. It is the

hope of the authors that this study, its Key Findings and Recommendations, will enable

informed decisions.

As the Commission (DG EAC) launched an evaluation of Erasmus+ which will run from

May 2016 to the end of 2017, the authors of the present study have endeavoured to

maintain an analytical distance from the views expressed by the Commission. The

targeted readers of this study are members of the European Parliament, specifically

members of the CULT committee, who on behalf of the citizens of member states, may

take initiatives to maintain or modify the regulations for the programme.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 71

New economic and political contingencies

New challenges and possible threats have emerged since 2013: the financial crisis, the

refugee crisis, political tensions in some member states, persisting even increasing labour

market crisis in several member states, evolving patterns of learning and professional

global mobility, possible Brexit, new cultural tensions, and the armed conflict in Ukraine.

All this challenges place new demands on Erasmus+ in general, and on the various

mobility programmes under Key Action 1.

3. Scope of the study

The research that has led to this study is based on the analyses of regulations, data and

available reports. It presents case studies from different sectors of education, training and

youth. It is also based on surveys and interviews with official actors, Erasmus+ teams in

local institutions, selected National Agencies, the Executive Agency EACEA, National

Authorities, e.g. Ministries, and The Directorate-General for Education and Culture.

It provides a qualitative appreciation, where possible underpinned by quantitative or

qualitative data, of the implementation of Key Action 1 focusing on the achievements and

side-effects of the implementation. Best practices are highlighted, as well as severe

problems in the implementation of Key Action 1.

The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that have or may have

consequences for the implementation of the mobility of individuals in the field of

education, training and youth address the various actions in Key Action 1:

1. in the field of education and training:

a. mobility of higher education students and staff (programme

countries and partner countries)

b. mobility of VET learners and staff

c. mobility of school staff

d. mobility of adult education staff

e. Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree

f. Erasmus + Master Loans

2. in the field of youth:

a. mobility of young people and youth workers

3. Interaction between different sectors is also be examined

Guiding questions

The authors have formulated some initial guiding questions for the research, which are

listed below. As the methodological approach has not enforced a strict structured

questionnaire approach, but has endeavoured to allow and encourage the respondents to

contribute with additional views, documents, and fresh narratives, these questions have

functioned mainly as catalysers for the various individual interviews and panel

discussions.

Guiding questions for the research

 Are the objectives and targets of the programme met?

 In which ways does the programme enhance the mobility of individuals in the field

of education, training and youth?

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 72

 How does the mobility of individuals in Key Action 1 help to raise knowledge and

skills of participants?

 How does Key Action 1 contribute to promoting foreign language skills?

 How does the programme contribute to develop e-skills?

 How are labour market needs correlated with educational efforts in Key Action 1?

 How does the interaction between different sectors of education and training and

youth work?

 How does the global dimension of the programme work?

 Does the programme rise innovativeness?

 How are budget allocations and grant amounts related to the quality of projects?

 How satisfied with the programme and its implementation are (selected)

participants? What would they change?

 How satisfied with the programme and its implementation are (selected) national

agencies and the EACEA (when involved)? What would they change?

 Which groups are better or worse represented in the Erasmus+ Key Action 1

compared with LLP?

 What are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the new structure of the

Key Action 1?

This study includes recommendations for amending Regulation No 1288/2013.

4. Structure of the study

Part I: “Introduction and Methodology” includes the current Chapter 1: “Introduction”.

Chapter 2: “Structure and Methodology” describes a case-based approach which

provides the empirical basis for this study. When and where needed, organisational and

logistic factors, as well as macro-data are included in the analysis. Where both case-

studies and data are readily available, the authors have compiled these and have

combined key findings with knowledge gained from e.g. interviews with implementing

bodies and beneficiaries. The authors have endeavoured to draw an up-to-date and valid

picture of the various activities organised under Key Action 1, in a global educationalist

perspective.

The authors adopt a mixed-methods approach which combines conceptual considerations

from social science literature, empirical data from research about e.g. learner mobility,

statistics from various sources, and own field material collection. Data from different

research publications and official sources provide a reference background and a context

of interpretation for the narratives that have been collected from various actors.

Furthermore, this study uses a SWOT methodology (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities

and Threats) to organise the findings and offer the readers a platform for further

recommendations. All findings are interpreted as external environmental factors, positive

(Opportunities) or negative (Threats), or as internal factors, positive (Strengths) or

negative (Weakness). External and external factors are then related to each other, e.g. the

impact of delays in budget allocations (Threat) on the ratio of grant applications funded

(low ratio=Weakness).

Evolving and formulation recommendations has involved the following steps:

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 73

1. Highlighting key Finding

2. Organising the findings in a SWOT analysis

3. Formulating recommendations, taking into consideration the dimensions

described below

Part II: “Implementation of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 - Empirical Investigation” is

identical with Chapter 3: “Synthesis from interviews and panels” in which the authors

present in a thematised form the research data compiled from the interviews and panels

that were conducted as the empirical part of this study. Guided by the structure of the

Interview Grid (attached in the Annex) a series of interviews and panels have been

completed involving mainly respondents in Europe, but also as well beyond Europe. This

chapter contains several subsections, which introduce and organise the main data in a

systematised and integrated way. The authors integrate in this chapter the data and

narratives collected from independent panels and interviews within a common topical

framework, the views and conclusions of various stakeholders are collated. Finally, the

authors extract, correlate, and possibly contrast issues of major and minor importance.

The interpretation and use of the material presented in this chapter, however, is

performed in subsequent chapters in this study.

Part III: “Implementation of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 - Mobility of Individuals in the

Field of Education and Training” addresses the legal, managerial, and sectoral

implementation of Key Action 1.

Chapter 4: “Implementation Structure” analyses the implementation model that governs

Key Action 1 with specific attention given to the regulatory concepts of “Implementation

Level” and “Implementation Bodies”, and introduces as well the analytical notion of

“implementation mechanisms”. The authors then embark upon a critical discussion of the

linkage between Bodies, Levels, and ‘mechanisms’. Particular attention is given to

describing the transformation of the rather simple implementation model applicable to

Key Action prescribed in Regulation No 1288/2013 into a complex equation involving

‘interaction mechanisms’ between implementation bodies, implementation levels, the 3

Key Actions, and various stakeholders. The ideological tenets of the fully

institutionalised model enforced by the Commission for the implementation of

Erasmus+, labelled by the authors The ‘No Support Given to Individual Participants’

Ideology, is interpreted in light of current theories about multi-level governance.

The evolution of “Free Movers” in European Higher Education, students from all over

the world who organise their study abroad on their own, without participating in an

exchange program, is presented as a test case for negative side-effects of the

uncompromising institutionalised approach adopted in Key Action 1.

This chapter closes with a criticism of the implementation model of Key Action 1, where

the authors argue that the fully institutionalised approach is certainly quite efficient from

the perspective of the Commission and of central and decentral system actors, e.g. DG

EAC and National Agencies, but may nevertheless reduce individuals and groups to

disenfranchised beneficiaries with shrunken opportunities to interact directly with EU

institutions. A strong argument is made for reappraising the institutionalisation model in

Key Action 1.

The authors then analyse various issues linked with the dual implementation system for

Erasmus+ as centralised and decentralised implementation. The role and position of

National Authorities, National Agencies and possible inherent tensions between the

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 74

central and decentral implementation sequences are examined. The views and

communication practices of the Commission are summarised and commented from a

critical perspective highlighting unwanted side-effects. Problems caused by high

expectations of budget increases, e.g. grant amount discrepancies, are addressed. Various

claims by the Commission that Key Action 1 contributes to attenuate social biases in

higher education mobility are reviewed in light of possibly conflicting evidence.

Chapter 5: “Mobility of School Staff” applies the analytical and critical approach

expounded in the previous chapter to the mobility of school staff. Erasmus+ has brought

to an end significant efforts deployed earlier in LLP (Comenius) to encourage e.g. school

class exchanges. The ideology and rationale underlying such an abrupt policy change

from LLP to Erasmus+ is described and discussed, again, in the critical perspective of

New Institutionalism and questions are raised whether the elimination of regular school

class exchanges in Key Action 1 is an over-interpretation of the regulatory framework.

Also, the impossibility in Key Action 1 for individual teachers, or group of teachers, to

apply for mobility is reviewed as a possible obstacle to innovation and change-makers in

school. The high success of eTwinning is commented on.

Chapter 6: “Mobility of Higher Education Students and Staff” provides background

knowledge, e.g. about recent trends in global student mobility and analysis of several

aspects addressing the mobility of students and higher education staff in Key Action 1.

Major trends in global student mobility are arranged in a SWOT matrix to help readers

relate global mobility trends to higher education student mobility in Key Action 1.

Novel aspects of Key Action 1 that target higher education are reviewed in light of the

specific objectives of Regulation No 1288/2013 for this sector. Benchmarks efforts are

commented on as well as budget allocations for higher education mobility. User criticism

and parliamentary criticism of the new terms imposed by the Commission for teaching

assignments in higher education institutions are presented, as well as the views of the

Commission. The novel aspects of Erasmus+ International Credit Mobility (ICM,

including and planned budget use, are reviewed. Claims about improved recognition

rates are also discussed.

Chapter 7: “Mobility of VET Learners and Staff” addresses recent developments in

initial vocational education and training (IVET) and general vocational education and

training (VET), e.g. internationalisation and development of mobility, as illustrated by the

German iMove initiative. The status and role of Erasmus+ Scoreboards by Eurydice and

Cedefop is subject to a critical discussion in view of the fact that information about the

scoreboards is, as of writing, rather limited.

Chapter 8: “Mobility of Adult Education Staff” reviews the organisation in Key Action 1

of Adult Education mobility, which under Erasmus+ is very similar to the approach

chosen for the school sector, in term of the transition from LLP, and relative to the goals

of the programme. The strategy adopted in the Adult Education sector is to move

towards a more institutional approach. Adult Learning Organisations are expected to

function as applicants.

Chapter 9: “Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees (EMJMD)” covers the rather

complex transition from Erasmus Mundus Master courses (EMMCs) under the LLP

programme to its successor the Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees (EMJMD)

programme. The authors review the brief evolution of Join Masters since 2014 and raise

various critical issues, including feedback from various interviewees, that highlight a low

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 75

interest for Joint Masters in many Programme Countries and HEIs. The framing

conditions that may have led to the observed low volume of Joint Master applications are

examined from the perspective of the design of Joint Masters, considering institutional

resistance against joint degrees in many HEIs. The chapter closes with a SWOT analysis

and recommendations.

Chapter 10: “Erasmus+ Students Loan Guarantee Facility” analyses the Erasmus+

Students Loan Guarantee Facility (hereafter called ‘Master Loans’). After a short

introductory descriptive section highlighting budgetary aspects, historical aspects

situating the debate about portable loans and grants for mobile students in Europe in a

broader socioeconomic context is discussed. The views of the Commission as well as the

arguments from critiques of portable EU-loan-schemes are presented and discussed. This

chapter closes with key findings, a SWOT classification and final recommendations.

Part IV: “Implementation of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 - Mobility of Youth and Workers”

Chapter 11: “Mobility of individuals in the Field of Youth” opens with a situational

snapshot organised as a SWOT matrix. It combines findings collected from the 2015 EU

Youth Report (YR2015) and from the European Commission's 2015 Education and

Training Monitor (ETM2015) and Youth National Reports to summarise external and

internal aspects affecting the Youth sector. The authors then review the incorporation of

Youth In Action in the Erasmus+ Programme, reviewing the current implementation in

light of the simplification efforts deployed by the Commission. Various critical issues and

criticisms, including parliamentary criticism, are examined with regards to possible side-

effect of the implementation of the youth activities in Key Action 1. The case of the

proliferation of National Agencies, as it is the case in Belgium and Germany, is

highlighted as an issue. The consequences of the new “Inclusion and Diversity Strategy”

for the Youth related activities in Key Action 1 are discussed in light of the financial crisis

and refugee crisis, and the views of the Commission reviewed. The status of the

European Youth Voluntary Service (EVS) including criticism from a European MP, is

discussed. The Commission’s views on the potential for improvement of the Youth

related activities in Key Action 1 is reviewed.

Part V: “Interaction between Sectors in Erasmus+ Key Action 1”

Chapter 12: “Online Linguistic Support (OLS) Services” offers a detailed and

occasionally incisive coverage of the newly launched Online Linguistic Support (OLS)

Services. The replacement of the decentralised Erasmus intensive language courses

(EILC) under LLP by online, centrally managed linguistic support is reviewed critically.

The original tender and current implementation is studied by the authors to raise critical

questions about the need for the currently practised system. Questions are raised about

the financial arrangements between the private consortium that owns the core engine of

OLS, the pricing of licences, the need for licences at all, and the fact that OLS is a

privatised system closed for independent scrutiny from the language testing research

community and citizens. Various statements originating from the Commission and other

stakeholders claiming evidence that mobility candidates who have used OLS have

improved their foreign language proficiency are reviewed. Also, the lack of documented

compliance with the open ALTE standards for language testing (ALTE Q-Mark) is

discussed. The usage volumes of OLS licenses is examined and the realism of target

numbers questioned. Early user criticisms and response from the Commission is given

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 76

ample coverage. The Chapter closes with a SWOT analysis followed by

recommendations.

Chapter 13: “Conclusions” addresses various issues, e.g. socioeconomic and political

contingencies that may impact the implementation process of Erasmus+. The authors

review a series of measures have been adopted or are envisaged, targeting inclusion of

people from all backgrounds. Such measures apply specially to field of Youth, where an

additional focus has been set on less privileged people. The case of the attribution of

100 000 OLS licences to refugees is discussed in light of the findings in Chapter 12. Other

aspects commented in this chapter are unemployment and labour market needs, violent

radicalisation, possible Brexit, sectoral differences and the value of integrating all sectors

into one programme.

Annexes offer a full bibliography of academic and institutional sources with URL to

published documents. The readers will find the Interview Grid used by the authors and

the questions submitted as part of the DG EAC and EACEA Interview panel at the end of

this section.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 77

Chapter 2: Structure and Methodology

KEY METHODS

 This study adopts a mixed-methods approach as it combines conceptual considerations

from social science literature, empirical data from research about e.g. learner mobility,

statistics from various sources, and own data collection.

 A case-based approach prioritising a global educationalist perspective provides the

empirical basis for this study. When and where needed, organisational and logistic

factors, as well as macro-data will be included in the analysis.

 Where case-studies and data are readily available, the authors have compiled these and

have combined key findings with knowledge gained from e.g. interviews with

implementing bodies and beneficiaries.

 This study uses a SWOT methodology (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and

Threats). All findings will be interpreted as external environmental factors, positive

(Opportunities) or negative (Threats), or as internal factors, positive (Strengths) or

negative (Weakness).

 External and external factors will then be related to each other, e.g. the impact of delays

in budget allocations (Threat) on the ratio of grant applications funded (low

ratio=Weakness).

1. SWOT style methodology

This study is empirically driven, in that it aims at combining survey data, knowledge of

the regulatory framework at a European and national levels, with interview material

from a variety of stakeholders and beneficiaries of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 activities. The

authors use a SWOT methodology

to classify and aggregate interview material with

background data. Accordingly, insights collected from various sources exploited in this

study to produce a meaningful situational analysis.

Internal vs. external factors

As illustrated by Figure 3 the SWOT analysis distinguishes between internal factors (e.g.

strengths and weaknesses observed during the transition phase from the LLP and Youth

in Action Programmes to the Erasmus+ Programme in 2014; observed gaps in

communication between National Authorities and the Commission in some countries; or,

decrease in the volume of submissions of applications to particular activities), and

Weihrich (1982); Ifediora, C. O., Idoko, O. R., and Nzekwe, J. (2014). “These more contemporary

approaches to strategy formulation are developments of the internal appraisal of SWOT analysis rather that a

replacement for it. The advantage of SWOT analysis or the TOWS matrix is its attempt to connect internal

and external factors to stimulate new strategies. Hence resource and competency-based planning can enrich

SWOT analysis by developing the internal perspective whilst keeping internal and external perspectives in

play simultaneously. Rather than seeing SWOT analysis as an outdated technique therefore it is possible to

see it as a firm foundation for resource and competency-based planning.” (Dyson, 2003)

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 78

external factors (e.g. evolution of the labour market, the migrant and refugee crisis, uptake

of the Bologna process in universities).

FIGURE 3: THE FOUR FACTORS OF SWOT ANALYSIS

Internal factors

Strengths

Strengths are all aspects, legal, logistic, financial and human, which contribute or will

contribute to achieve the goals set by the Union for Key Action 1, including the goals

expressed by intermediary actors and beneficiaries. Such strengths may be directly

measurable, e.g. the number of teachers on mobility move, self-assessed e-skills of

individuals. Strengths may equally be non-measurable experiential dimensions, e.g. the

motivation of individuals or groups to engage in Erasmus+ activities, representations

about organisational efficiency in National Agencies, etc. Assumed strengths, that is the

capacity of individual or institutions to deliver task assumed by planners, may not be

identified as actual strengths in the context of execution. Strengths are also broadly

defined resources, e.g. intellectual, organisational, socioeconomic and political,

empowering individuals or groups to respond to challenges and deliver tasks, e.g. non-

formal or formal skills, linguistic proficiency of mobility candidates, degrees of freedom

of actors at various levels. Each actor, an individual or collective, is considered to have a

perimeter of action (Crozier, 1977; Crozier & Friedberg, 2014) where resources can be

used, under constraints, and with varying degrees of freedom.

Weaknesses

Weaknesses are such internal factors, e.g. objective or subjective aspects that impede the

achievement of the goals set by the European Union for Erasmus+ Key Action 1. Such

weaknesses may be linked with observable factors, e.g. legal framework, the

organisation, the logistics, or budgetary aspects, or with not directly measureable factors,

e.g. cultural aspects, and diverging interpretation of the context of implementation. Lack

of skills, or inadequate coordination of virtual and physical mobility may be seen as

Source: https://www.projectsmart.co.uk/swot-analysis.php

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 79

equally crucial weaknesses as budget shortage. Also, legal, logistic, financial and human

aspects pertaining to Implementing Bodies that may concur to prevent the goals set by

the Union for the action to be achieved are weaknesses. Such weaknesses may be directly

measurable, e.g. observed imbalance in the ratio of outbound vs. inbound mobility

candidates in a country or in a sector, defective monitoring of actions, incomplete or

unreliable statistics, lags in decision-making at various levels, or poor linguistic skills of

mobility candidates. Weaknesses may be qualitative characteristics of individual or

collective actors, e.g. low motivation of targeted users, resistance in crucial organisations,

etc. Assumed weaknesses, i.e. weaknesses assumed by planners, may not be actual

weaknesses in the context of execution.

External factors

“Threats may and opportunities may be found in different areas, but it is

advisable to carefully look for the more common ones which may be categorized

as economic, social, political and demographic factors, products and services,

technology, markets and, of course, competition. As mentioned above, the

analysis of these factors must not only pertain to the present but, even more

important, the future environment.” (Weihrich, 1982, p. 10)

Opportunities

Opportunities are external aspects of the environment that any implementation process

may or may not take benefit of. Such external aspects are considered as affordances that

need to be activated. Usually activation of opportunities requires changes in regulatory

frameworks, budget allocations, or communication strategies. Transformation of

opportunities into actions may require cultural adaptation, for example, an increase in

unemployment rates in certain socioeconomic categories or occupational sectors may

boost the demand for individual mobility in a reskilling perspective. Opportunities may

be structural and enduring, or limited in time and space. All aspects of a measurable

increased demand for training may be taken into account to constitute an opportunity.

Opportunities that are not exploited may turn into Threats, e.g. a strong demand for

mobility that is not matched by corresponding grant volumes may turn into negative

attitudes towards Erasmus+ and become an effective threat to the implementation, in that

it will require intensified efforts to reconnect to citizens.

Threats

Threats are conditions external to the programme structure and intended beneficiaries

that may arise in the environment within which the implementation of ERASMUS+ Key

Action 1 operates. Such conditions may together with, or independently of, existing

weaknesses endanger partial or comprehensive aspects of the implementation. Threats

may be unexpected contingencies, e.g. the refugee crisis, economic crisis, visa restriction,

corruption scandals, surge of violent radicalism, or armed conflicts in the neighbourhood

regions that may threaten the success of the operation in given sectors or geographical

areas. Threats may also be well-studied long-term trends that gain momentum during the

programme period and may create weaknesses, e.g. a drop in foreign language education

in secondary education in some countries, a tenacious recession, on-going social conflicts,

etc.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 80

Assembling the SWOT puzzle to produce a situational analysis

“SWOT analysis can thus be seen as an injection into an on-going process rather

than a process per se. SWOT analysis has an old fashioned feel about it but is a

framework which has stood the test of time and can readily incorporate ideas

from newer approaches such as resource and competency-based planning and

scenario development. […] This is crucial in ensuring that significant weaknesses

and threats are not overlooked, and that the potential of the organisation is

fully realized” (Dyson 2003, p. 9).

The observed strengths will be matched with opportunities, and the observed

weaknesses will be matched with threats, spanning four dimensions as shown in

Table 6 below:

Table 6: The SWOT dimensions

Thus all characterisation of actors, resources, and perimeters of action, as Strengths,

Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats need be related to each other following four

dimensions:

SO dimension: Strengths in relation to Opportunities.

ST dimension: Strengths in relation to Threats.

WO dimension: Weaknesses in relation to Opportunities.

WT dimension: Weaknesses in relation to Threats.

As Weihrich noted, “the conceptual model provides a good framework for identifying

relationships, but it can become a complex process when many factors are being identified.” (1982,

p. 12). Such advanced version of the SWOT methodology has been developed by

Weihrich as the TOWS method. Dyson explains that “in the TOWS matrix, Weihrich’s more

ambitious development of the SWOT approach, the various factors are identified and these are then

paired e.g. an opportunity with a strength, with the intention of stimulating a new strategic

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 81

initiative.” (Dyson, 2003, p.2). While the authors of this study are well aware of the

potential of the TOWS matrix, this study does not ambition to perform an exhaustive

collection of all possible factors pertaining to the implementation of Key Action 1, but it

operates on a careful selection of salient factors, that is, such factors that are considered (1)

measurable, or (2) corresponding to perceptions of the implementation as expressed by

diverse actors and beneficiaries. As the time frame and team resources for this study have

been limited, the authors have not investigated all possible interactions but selected

crucial factors with the informants. As a consequence, this study does not utilise the full

toolbox of Weihrich’s TOWS analysis, but concentrates on its core, the SWOT analysis, as

the vocation of this exercise is not to propose future strategies, less policies, for the

Commission or National Authorities, but to produce a situational analysis of the

achievements and failures of the implementations of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 and, where

appropriate, to formulate recommendations. Such recommendations address partial

aspects of the implementation and should not be read as a compound strategy.

2. Construction of assessment and recommendations

The various findings, background data, and narratives collected through interviews and

panels are combined by the authors to explore the tensions between the observed or

interpreted Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats that may apply to the

various actions and sectors in Key Action 1. Evolving and formulation recommendations

has involved the following steps:

1. Highlighting Key Finding,

2. Organising the findings in a SWOT analysis,

3. Formulating recommendations, taking into consideration the dimensions

described below.

WT recommendations (mini-mini)

The aim of mapping WT strategy is to make recommendations that will aim to minimise

both Weaknesses and Threats. A typical case is the Threat posed by stagnating or delayed

budgets allocations to mobility grants and the structural impossibility, in this setting a

Weakness, to respond to an increase of demand for popular grants, an Opportunity that

is not seized. WT strategies chosen by either the Commission or National Authorities

may consist in enforcing defensive measures to prevent backlash among potential

beneficiaries, e.g. convincing potential applicants to postpone mobility or, introducing

preselection procedures. If an Implementing Body, e.g. a NA is experiencing both

external threats, e.g. severe economic crisis or, unfavourable educational climate, and

internal weaknesses, e.g. human resource shortage or organisational inefficiencies, then it

may be in a precarious position, and intervention from governing bodies may be

necessary. WT strategies chosen by actors may be defensive, e.g. limiting damages, or

offensive, overturning the situation.

WO recommendations (mini-maxi)

The dual aim of WO strategy is to minimise the Weaknesses and to maximise the

Opportunities. For example, a National Agency or school may have precisely identified

promising opportunities, e.g. many staff members willing to engage in mobility, but there

may exist organisational or legal obstacles preventing them from taking advantage of the

available human potential. WO counterstrategies may be designed to address directly

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 82

observed weaknesses, or circumvent these by engaging in cooperation with other actors

unhampered by such weaknesses. A typical WO implementation case, is the

institutionalisation in Erasmus+ of school staff mobility. In the former LLP Programme

individual teacher could apply for mobility grants. Under Erasmus+ this is not possible

anymore, as only the school or their governing bodies may apply. It may function well in

many schools, but in some schools, innovation-oriented staff may be blocked by e.g.

school leaders that oppose such activities. Inherent Weaknesses in school leadership may

be amplified by structural constraints (institutionalisation of grant applications) that

become negative external factors, Threats, and block Opportunities (proactive staff).

The ST strategy (maxi-mini)

The aim of ST strategy is to identify the strengths in the organisation that can address the

threats in its environment. A productive strategy is to exploit the strengths to minimise

the threats. This strategy is based on the strengths of the organisation that can deal with

threats in the environment. The aim is to maximise the strengths and minimise the threats

where possible.

SO recommendations (maxi-maxi)

This is the last problematic dimension to address, insofar as Opportunities and Strengths

usually, but not always, match well. SO strategies search to maximise and take benefit

from both Strengths and Opportunities.

Time dimension

In forecasting studies analysts deal with three TOWS matrices: past, present and futures

(e.g. short term, and long term). In this study we deal only with three dimensions: the

past defined as the LLP Programme period, the present defined as the 2014-2016 period

and future being defined as the time window 2017-2020 corresponding to the remaining

Erasmus+ programme period.

SWOT compared with scoreboard indicator methods

As the European Union, the Commission and the European Parliament has favoured a

scoreboard methodology that takes advantage of Eurostat data.

Scoreboards in the EU exploit information, usually statistical tables, and aggregate

information from all the Member States, with available statistics from external sources.

These scoreboards build upon meticulously formulated and designed ‘indicators’,

frequently combining collection of descriptors into composite indicators. The European

Innovation Scoreboards

and the recent Innovation Union Scoreboard

, as well as the

evolving EU Mobility Scoreboard

build upon a rather simplified set of “key factors”

that are supposed to influence e.g. in the case of the Mobility Scoreboard young people’s

European Commission (2016). ‘European Innovation Scoreboards’. Retrieved 07/06/2016 from

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/scoreboards/index_en.htm

European Commission (2015). Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015, European Union, 2015.

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2013). Towards a Mobility Scoreboard: Conditions for

Learning Abroad in Europe, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 83

motivation and ability to study or train abroad. E. g., “The Mobility Scoreboard focuses on

five key factors that influence young people’s motivation and ability to study or train abroad. It

reveals that these factors vary significantly between Member States – and that no single country

scores highly on all measures of their “mobility environment”

. Scoreboards function

primarily as policy planning tools for the European Union and National Authorities, and

more peripherally as source material for media and societal actors. As such scoreboards

tend to rely extensively and exclusively on statistical sources, they allegedly do not

operate on the basis of any particular ideology, governance method, nor do they

endeavour to provide functional descriptions of compound socioeconomic problems (e.g.

they do not explain how unemployment and housing crisis for young people in Spain

may be related to outbound student mobility in this country). Moreover, the

methodology, choices, and considerations leading to the final scoreboard tend to remain,

in most cases, rather opaque with parsimonious provision of source, except the statistics.

SWOT methods may be accused of operating with the same kind of cuisine with data, but

have nevertheless the distinct advantage to offer critical analysts a framework to debate,

criticise the findings underlying the SWOT analysis, but also to explore interconnections

between of internal and external factors. Furthermore, SWOT methods produce a

situational analysis which, given sufficient time and resources, may integrate scoreboard

indicators. Stakeholders and decision-makers may use SWOT analysis to improve

strategies and propose measures to address weaknesses in the institutional setting or

external threats, using existing strengths and taking advantage of opportunities.

Use of SWOT approach in interviews and panels

In the initial phase of this study, SWOT analysis has involved compiling lists of such

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats observed or perceived by different

informants, with supporting documentation where available. It has been a priority for the

design of interviews and panel sessions to map how the respondents understood the

connections between different strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats

regarding all or some aspects of Key Action 1. The intervention style of interviewers, e.g.

choice to intervene at incisive moments, has also been guided by such considerations.

Simplified, each contribution of each informant, an individual or collective, has been

compiled in typical 2 x 2 summative SWOT matrices.

In Table 7 below the reader will find an example of a SWOT matrix analysis a

summarised situational analysis of a fictional institution:

Erasmus+ Journal (2016). Vogel, H. (author). ‘EURYDICE Publication: Towards a Mobility

Scoreboard: Conditions for Learning Abroad in Europe’, Article, 17/2/2016.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 84

Table 7: Example of a SWOT matrix with fictitious content

3. Qualitative research process

The implementation of Erasmus+ is still a very fresh phenomenon to scrutinise. This

speaks in favour of choosing a qualitative approach using a selection of respondents to

express their views on various activities and procedures in Key Action 1. The authors are

fully aware that this approach has clear limitations, but yet, defend the view that using

single cases or narratives as theoretical pillars is a valid scientific approach in such

settings. The qualitative data that have been collected, are both of a reactive and non-

reactive type, i.e. data may have been collected with or without knowledge of a certain

target audience. The interview target group has been guaranteed anonymised

representation of the individual respondents to protect their privacy and integrity.

In both cases, however interview data has been processed and interpreted in order to

identify key principles of configuration, which are typical for a specific thematic relevant

to the implementation of Key action 1. In the case of a central Key Action 1 activity, e.g.

the development of individual mobility under the Erasmus+ framework, stakeholders are

dispersed all over Europe and even beyond. Our first choice has been, in this case, to

identify a suitable research sample consisting of relevant stakeholders. As a matter of

fact, our guiding idea has not been to use any previous quality indicators for selecting a

particular sample, but rather to secure the coverage of a given sector within Key Action 1.

Both authors are well aware with the thematic area covered through this study, in their

own practice and as well through their study of documents produced under the auspices

of Erasmus+ and by others. The authors have also capitalised on their knowledge of other

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 85

national and international education and mobility programmes. All this mix of previous

knowledge, research and professional practice experience has been used as a resource for

the field work. Generally, it can be expected that due to harmonised European policies in

the sectors covered by Key Action 1, similar structures and stakeholders might be found

in each of the EU member states to an extent. Therefore, the authors took the decision to

focus primarily on stakeholders representing a specific Key Action 1 sector than on

stakeholders identified by their national embedding. Of course, such decision may be

criticised for putting aside differential national patterns and configurations.

Another important aspect guiding the selection of particular respondents has been to

integrate the positions and experiences of not only central stakeholders in Europe (which

belong to the Programme countries) but as well stakeholders outside the educational

sector, i.e. respondents from public administration and industry. Furthermore, the

authors decided to include an additional perspective represented by stakeholders or

actors from outside Europe. In such cases where respondents or panels represented more

than one Key Action 1 sector or had multiple professional experience, the interaction did

not explicitly focus on the target group itself. Nevertheless, their participation is of course

central in all narratives collected from the various respondents.

In order to close the interview cycle, all transcribed interview texts have been handed

over to the respondents after each session by one of the two researchers. All the

respondents have accepted that the transcribed text could be used or quoted as part of

this study, and most of them performed some corrections to the submitted interview

transcripts. Afterwards, all validated texts where aggregated following the topical

structure of the Interview Grid. This editing process involved cutting the narratives in

smaller items that would address these questions, and combining these fragments into

core statements representing more than a single respondents or panel.

The next step was to use the answers, categories, or even elements of the narratives, for

triangulating relevant aspects of the implementation of Key Action, i.e., combining

empirical findings with theoretical insights, i.e. theories about governance, and also with

the data selected from official statistics and from various authors. This mixed methods

methodology of combining different data sets with the case studies considered as a very

powerful opportunity for deconstructing and reconstructing recent mobility practices.

Interviews and workshops

The research is based on a narrative data collection, with supporting documentation

provided occasionally by respondents. The fieldwork underlying this study has involved

almost 20 different sessions that have been structured either as individual interviews, or

as panels or workshops gathering a group of persons, but following essentially the same

procedure (see Table 8 below). In some cases, the interviews were conducted by email or

telephone instead of a face-to-face session whereas all panels were completed face-to-

face.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 86

Table 8: Individual, interviews, panel interviews and workshops held April-June 2016

Institution

City

Country

Institution

type

# of

respon-

dents

Individual Interview,

Workshop

or Panel

SIU

Bergen

Interview

Panel

CEDEFOP

Thessaloniki

Interview

Panel

DAAD

Bonn

Interview

Panel

UiB

Bergen

HEI

Interview

Panel

SEPIE

Madrid

Interview

Panel

Oslo

NAU

Interview

Panel

THEC

Manchester

Interview

Panel

LG Pro

Melbourne

IND

Interview

Panel

TUD IFBBD

Dresden

HEI

Interview

Panel

TUD AAA

Dresden

HEI

Interview

Panel

YSU GS

Yogyakarta

HEI

Interview

Panel

STUD

Frankfurt /

Main

HEI

Interview

Panel

PHD

Linz

HEI

Interview

Workshop

DG EAC

EACEA

Brussels

Interview

Panel

GIZ

Bishkek /

Dresden

4+3

Interview

Workshop

DAAD

Bonn

Interview

Workshop

SIEMENS

Erlangen

IND

Interview

Workshop

UNISTRA

Strasbourg

HEI

Interview

Workshop

4. Data sources, surveys and studies

Mixed methods research approach

While, as stated earlier, this study is empirically driven, it is also inspired by the mixed

method research approach

in that it aims at combining survey data, Eurostat data,

reports from various agencies, knowledge of the regulatory framework at a European

and national level, with interview material from a variety of stakeholders and

beneficiaries of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 activities above.

Data from different research publications and official sources have been used to provide

a reference background and a context of interpretation for the narratives that have been

collected from various actors of the system, e.g. students, Erasmus+ coordinators in

institutions, teachers, planners, employees of the Commission etc. E.g. it would have

been difficult for the two authors to offer a meaningful interpretation of the various

narratives about Erasmus+ International Credit Mobility (ICM) without having a

plausible estimation of current trends in global student mobility. In the spirit of

methodological eclectism, the authors have collected and integrated such data, not with

the intention to offer “objective evidence” but rather to offer a resource for debating the

See Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A., 2011.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 87

Key Findings and Recommendations included in this study. That said, the authors have

endeavoured to draw an up-to-date and valid picture of the various activities organised

under Key Action 1.

A patchy landscape

The authors have compiled a comprehensive list of references to surveys, reports and

academic work relevant to this study (close to 200 items). The references have been

organised by period (1998 - 2016) and Key Action 1 sector. The picture that emerges from

this exercise is that most studies reviewed offer general mappings of patterns of mobility

in the various sectors covered by Key Action 1 or impact studies, but frequently with

limited applicability for analysing implementation aspects in Key Action 1. An important

part of the literature reviewed by the authors during the initial phase of this study

applies to higher educational mobility, whilst fewer contributions cover e.g. the Youth

sector, and the organisation of mobility in member states. There is also a shortage of

comparative studies mapping the practices of National Authorities and National

Agencies.

A few meta-studies, e.g. Bonnet (2012a and 2102b) offer limited synthesis of earlier

research but do not address novel aspects of Erasmus+. There are a few independent

surveys covering all or several sectors of Key Action 1, but these surveys have limited

geographical coverage, or are outdated, or are emanating from the European

Commission or the European Parliament. There is indeed a problematic shortage of

academic interest for studying in-depth Erasmus+, and as a consequence, very little

independent research covering the LLP to Erasmus+ transition during the period 2013-

2015.

Key surveys and reports

A non-exhaustive compilation of relevant reports and surveys, and work programmes

covering the period 2011-2016 is listed below:

4. Archimedes (2016). The effects of international mobility on Estonian educational staff. A

survey on the effects of the short-term mobility within the European Lifelong Learning

Programme. (Survey carried out in February and March 2011).

 European Commission (2011). Interim Evaluation of the Lifelong Learning Programme

(2007-2013).

 European Commission. (2012). Study on Mobility Developments in School Education,

Vocational Education and Training, Adult Education and Youth Exchanges. June 2012.

 European Parliament (2012). Erasmus for All.

 European Commission. (2015). Erasmus+ Programme Annual Report 2014.

 European Commission. (2015). 2016 annual work programme for the implementation of

'Erasmus+': the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport C(2015)6151

of 14 September 2015.

 European Commission. (2016). ‘Erasmus+, The First year 26.01.2016’.

References are available in the Annex.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 88

Surveys and studies of mobility in higher education

A few studies covering the period 2006-2012 provide important background knowledge

to detect new developments that may have taken place in the 2014-2016:

 Kelo, M., Teichler, U., Wächter, B. (eds.). Bonn: Lemmens, (2006). EURODATA –

Student mobility in European higher education summarised in Kelo, M., Teichler, U.,

Wächter, B. (2006). ‘Toward Improved Data on Student Mobility in Europe: Findings

and Concepts of the Eurodata Study’, Journal of Studies in International Education,

Volume: 10, Issue: 3, pp. 194-223.

 Souto Otero, M. and McCoshan, A. (2006). Survey of the Socio-Economic Background of

ERASMUS Students, Final Report, DG EAC 01/05, August 2006, offers key findings

and recommendations pertaining to access to student mobility in Erasmus (LLP).

 Vossensteyn, H., Soo, M., Cremonini, L. et al. (2008). The impact of ERASMUS on

European Higher Education: quality, openness and internationalisation. European

Commission, December 2008.

 Teichler, U., Ferencz, I. and Wächter, B. (2011). Mapping mobility in European higher

education. Volume I: Overview and trends. This study produced for DG EAC, June 2011

addresses both learner and staff mobility in educational systems.

 Bonnet, A. (2012a). La mobilité étudiante Erasmus. Apports et limites des études existantes.

This study commanded by the French Erasmus Agency carries out a limited survey

of existing literature and reports on student mobility in the LLP Programme.

Surveys and studies of mobility in the school sector

A few recent meta-studies and studies may throw light on the institutionalisation of

school staff mobility under Erasmus+:

 In another meta-study, of particular relevance for setting in context the transition

from LLP to Erasmus+ school staff mobility Bonnet, A. (2012b). La mobilité individuelle

des élèves, un chaînon manquant dans l’analyse d’impact de la mobilité des jeunes reviews

existing reports on the mobility of school learners.

 Dóminguez Miguela A. (2007). Models of Telecollaboration: eTwinning.

 Kearney, C. and Gras-Velázquez, A. (2015). eTwinning Ten Years On: Impact on

teachers’ practice, skills, and professional development opportunities.

 Zevgitis, T. & Emvalotis, A. (2015). The impact of European programmes dealing with

mobility in secondary education.

Surveys and studies of mobility in Vocational Education and Training

 Kristensen, S. (2008). Rapport consolidé EAC/44/06. “Soutien et encouragement à la

mobilité”. Danish Institute for the Educational Training of Vocational Teachers.

 Wilson, R. A. (2010). Skills Supply and Demand in Europe Medium-term Forecast up to

2020.

 CEDEFOP (2015). Stronger VET for better lives. Cedefop’s monitoring report on vocational

education and training policies 2010-14.

 CEDEFOP (2010). The skill matching challenge. Analysing skill mismatch and policy

implications. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

 CEDEFOP (2015). Analysis and overview of national qualifications framework developments

in European countries. Working Paper No. 27. European Centre for the Development of

Vocational Training. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 89

 UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (2015). Global Inventory of Regional and

National Qualifications Frameworks. Volume II: National and Regional Cases.

 CEDEFOP (2015). National qualifications framework developments in Europe – Anniversary

edition Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union.

Surveys and studies of mobility in Adult Education

 European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice. (2015). Adult Education and Training in

Europe: Widening Access to Learning Opportunities.

Surveys and studies of mobility in the Youth Sector

 European Commission (2015). ‘Situation of young people in the EU’, COMMISSION

STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

 European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2015). Adult Education and Training in

Europe: Widening Access to Learning Opportunities.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 90

PART II

Implementation of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 - Empirical

Investigation

Chapter 3: Synthesis from interviews and panels

Introduction

This chapter is based upon the research data compiled from the interviews and panels

that were conducted as the empirical part of the assessment. Guided by the structure of

the Interview Grid a series of interviews and panels have been completed involving

mainly respondents in Europe, but also as well beyond Europe. Whereas a list of

interview sessions was presented in Chapter I, the Interview Grid is attached in the

Annex to provide insight in the methodology applied and the sample of informants.

The current chapter, with its 5 subsections, introduces and organises the main data in a

systematised and integrated way. Integrating independently conducted panels and

interviews within a common topical framework will enable the authors to extract,

correlate, and possibly contrast the views and conclusions of various stakeholders, and

hopefully distinguish between issues of major and minor of importance. The

interpretation and use of the material presented in this chapter, however, will be done in

subsequent chapters in this study.

Framing conditions to be introduced in the implementation report on the Erasmus+

Programmes’ Key Action 1

The interview was usually completed in a rather private atmosphere in a 1:1 (expert to

informant) situation. In cases where respondents preferred a group meeting a panel has

been organised with only one interviewer interacting with a group comprising between 4

and 12 respondents participating simultaneously. In the following synthesis, there is

however no separation of the individual answer provided in order to ensure an

anonymous treatment of individual opinions. Indeed, the overall data aggregation does

not intend to profile respondents individually. Moreover, our goal is to aggregate the

findings on a sectoral or issue-focused basis.

The preferred approach during interviews and panels was to take brief notes using the

Interview Grid as presented in the Annex. The sectoral and topical structure of the

Interview Grid constitutes also the core structure for this chapter. However, whereas

needed and desirable, the researchers asked the respondents to record the conversations

for further information processing. The signature of a release form by the respondent(s)

was required, otherwise no recording would take place. Only the two authors of this

study are authorised to access the recordings. The interview transcripts are kept in an

anonymised and encrypted file format with separate encrypted keys to identify the

respondent(s). At project completion, or at latest 31 December 2016, the key files and

recordings will be destroyed. No respondents are cited by name in this study.

Furthermore, the informants signed a form devised to meet our ethical requirements,

stating that: (1) all information will be held confidential by the experts, (2) participation is

voluntary and may stop at any time without explanation given, and (3) that the experts

do not intend to inflict any harm.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 91

It was expected that each interview session would last between 30 and 60 minutes and

respondents should be briefly oriented about the purpose of this study in a brief

introduction, before they started to report about their experiences with Erasmus+ Key

Action 1 in a rather open narrative way. However, in average, individual interview

sessions lasted between 60 and 120 minutes, while panel sessions lasted between 180 and

240 minutes.

Respondents used their native language where applicable, including French, German,

Norwegian and English. To ease the processing of multilingual material, all interviews

and panel data were translated into English to enable the authors to include excerpts in

this chapter. In most cases the respondents received a transcript of their statements in

English language for correction and approval.

The interview situation itself was used to pinpoint important aspects of the research in a

Delphi-like manner

, i.e. respondents were invited to comment on the notes taken by the

researchers.

The processing of the interview material follows a qualitative approach, and may not

necessarily use all aspects of the narrative produced by the respondents, i.e. researchers

will select only those sequences they consider meaningful for the present study. Selected

interview sequences have been translated into English language when necessary.

1. Responses to the five main questions

Introduction to the: Erasmus+ Key Action 1 supports mobility in the education, training

and youth sectors and aims to bring long lasting benefits to the participants and the

organisations involved.

Experiences with Erasmus+ mobility in the different sectors

1. Which are your experiences with mobility in the education, training and youth

sectors?

Background of respondents (selected extracts)

Interviewees and panellists had been asked to describe their background in relation to the

educational mobility. From the answers, the following statements had been selected:

 “My first experience in educational mobility dates back the late 1980s as I went as a

student to France. I was studying French, Literature and Russian and went self-

financed to Russia and further places. I remember then that Erasmus was not as

developed as it is today. There was not as much information available as there is

Linstone, H.A. and Turoff, M. (1975).

The SWOT codes S, W, O, and T in the right column of the Interview Grid should be read as:

S=’Strengths’, W=’Weaknesses’, O=’Opportunities’, and T=’Threats’. They are used during and

after the interviews to categorise statements according to the SWOT methodology (see the original

layout of the Interview Grid in the Annex)

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 92

today. I remember that had no real help from my University or other institutions to

organise my stay abroad so I had to manage by myself. This is the kind of experience

I have integrated in my current job as responsible for Erasmus+ at the Faculty of

Humanities at the University.”

 “She is employed at the University in the field of internationalisation/student

mobility and has since worked with various aspect of learner and teacher mobility.

She has also worked during a period for the National Agency where she has been

responsible for Erasmus programmes. Now, she is working full time with Erasmus+

mobility at the University as a central coordinator. She has experienced the transition

phase from the ‘old’ Erasmus programme to Erasmus+ and is able to convey

experience from the transition phase and the implementation phase from 2014 - is

one of the persons who possesses the broadest and most detailed knowledge about

the implementation of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 at her University.”

 “We act as the responsible authority for implementing Erasmus+ in the country.”

 “Concerning Erasmus N.N. is expert since the program started – even in LLL,

working as well as an expert for EACEA continuously and as an international officer

/ recruiter for UK colleges. A typical activity is the collaboration in Youth with UK

colleges and the EU partnering institution in order to develop a suitable curriculum

which allows sending students abroad and ensuring reliable quality of such measure.

Another aspect was sending students into abroad work experiences. As mobility

funding has been used to arrange Youth conferences, in the earlier Youth mobility

periods with people form Twin towns.”

 “I have been Higher Education – Erasmus coordinator of a university for about

20 years with special focus on Key Action 1.03 and 1.07, i.e., I know 3 EU mobility

programmes. “

 “I have worked at the Social Science faculty at the University, then as Erasmus

coordinator in the central administration. I have left my function as Erasmus

coordinator during the transition period from Erasmus to Erasmus+. I am presently

managing International Credit Mobility (ICM) at the University and is currently

interfacing my domain of activity closely to the Erasmus+ programme.”

 “The respondent works as the coordinator of an international graduate school in an

Asian State university that regularly sends students to Europe to participate in either

doctoral or master level training.”

 “We are the internal team of professional education specialists serving a globally

operating enterprise in defining and conduction training for technical staff. “

 “I am working as CEO of a network of public administration and deal as well with

the coordination of (continuous) training activities.”



Respondents’ experiences with mobility (synopsis)

New aspects

First of all, the transition from the Life Long Learning Program LLP to Erasmus+ is

reported having not been as easy as expected – for example: “For me there is not marked

difference. It is basically the same approach to student mobility. However, thinking more about it,

I find that Erasmus+ is more complicated, and that LLP was more flexible. There is much more

complicated paperwork in Erasmus+, application processes go slower and it is more procedure-

oriented.” For example, the current Learning Agreement is more challenging in Erasmus+

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 93

than in the LLP Programme. It is now a two-step process, while it was a single-step

process under LLP. “Under LLP you needed only a mobility project with recognition. When this

was done, the student was good to go. Now under Erasmus+, you need a mobility project + a list

of course at home + a list of course at the host institution and a firm contract.” This leads to

serious critique: “All this is not necessary. It makes the process unnecessarily more demanding.

There are too many signatures to add to documents. This has been discussed with colleagues from

other faculties in the University and they all agree to criticise the complication of the new

Erasmus+ mobility package.” Indeed, when asked for new aspects about mobility under the

Erasmus+ program respondents mention the Learning agreement as a central concern

and state that “New with Erasmus+ is the new LA with a pre-mobility recognition acceptance

which means a new effort and perhaps less flexibility.” In their opinions students “shall more

easily combine the international experience as part of the local programme”. However, some

concern is expressed concerning the opportunity to collect “additional experiences on both

subject and culture, which should be valued more as the European dimension needs a serious

personal experience.”

Strategic positions

Usually a Ministry of Education is acting as National Authority for Erasmus+ and “has

enforced a full delegation of all implementation responsibilities to a public National Agency in

charge of Higher education”. The National Authority “adopts a system perspective, which

means that it delegates functions and decisional powers to the National Agency regarding

Erasmus+ activities (except Youth programmes).” It also monitors “closely the developments of

Key Action 1 through frequent contacts e.g. with higher education institutions, educational

directors in the school sector.”

As well, a strategic approach is chosen in the HEI which means that a focus on specific

university needs is developed from a global perspective – for example the Erasmus

Charter for Higher Education (ECHE) “has been developed centrally and the local partners at

the departments were involved in a 2

step for defining specific realisation measures. Thus there is

a serious administrative effort much higher than a small college can deal with where only one

person handles all issues by her or himself. Specific is a central versus decentral differentiation at

the larger university while as well internships are run by an independent Leonardo office that

cares for several universities.” Concerning relations with the National Agency, a respondent

mentions that they often “have no regular contacts with the National Agency in. It is the

Section for International Relations in my university which is in touch with them, and which

organises internal coordination meeting.”

At the beginning of the new program there was a huge demand for information from

users when Erasmus+ was launched in 2014. A National Agency in charge of higher

Education had the choice between two alternatives at the beginning of 2014: the first

alternative was “to refrain from disseminating partial information until all information was

made available by the EU, a choice which would have led to obvious problems e.g. a temporary

decrease in EU funded mobility from and to the country” , while the second alternative, “which

we went for, was to disseminate as much information as we had, in order to address as soon as

possible frustrations among our users.”

In some cases, this starting phase went along with a strategic choice “to diffuse all readily

available information using all our communication channels, e.g. our Website, newsletters, and

information meetings with institutional actors in Higher Education, primary and secondary

education, VET and Adult Education. The general perception at HE-NA and among our users is

that we initialised the implementation process quite early despite partial shortage of information”.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 94

Recent observations emphasise that the Erasmus+ International Credit Mobility “works

very well in the country. Fortunately, outgoing German students are well interested in all states /

regions in the Erasmus+ and beyond”. Yet there are differences reported between incoming

and outgoing mobility, which is in some cases, intended (more incoming). While some

regions are stronger in out (Northern Hemisphere, Latin America, and Russia etc.), there

is no data yet for differentiation of subjects so far.

One respondent describes a “danger of moving mobility (for free movers) into the institutional

model” which would, as a side-effect, empower the governments currently exhibiting

autocratic tendencies to implement mobility arrangements selectively i.e., giving priority

to students with certain ideological orientations or promoted by ideological networks: “I

know that Hungary and Turkey are being very selective whenever they get a chance (casual but

reliable talks with students and teachers).”

Specific aspects of mobility target groups in HEI, Public administration and industry

“PhDs educated at our university who have applied for ERC (European Research Council)

starting grants have a low success rate”, because of their “prior lack of mobility”. There is

therefore an obvious connection between failure to obtain ERC grants and the low

mobility track-record of applicants from our university. Another reason may be the

strong occupational and financial terms for PhDs, e.g. in Norway: “a common explanation

is rather paradoxical: most universities and national PhD candidates are recruited competitively

in doctoral programmes and received a 3-year or 4-year grant and a status as employee at the

university, including quite attractive salaries.” Such exceptional conditions for place some

national PhDs enrolled in official doctoral programmes (excluding incoming quota PhDs

from developing countries) in a clear privileged situation, compared with the vast

majority of foreign PhD candidates for postdoc grants.

In industry, the main goal of participating in organised mobility is to “strengthen the

development of the right competencies to serve customer requirements and needs in the respective

industry world-wide in the best possible way.” The engineering degree addresses different

competence levels and tends to overlook the available diversity, and as a result being an

"engineer" from Germany does not represent any particular brand. The current ideal is to

be an engineer graduated from a University of Applied Sciences. A differentiation of the

quality of engineering education does not matter very much in Europe, but degrees from

outside Europe may be of different (sometimes, lower) quality. However, there are very

different initial levels of vocational training out (skilled workers versus technicians

versus BA versus MA).

The institutional interest for professional development of public administration staff, as

reported in an interview, is to “ensure an educational experience with contemporary issues

after many years of work experience in order to stay open and up to date on an international

dimension.” Such is realised without Erasmus+ funding in UK, Sweden, Germany (Berlin)

and partly in the USA and Canada. The interviewee underscores that “personal interest is

crucial in order that best development happens when people work in a different cultural and

institutional context.”

Supporting technologies and measures

To some extent, the mobility activities need to be supported by specific measures and

technologies in order to allow both, efficient administration and, also, systematic

consultancy addressing the European dimension. Among all noteworthy activities, some

main activities were mentioned:

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 95

- the Erasmus Pro Initiative by the European Parliament which “has been started in

order to investigate the extension of mobility in Initial Education and Training (IVET) to

6 months at least instead of currently 3 weeks only, which is a promising expectation

especially for Vocational Education and Training (VET). “

- the so-called European tools for mobility, the European Qualifications

Framework and all accompanying tools like Euro Pass, European Credit System

for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET), and European Quality

Assurance in Vocational Education and Training (EQAVET).

- the inventories of mobility measures in the various EU Member States labelled as

“mobility scoreboard” which include a mobility scoreboard for initial vocational

education and training (IVET), existing since 2015 as scoreboard for both,

Erasmus+ and MOVE and online in December 2016 via Cedefop and a similar

scoreboard in the sector of Higher education already in 2012 by Eurydice.

Views of the respondents on the implementation of Erasmus+

2. How has the implementation of Erasmus+ KA1 been initiated during the start phase 2014-

2016?

In the next section of the interviews and panel, respondents were asked to discuss their

perception of how the implementation of the new Erasmus+ KA1 had been initiated

during the start phase 2014-2016

Difficult start

When asked about their experience about the start phase of the implementation of

Erasmus+ KA1 (2014-2016) respondents focused not only on the overall program, but

also on national or local activities. Furthermore, the special partnership with the national

agencies was usually perceived as fruitful, e.g. “cooperation with DAAD is fine, timely and

well developed information and as well open for local experiences”.

Especially the “new strategic partnerships launched under the Erasmus+ programme Key Action

2 is perceived as a new dimension in our university”. There is a growing interest to engage in

such cooperation in the university at different levels, as the institution, in which the

respondent was employed, has not been participating in large co-operational

programmes earlier, apart from e.g. intensive programmes. But respondents mention as

well that there is “a growing pressure from policy and a general positive climate in the

institution contributing to develop strategic partnerships.”

Another interviewee dwells on experiences dating back to 2014 recalling that “the

transition phase to Erasmus+ in 2014 was rather chaotic. The mobility team at the and in HEIs all

over Europe experienced a huge flow of information from the EU and the NA. We did not receive

crucial information from the EU, nor the NA did (and could not always assist us). Not before

June/July Autumn semester 2014 it was possible to go back to normal (this applies particularly to

the implementation of Interinstitutional Agreements, Learning Agreements and Grant

Agreements). Overall we used around 1 year to implement satisfactorily the legal and

administrative structure of Erasmus+ ICM in our university. We have also used more time to

adapt to KA2.”

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 96

Even though most voices are critical, some express a different and quite positive

perception: “The change from LLP to Erasmus+ has not been brutal in any aspect from my

position. Most mobility schemes were indeed effective before Erasmus+, e.g. PhD mobility was

possible, we had Staff Exchanges, etc. Perhaps the central Educational Administration has another

opinion. From our position there is not much difference.”

However, the overall situation was differently perceived, at the beginning the Erasmus+

started delayed with information about practical implementation: “2014 has been a

catastrophe”. Thus in average the transition process from Erasmus to Erasmus+ in 2014-

2015 is described as “a road paved with many difficulties” as the new instruments from

student and teacher mobility started to be implemented, several shortcomings and

obstacles emerged quickly, “which added significant burdens to the individuals responsible to

implement the new mobility framework. “

For a large HEI with approximately 800 contracts this was not manageable, especially

when considering specific process needs like summer vacations need to be considered

(then students and staff are abroad) and realisation became almost impossible: “As a

consequence, the number of mobilities went down but now (2016) the program is working well. “

Administrative Efforts

Another concern is the increased administrative and statistical effort: “In comparison, the

administrative effort in Erasmus (LLP) compared with the new Erasmus+ effort has grown quite a

lot - learning agreements are more comprehensive, two reports by students (one online survey and

an experience report) were introduced additionally.” However, one may find a positive

feedback as well “Thanks to a close and high-quality cooperation with the NA, our university

was able to overcome the initial implementation obstacles. As the new framework Spring 20145

and Autumn 2014 was not totally implementable, the NA allowed us to ‘patch’ by applying the

old Erasmus rule while waiting for better instruments. However, the communication overhead

was rather huge during this period.”

As well it seems that implementation activities are still “under construction” when

respondents report that access to online reporting is new (the online mobility tool) and is

about starting only during 2016. Still, “there is no opportunity for producing our own statistics

on the basis of those data, but the local University has its own management program (“Move on”)

to administer which is financed by the local university itself” (German enterprise with new

British hub / there is another software by an Austrian company). Online Linguistic

Support (OLS) management is organised by another portal (which is not linked with

Move on), students register themselves.

Usually larger Educational actors employ specialized staff dealing with the mobility: “All

in all, there is a group of persons that handle the different efforts (1 fulltime coordinator, 1 50%

mobility officer, a part time contract for IT Admin, further staff for admin with 40% for detailed

programs e.g. staff mobility)”

National coordination and institutional specialisation

To some extent national specifications are interesting, i.e.: “New [to us] is the horizontal

approach in Germany with 4 different stakeholders, but fortunately all institutions are located in

Bonn, incl. the national Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung

und Forschung BMBF) as coordinating National Authority. Inter-sectoral collaboration has

improved but has still usual limitations. Interaction between NAs, DG EAC works well via

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 97

BMBF as coordinating national authority, most of the publications etc. is integrated, joint

approaches can be developed (for example concerning migrants).” What is noteworthy as well is

that “from the HEIs perspective there is no interaction between sectors observed so far. An

exception might concern VET-related programmes due to their linkage between teacher training

and vocational education institutes. “

Typically, the Ministry of Education has enforced a “full delegation of all implementation

responsibilities to non-public HE-NA”. Seen as a whole, the Erasmus+ phase stretching from

2014 to 2016 amounts to a “strengthening of a vertical delegation model in the implementation

of Erasmus+ and other mobility and cooperation programmes in the educational sector in the

country”. The general perception at responsible HE-NA and among their users is that

they “initialised the implementation process quite early despite partial shortage of information.

Already the implementation of sub-actions managed by other organisations, which are now part of

our Erasmus+ mandate”. The mandate was given to HE-NA already in 2006, with one

notable exception, the Leonardo programme that remains managed until the end of 2013

by another institute. It is as well usual that a HE-NA does “not have regularly scheduled

planning meetings with the Ministry but tends to organise meetings with it when new

implementation phases call for close communication, for example as so-called dialogue meetings”.

Meetings are used to improve work programme’s content: “Harmonisation happens via two

meetings annually and numerous consultative working groups of all NAs work is a fine but

important measure and Erasmus projects are often warmly welcomed by the recent staff.”

Concerning Erasmus+ there is a serious concern that the micromanagement done by the

National Agencies is problematic because of the additional bureaucracy and its, in the

opinion of the interviewee, unnecessary influence (“Here the question is: why is it done in

this way?”) As well from Erasmus (LLP) to Erasmus+ “improvements in the practice are not

as easily visible but the higher level of micromanagement needed makes it harder to complete it”

(i.e., the applications or concrete actions) – for example the ECHE application itself is a

challenge for smaller educational institutes. Eventually the “diversity of institutions is

reduced compared to the preciously high institutional diversity when this rather been

encouraged.”

Concerning motivation for institutional participation in mobility it is said that “an

important development in Higher Education in the country is the adoption of budgetary incentives

for institutions depending on participation in Erasmus+”.

Specific aspects of the programme with regards to the target audiences

Given the management structure for the implementation of Key Action 1 (from DG EAC

to National Authorities, then to National Agency, to Institution, and to Student), the

mobility team at the respective university “can report positive experiences in linking upward

to the NA, and downward to faculties and departments at the respective university”. There is

little direct contact with the Ministry and none with DG EAC, except for events at the

invitation of the NA. Information from NA may arrive late, not due to malfunctioning in

the NA, but due to late arrival of information to the NA from the EU. Occasionally the

NA “does not know either”.

Based on Marie Curie PhD mobility from and to the respective university, the ratio of

inbound versus outbound mobility “is strongly in disfavour of our university’s candidates and

strongly in favour of inbound mobility candidates”. The last planned inbound versus

outbound Marie Curie PhD mobility ratio from sample faculties was: “Psychology 10/3;

Natural Sciences 32/3; Law 5/1; Humanities 5/1; Social Science 5/1; Medicine-Dentistry 20/3”.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 98

“Students report frequently wrong data to the EU and nothing is done neither to secure the

quality of the feedback, nor control the veracity of the reporting. There is a need to improve the

quality assurance of the student feedback to the EU.”

The possibility to have two mobility stays abroad under Erasmus+, as opposed to one

stay under LLP is a very positive innovation. Respondents experience “more demand in

higher education for practice-oriented mobility – internships, work placements, at all faculties”.

Recognition of international qualifications requires review by national authorities. For the

industry the challenge is a renewed competency assessment, i.e. “what role rankings play

by the company in the selection decision for a university by students and the selection of

students”. Significant are industry specific qualifications (for specific training) and the use

of test methods for detecting certain dispositions. As well the industry education

specialists “need to understand what is the role of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF)

or other qualifications frameworks and how to identify skills as starting points of an assignment in

the Qualifications Framework not only on a purely formal structure?”

“All EU budget allocations for the implementation of Erasmus+ in the country have been used,

e.g. in higher education”. Some respondents report having additional budget resources

they may use for meeting the demand for state funds to finance education. Another

respondent states that “the current focus is on staff mobility in higher education. However, all

budget means are already used”. School staff mobility is also limited by budget constraints.

“We have also a current focus on Knowledge Alliances and Strategic Partnerships, but this is not

part of Key Action 1.”

There were expectations linked with the Commission’s announcement of a 40% budget

increase for Erasmus+: “We attend budget meetings in Brussels about Erasmus+. We attended

also diverse meetings with the Commission during the transition from LLP to Erasmus+.

However, since we are an EFTA and not EU country, the Ministry is not participating in budget

negotiations with the Commission. There some amount of frustration in the Ministry due to the

fact that it is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which communicates with the EU, but not the

Ministry of Education”. The respondent from the National Authority feels that they are “on

the side-line of the central processes which affect Erasmus+. We get the bill from Brussels, but we

do not take part in the central decision-making.” To deal with this situation the National

Agency has regular meetings under the auspices of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to

keep abreast with the recent developments. “All negotiations about Erasmus+ are managed

by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs” and such negotiations deal only with the amount of

administrative costs. “The effects of the fluctuation of the national currency relative to the

EURO is part of the equation that needs to be solved” while national projections are based on

the EU’s Programme proposal adopted in 2011 or 2012, “which offered commitments but no

firm payments for running the programme”. Currently budget allocations and expenses

incurred for Erasmus+ are adjusted according to the yearly GDP level. “So the issue, from

the perspective of the government is: do we want to pay the bill or not?”

Political framing in Europe and beyond

Higher Education benefits indeed from a more flexible and less limiting regime, i.e. the

Erasmus+ Charter, “after a Higher Education Institution signs it, is not evaluated again but

accepted largely as is”. While the intention is to create networks pooling together strong

partners, “neither the NA nor, most of the time, HEIs have the capacity to assess the quality and

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 99

sustainability of these networks. Nevertheless, the NA carries out every year an internal quality

check of applications for mobility grants.”

The NA supports very much the fact that Erasmus+ is building on two pillars: mobility

schemes and cooperation. However, it is observed that “the conditions set by the EU

Commission for the diverse sectors targeted by Key Action 1 are unequal. The Higher Educational

sector enjoys a high degree of flexibility and formalities are reduced to a strict minimum. However,

other sectors, e.g. primary and secondary education, VET School, Adult Education (AD) and

Youth are submitted to a much more control-oriented regime. This may create practical obstacles

for mobilising e.g. schools, companies, teachers, workers and ultimately learners. The VET sector

are experiencing a higher degree of flexibility with the implementation of the VET Mobility

Charter”.

Global international networks in industry have “no specific usage of Erasmus+ because of

non-European heritage.” However, there are specific programmes by a national

organization for senior managers among Australia, USA and Canada. Within such

programmes “Overall, only part of the contact (some time) is dealing with international

mobility.”

European Policy Dimension

In practice, the implementation model of Erasmus+ follows a dual sequence. The first

sequence – the decentralised sequence – of tasks goes through the National Authorities to

the National Agencies (which need though to comply with internal control rules set by

the Commission), and from the National Agencies to institutions and to the ultimate

beneficiaries, e.g. mobile grant holders. The second sequence – the centralised sequence –

is for parts of the Erasmus+ Programme that cannot or should not be decentralised, and

is managed centrally from the Commission, through DG EAC acting with and through its

Executive Agency (EACEA). In the opinion of a panellist from DG EAC,

“there may be pragmatic reasons to wish to reorganize aspects of the

implementation, in particular decisions to recentralise, or conversely, decentralise

activities. Reorganisation may be an option in case of substantial increase of

budget appropriations to Erasmus+ and subsequent amplification of activities.

However, this is not likely to happen, as the Council and the Parliament have

instituted a double implementation system (centralised and decentralised

modes). The approach of DG EAC is to keep at a national level the

implementation of aspects that are closest to end-users. For large-scale actions

like mobility or cooperation that involve a large numbers of potential grass-root

activities, the approach is to manage these actions centrally through the

Executive Agency. “

“Seen from the perspective of the Commission, there is a clear logic underlying

this system, which should be maintained more or less as it is today. There is a

well-functioning network of 60 National Agencies. The Commission has a

positive feedback about the way the National Agencies manage the allocated

funds within the framework of the financial regulations for Erasmus+. From a

purely mechanical perspective, the current implementation structure works fine.

In the opinion of DG EAC this works well for the beneficiaries as this approach is

the closest possible to end-users. “

There are also other actions which are either smaller actions or which may not

make sense to spread among many countries, and there are actions which have a

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 100

high political interest for the Commission, and can be managed more efficiently

by the Executive Agency. It is the appreciation of the DG EAC that the dual

approach described above is both cost-effective and politically appropriate.

However, when and if the Programme budget is or will be increasing, as

announced, it may make sense, hypothetically, given the money allocated to for

every member state, to decentralise further activities to the national level.

Usually such reallocations of responsibilities occur between two programmers,

but not at mid-Programme stage. Concretely, if the limited budget increased

dramatically and a realistic substantial increase of the volume of mobilities

funded under Key Action 1 could be implemented, it would nevertheless not be

legally feasible for the Commission to recentralize or decentralize activities, as

DG EAC is bound to implement all aspect of the Programme in line with legal

regulations, which prescribe very clearly what should be managed centrally and

what should be managed decent rally. Substantial reorganisation is, in the

experience of DG EAC, not an internal issue to discuss at this stage, as DG EAC is

satisfied with the current implementation regulations. National Agencies are

operating only at a national level, and deliver what the Commission expect from

them. They have an obligation to deliver quantitative and qualitative results. As

of today, DG EAC has no indications emanating from beneficiaries that the

National Agency system may pose problems. There have been only occasional

difficulties which have been solved. E.g. a temporary suspension of a Programme

in Greece in the Youth sector only was enforced.

Such problems, however, are very rare in the history of Erasmus+ and former

Programmes, as they occur once or twice in one or two Programme countries

within a whole Programme period. In the case of Greece, the nature of the

problems that have been addressed do not justify revising the global

implementation model of Erasmus+

Some criticism has been voiced by European MPs that the DG EAC or the

Executive Agency is not close enough to people. DG EAC has also received

criticism from users requesting that the treatment given by the National Agencies

should be more homogeneous and that recentralisation of services and

procedures would secure fair treatment.

However, DG EAC defends the view that the current implementation model

offers the best possible distribution of tasks and functions. Moreover, there are no

financial means, nor resources to recentralize activities.”

Migration and the cut-off with Switzerland

It is described that the new special needs focus of Migration can be adopted as a cross-

sectoral approach, i.e. Erasmus+ opens for possibilities to address the recent needs can be

addressed – what happens indeed. However, “the recent effort of up to 400 million EUR is

not addressed directly even though it would be possible”. Fortunately, many intercultural

issues addressed in other projects can be re-used.

Another concern is that Switzerland has officially resigned from Erasmus. However,

exchanges go on as the Swiss-European Mobility Programme is still functioning; mobility

support is provided by the Swiss partner universities.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 101

As well, it is argued in a neo-institutionalist manner, concerning socialisation and

European integration, that the “Re-institutionalising will neither be serving the goal of

promoting European integration through mobility because socialisation into European values

happens through direct contact with the EU in institutions”. In other words, there is almost no

opportunity left for applying directly and getting grants, corresponding with EU

institutions, and experiencing their impartiality and sense of the rule of law, contracting

with EU institutions, working in EU-funded activities that facilitate contact with EU

institutions etc.

Organisational and financial aspects

3. Which aspects of the allocation of financial means may contribute to or inhibit the

implementation of KA1? How has your institution in organisational and financial aspects

contributed positively or negatively to the implementation of Erasmus+ KA1?

 eLearning and distance learning?

 Budget issues?

When asked about their experiences with financial, organisational and online learning

aspects, respondents did comment many details, which are sorted below into

organisational versus financial, whereas the first synopsis includes statements about the

online learning aspects as well as visa affairs and migration aspects.

Organisational aspects

“With Erasmus+ we experience as National Authority that managing the communication with

Brussels and the National Agency is a challenge. We have a huge responsibility to implement and

monitor Erasmus+ in the country, but we do not take part in the governance of the Programme.

The flow of decisions and key information goes directly from Brussels to the National Agency, and

not to the National Authority.” Respondents have to take the “responsibility for the whole

setup”. In retrospect, under LPP, the National Authority occupied a much more central

position in the national governance of the Programme. These recent developments,

focusing on the DG EAC – National Agency communication are linked with new

monitoring rules enforced Commission. “This has created to some confusion in the National

Authority. By all means, our relation to the National Agency and the Commission is constructive.

However, it is worth stating that, today, the flow of communication goes from Brussels to the

National Agency”. As a consequence, while the communication between the Commission

and the National Agency is satisfactory, it is “not sufficiently inclusive between the

Commission and the National Authority”.

“Erasmus+ means much more administrative effort.” This is the main finding on the

administrative dimension in all the sectors – but does not only focus on statistics but

moreover on communication and information needed to reach and mobility the target

groups. For example, it is described:

 “The university should spend more efforts, because it is not completely clear why

students are not especially interested.” Obviously, there are limitations in certain

disciplines like teacher training studies where students have a strong focus on

local or national markets. Most mobile students are those who already move to a

different city in the country when beginning their studies. Linguistic and

intercultural competency is high in economics, philosophy, languages, but some

engineering departments show very low interest. Recognition is partly still an

issue in motivation for mobility.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 102

 “Lasting commitment to accept a high number of incoming students and PhD candidates

in our university irrespective of low outbound mobility.” PhD mobility is not handled

directly form the administration, only post-doc mobility, as PhD mobility is

mainly delegated to project coordinators, e.g. leading scientist. The PhD

coordinator in our university comes into function only after the selection has

taken place and is responsible for handling incoming PhDs from abroad. “Our

university has rejected a proposal to impose a mandatory 3-6 months stay abroad for

doctoral programme PhD candidate despite several attempts. There is a requirement to

secure full funding in our university before accepting inbound PhD mobility candidates.”

 “The approach in our university is multi-instrumental, as we tend to combine in the best

possible ways a varied spectrum of agreements, financial and legal resources to offer

student and PhD candidates attractive mobility packages.” Erasmus+ KA1 is an

important but not the only instrument used. The university also tends to

integrate student and research mobility together, where possible.

 Respondents explain having succeeded to manage a large spectrum of mobility

instrument ranging from ‘simple’ bilaterally agreed student mobility (e.g. with a

university in New Zealand) to complicated packages combining Erasmus+ ICM

(student and teacher exchanges), bilateral agreements, research cooperation,

institutionally funded PhD mobility and e.g. curriculum development. For

example, programmes and frameworks complementary to Erasmus+ Key

Action 1 in Norway are the EURASIA Programme, UFORSK, SPIRE Seed money,

etc. Erasmus+ KA1 also contributes to open up new areas for mobility e.g.

Tunisia, and Canada while mobility from Cameroon is covered by national and

local money. “So, in some cases Erasmus+ ICM is the core engine, in other cases

Erasmus+ ICM is complementary.”

 In one case it is described that there is an unresolved tension between the long-

term goals for student mobility in a university and the financial, legal and

administrative environment within which Erasmus+ ICM operates. i.e.: “As

Erasmus+ is functioning currently Erasmus+ ICM contracts offer only a 1-year window

for grant allocations. Every year calls for new grant packages are issued from the EU

(approximately 2 Mio € each year), however the ICM contracts have a 24 months’

horizon, while the beneficiaries can opt for an 18 months or 24 months long project period

with the National Agency.” Obviously the financial, legal and administrative

dimensions need to be harmonised better, as this leads to too much uncertainly

for the main beneficiaries of these grants, and can demotivate HEIs, particularly

outside the EU-EEA. Additionally, Erasmus Mundus had/has a 3 years’ project

duration, while Erasmus+ ICM has a shorter duration. This is bewildering for all

stakeholders.

 In an Asian university, the interviewee states that “overall, some Joint Degrees

Programmes (Joint Masters, Joint PhDs) implemented are well managed from both, the

European and the Asian side”.

 One of the universities interviewed manages quite efficiently to encourage

applicants to keep in the race for ICM grants. The politically motivated imbalance

in allocation of Erasmus+ mobility budgets between various partner country

regions, and comparatively low level of grant allocations to regions and countries

with whom the university cooperates has a long and rich cooperation history

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 103

(e.g. East Africa, South Africa) diminishes the attractively of Erasmus+ ICM

among solid international actors in the university employing an interviewee.

Unavoidable lags in the allocation process reduce further the time window available to

students and teachers involved in Erasmus+ ICM. The start of activities does rarely

coincide precisely with the start of the grant period, which quite frequently, as it takes

time to mobilise all partners and students, tends to stretch past the end of the grant

period.

“There is a general understanding among the ICM team in the university that the EU does not

want too big partnerships. This creates in many cases problems for the university, as we need to

engage in cooperation with many partners.”

Evaluation of Erasmus+ ICM applications at national level are handled very differently

from country to country in Programme countries: “It is difficult to see the logics of evaluation

of applications which target the same countries, as each application may get totally different

evaluators and there is no synergy at evaluation stage to pick the most promising projects region

wise or country-wise”. E.g. in France and Norway the National Agencies evaluate

applications under different conditions. There is a need to clarify such issues for each

country and at EU level.

Visa affairs and migration aspects

A positive sign is that in another case former obstacles due to immigration regulations for

mobile students coming to the country have been removed recently. E.g. strict rules

requiring incoming students to document a minimum personal cash reserve prior to

getting visa and stay permit in the country have been removed for non-EEA students.

As well, a National Authority considers “that developing complementary national initiatives

in synergy with Erasmus+ is very important for the Higher Education sector in the country. It

has communicated new initiatives targeting refugees and migrants, which have been taken by

heads of state. However, nothing has concretised yet.”

Regarding the Youth Programme activities (former Youth in Action under LLP) there is

an “intense discussion going on, as the EU wants a unique National Agency dealing with all

sectors, while the Ministry of Children and Equality wants a separate National agency for Youth.”

Online learning aspects

eLearning and distance learning are seen as highly relevant issues in the new funding

lines. i.e. Online Linguistic Support (OLS) services for language learning and testing. As

well the programme management in the respective university is completely online –

which plays a huge role for those who are funded and as well for the management and

administration of mobility activity.

Even though webinars are used often, “virtual mobility, however, no replacement for physical

mobility” and blended virtual and physical mobility, i.e. including virtual methods before,

during and after physical mobility, is preferred. As a number of Key Action 2 projects

address eLearning and blended learning topics, they could contribute to evolve new

variants of blended mobility.

In another case, an interviewee states that “eLearning and distance learning is not an issue, as

there are no specific offers.” However, most of the information for students used is online

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 104

and digitally available. A highly advanced course is the international online group work

in business informatics.

“We are developing the concept of ‘internationalisation at home’ as part of our general strategy for

Higher Education. Virtual schemes will then contribute to support our goal to increase mobility in

higher education in the country. The EU, through Erasmus+, formulates clear objectives to

increase mobility in Europe and elsewhere. Promoting virtual mobility with the same intensity

may counteract physical mobility. This relationship needs to be reflected over more critically.”

However, “even though online learning is very useful it is always only a part of overall and not a

replacement of it.”

Some respondents are rather enthusiastic when stating that “eLearning and virtual mobility

is the future of education but students still need to meet physically”. Here it is suggested that it

might be interesting to compare the U.S.A. and Australia linkages of the EU education

versus other commercial national programmes.

Also, from a global academic perspective (i.e. concerning mobility between Asia and

Europe) respondents express their interest for “using a Virtual mobility” which currently

implemented only and, to a limited extent, as shared video lectures including scholars

abroad. Yet, especially “for students from another continent this form of mobility helps quite a

lot preparing physical exchange in a better quality.” Given the explosion of Skype

conferencing in professional and private spheres, this is hardly a revolutionary

breakthrough.

The role of digitisation and virtual mobility need to be estimated more systematically. In

industry, it is explained that “here it is also about remote services, industry 4.0”. Important

are job-related flexibility, individual acquisition of knowledge and the role of knowledge

transfer. Digital Learning in the form of web-based training and eLearning are perceived

as increasingly important. The problems that remain is e.g. the cost of linguistic

adaptation (cp. the translation in 6 languages in OLS). In addition, online collaboration is

only slightly accepted when it is recorded, as recording and global diffusion, e.g. on

YouTube, challenges cultural values and raise concerns about e.g. Intellectual Property

Rights (IPR), and integrity. The efforts to be deployed to allow professional media

production would be humanly and financially arduous. In contrast with ‘heavy’

professional production, e.g. MOOCs, TedTalk-like settings, online cooperation is more

event based (and is used in a peer-to-peer context, in supervision, restricted workshops,

etc.), e.g. in a webinar manner. The recommended conclusion from vocational and adult

education in industry is that e-learning should “serve those requirements which prove

economically viable employees who seek challenges and are not to be frustrated.”

Financial aspects

Technically it is confirmed that the “budget [allocated to mobilities] is generally quite clear

but, still, there are concerns regarding the transfer of money to the partners by the National

Agency to the coordinators… However, such means that the NA may save efforts, but problems

may arise for smaller partners (if those smaller partners do not know how much is available). As

well, it seems that a main effort goes into the production of confirmation sheets and collecting bills

instead of focusing on the real action”. A respondent adds: “So the question arises if collecting

bills is the focused EU policy instead?”

With regards to the expectation linked with announcements of the Erasmus+ budget

increase, a respondent from DG EAC mentions that

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 105

“the European Commission has communicated very much about the 40% budget

increase from LLP to Erasmus+ but this increase has not yet materialised

(nevertheless in an interviewed university the Erasmus+ budget has improved

for both teachers and students). The Commission has made full use of the budget

appropriation for Erasmus+ in all concerned activity sectors. There are clear

positive indicators: e.g. the overall number of mobilities has increased since the

start of Erasmus+ in 2014 and new services, which were not provided under LLP,

e.g. Online Language Service (OLS), have been added. The key message from DG

EAC is that despite a limited increase in the budget, the Commission has

managed to increase the number of outputs of the various Erasmus+ Actions in

all sectors, combined with improvement of the quality for the beneficiaries.

When looking into the figures in detail it shows that according to the planning of

the Erasmus+ budget framework, the budget in the first three years of the

Programme remains comparable to its predecessors. While there has been no

decrease in the amount of allocations, there has been no significant increase of

the budget for use in Key Action 1

. From 2014 to 2016, the KA1 budget has

increased by 2%. However, for School Education KA1 shows a marked increase

compared to the LLP Comenius In-Service Training action: from ca. 27 million

EUR in 2013 to approximately 40 million EUR in 2014.

Indeed, the decision to spread the 40% increase over the duration of Erasmus+

Programmes (7 years from 2014 to 2020) is a key factor for the evaluation of the

implementation of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 for the period 2014-2016 and for

projections of future activities from 2017 to 2020. External factors, e.g. the

financial crisis in Europe and elsewhere, have played a role in the decision not to

give a substantial increase of the budget before 2017. This leaves Erasmus+ with

an increase of 2% to 3% every year for 2014-2015 and, possibly, 12%-13% more in

the remaining years. The Commission has communicated frequently and

proactively with the European Parliament to explain the implications of the

budgetary policy for the Programme for implementing activities, as well as

implications for short-term planning and long-term projections. “

However, since Erasmus+ delivers only a part of the financing needed for international

educational mobility, it is obvious that “there is more request for budget allocations due to the

number of applications in Europe (2.5 times higher) and international=globally (4 times higher)”.

Thus from individual perspective Erasmus was and is always seen as additional

financing (not full financing) as comments collected illustrate this clearly:

 In Spain, the National Agency states: "For example, complementary funds from

the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport for Erasmus+ Higher

Education student mobility for the academic year 2015-2016 have been increased

by 33,33%. As in the past years, national co-funding is not entrusted to the

National Agency but it is directly managed by the Ministry itself. However, the

main objective of the funding changed as from the 2014 call with the aim of

increasing the number of participants, since the new grants in the Programme

Guide offered a higher amount, which resulted in a significant decrease of the

total number of awarded student mobility activities by the National Agency (-

In a subsequent comment forwarded to one of the authors, following the Panel Interview held

4 May 2016 at DG EAC, a representative from DG EAC comment the statements in this paragraph:

“This is correct overall. However, for School Education KA1 shows a marked increase compared to the LLP

Comenius In-Service Training action: from ca. 27 million EUR in 2013 to ca. 40 million EUR in 2014.”

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 106

25.76%) in the 2014 call. Moreover, the national call sets out quality criteria, such

as, academic performance and a minimum language proficiency equivalent to a

B2 level of the CEFR in the language of instruction. The amounts of the Ministry

grants are 100 EUR higher than the ones set by the National Agency from

European funding. It is expected that more than 12.300 students will benefit from

this call. If one adds the number of student mobility activities awarded by the

National Agency (33.283) the potential number of the awarded student mobility

activities in the academic year 2015/2016 (over 45.000) will be significantly

higher than in the previous call (around 40.000).” Also, “As well, students may

receive additional grants from Autonomous Communities (Regional Governments) and

from other sources, either public or private.”

 At an Asian university, obstacles to mobilising professional and students are

mainly limited availability of funding in form of grants or scholarships. Usually

both grants from national and international programs are used for sending

students abroad to Europe, however not including Erasmus+ finances.

 Another aspect is the situation of inbound coming students to Norway with

Erasmus+ mobility grants, where the NAs in the home country of the incoming

student decides about the size of the grant for Norway. Here the receiving

country does have no influence on the grant size for these students. “Indeed, under

LLP, we operated with maximum grant sizes in VE, which could be, if necessary, be cut

until 50%, while under Erasmus+ the Commission has not set a lowest limit for the

grant there is no lower limit for such cuts.”

 Sometimes no loans are financed (as it is not allowed), but in other national

programmes a financing scheme for a whole M.A. and B.A. programme loans is

offered.

Another aspect is the integration of the financial support into the nationally different

financial schemes, concerning for example:

 The grant situation for VET mobility may illustrate some aspect of the financial

mechanisms that are used to support the mobility of apprentices under Erasmus+

in Germany. Here mobility grants for apprentices have undergone an 80% cut.

The reason invoked by the German National Authorities is that these apprentices

keep their salary while on mobility stay. The remaining 20% of the grant

allocation is considered then as a “supplementary financial contribution to additional

expenses incurred while being abroad”. However, such cuts have not been enforced

in Norway where apprentices today receive the full grant. Nevertheless, “an

internal discussion is going on in the NA whether such cuts should be practiced in

Norway too. This apparent generosity can be explained by the fact that there is a

satisfactory funding situation in Norway for VET mobility”.

 The same situation applies to student mobility in Higher Education. Norway has

one of the most generous financing schemes for studying at home and abroad. It

is administered by the National Fund for Financing Studies which grants loans

and stipends to students. “A regular outbound student in Norway (regular means:

enrolled in a Norwegian HEI with full right to be financed by National Fund) obtaining

an Erasmus+ mobility grant will keep his or her basic financing (loan and stipend) while

being abroad.”

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 107

 For outbound Spanish HE students the calculation principle used for fixing the

grant amount to foreign HEIs is the level of funds allocated to the Spanish NA

and the expected number of mobilities. That decision is taken according to the

Erasmus+ Programme Guide: “The amounts will be defined by the NA in agreement

with the National Authority. Since the start of Erasmus+ grant amounts have been stable

during the three call for proposals”.

 “Payment of grants from the EU is not effectuated before August, well after the

candidates have left for the host HEI. The NA issues a grant confirmation letter in May,

but thanks to the financial willingness of our university the money is advanced and paid

in time to the outbound student.”

 In the case of Germany for example the highest amount of subsistence is spent for

those teaching staff who opted for HE in Germany.

The following statement from an interviewee can be used a conclusion:

“We are very enthusiastic about Erasmus+ Global Mobility Programme and

Erasmus+ International Credit Mobility (ICM). Earlier, our university welcomed

many incoming students receiving grants based on bilateral agreements. These

grants were often not sufficient to offer these exchange students decent living

conditions in our city. As a consequence, our university has decided in 2015 not

to use Erasmus+ ICM grant for outbound students, as these have quite good

financial terms through the National Fund for Financing Studies while only

inbound student to our university will be awarded Erasmus+ Global Mobility

grants. Moreover, given the high cost of living in this country, the allowance

allocated to administrative expenses has been ceded to the incoming students in

2015 and we hope to keep up doing this in 2016.”

Aspects that need further attention or intervention

4. Which new aspects, internal or external, will call for new initiatives, awareness, or political

intervention?

 Demands and suggestions for improvement?

In a next section of the interviews and panels respondents were asked to discuss new

aspects of the Erasmus+ program they observed internally or externally which would call

for new initiatives, awareness, or even political intervention. Such should as well be the

opener for addressing new demands and deliver suggestions for improvement of the

action and the respective measures.

Integration into the curriculum and promotion of Erasmus+ knowledge

Respondents did explain first that

“A more open consideration of mobility as additional phase in Higher Education

degree programs should be given. The more an inclusion into the regular studies

is forced the more such might become an elite activity. A general integration of

an ‘abroad-semester’ would be principally possible but is logistically and

economically a huge effort. Yet not all students would be able to use such

international mobility due to their competence. All in all, a more strategic

approach would be most perfect – for example internship versus abroad in one

semester or modules etc. in the case of one department, an obligatory

international mobility has been stopped by the respective students.”

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 108

A staff training seminar

pointed out several weaknesses relative to the language

proficiency requirements for outbound students from the 12 participating HEIs. E.g. there

was a high degree of uncertainty among participants concerning how the Common

European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment

(CEFR) should be integrated in the linguistic tests. “There was yet a consensus that many

students have poor linguistic skills at mobility start. It was agreed at EUNSTS that the next step

would be the further analysis of Key Action 1 during the local Staff Training which would be sent

to the EC on behalf of the Network.”

Respondents endeavour also to

“motivate the school owner (e.g. the municipalities in primary education, and the

province for secondary education and VET to promote Erasmus+ mobility (as

well as other programmes) e.g. in school, secondary education institutions and

vocational education institution. NA decided during the LLP period that only the

institutional owner, e.g. municipality or region, could be the formal applicant of

mobility grants on behalf of the institutions involved.”

Separation of the education sectors in Erasmus+

“Separation of the education sectors is useful – even though collaboration is wished and positive,

i.e. the horizontal aspect did lead to much administrative work which doesn’t fit the capabilities of

all the sectors representatives.”

Still further decentralisation should be supported (Key Action 2 Capacity Building in

Higher Education, Key Action 1 Joint Master Degrees) and as well the mobility budget

and especially decentral project budget (Key Action 2 Strategic Partnerships) should be

enlarged further, but as well the structural funding needs to be financed.

Even though respondents in education sectors show weak awareness of the neighbouring

sectors opportunities and functioning, the cooperation between HEIs and industry is

growing rapidly, and there is a huge interest in internships (Erasmus+ helps a lot

regarding employability).

Administrative procedures

“There is a clear need to introduce more flexibility in all aspects of grant preparation and

application processes”. Administrative procedures and requirements need particularly to

be simplified, so that users may not opt out altogether from Erasmus+ mobility in

primary, secondary, adult education, and VET. In VET not all applicants do document

the same level of competencies and previous mobility. “Therefore, in order to obtain a VET

Mobility Charter an institution is required to have fulfilled three mobility projects involving VET

mobility before being awarded a VET Charter, which is decided by the Commission.”

“The country should impose some basic requirements for outbound mobility at PhD level for

doctoral programme PhD candidates”. Erasmus+ PhD mobility is reported to be part of the

solution. Legal pressure or incentives – no final policy has been adopted but the EU

“should resolve obvious disparities in Erasmus+ mobility grant sizes”. For example, Norwegian

outbound students to Spain receive substantially higher grants, than incoming Spanish

ERASMUS+ UTRECHT NETWORK STAFF TRAINING SEMINAR (EUNSTS) held at UiB 21-23

October 2015

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 109

students, despite the fact that cost of living in Norway is significantly higher than in

Spain.

“Recognition of international qualifications requires review by national authorities”. From the

industry’s perspective remains the question as the new competency assessment is, “what

role rankings play by the company in the selection decision for a university by students and the

selection of students. Significant are an industry specifics of the qualifications (for specific

training) and the use of test methods are used for detecting certain dispositions?” Furthermore, it

is still unclear what is the role of the European Qualification Framework (EQF) or other

qualifications frameworks and how one may identify skills as starting points for an

assignment in the Qualifications Framework.

Language related aspects

“Testing of language skills of outbound students has been and is still, and will probably always be

a problem as external factors limit the efficiency of the procedures.”

“The current “spring-scenario” illustrates this point: we register candidates for outbound mobility

in February. The candidates for departure in August get a feedback on acceptance, selection in

February. Final acceptance is sent in March mid-late February with indications given to the

student about which HEIs they can apply for. Meanwhile, there is an official requirement that the

candidate must prove at least a B2 language proficiency level in the host country teaching

language. However, the proficiency test issued by the EU

is not released before June after the

student has left. The NA want to have the test licenses much earlier but does gain acceptance. As

a consequence, the student takes e.g. a language course in June, long tine after arrival. OLS has

the responsibility for language testing. There is need to improve the scheduling of language tests.

The Autumn Semester is the most negatively affected, while things work somewhat better for the

Spring Semester. There is an antagonism in the system because the OLS-licenses follow the

allocation of the annual assignment for projects in Key Action 1, which are given to the

institutions in May-June for the following academic year. This means students leaving for

exchange in autumn semester cannot be tested until June at the earliest.”

University Erasmus+ coordinator

Concerning Online Linguistic Support (OLS) it is mandatory that all students must pass a

linguistic test. However, in some universities reviewed, some students have been

confused and have misunderstood the requirements for the test. For example, many of

the outbound students believed the test was selective and would led to discarding

candidates who did not pass. Some of the students feared they could not go abroad

because of the OLS test. They could get only limited support from the administrative

personnel in the university responsible for managing OLS as they were themselves

overwhelmed by the bureaucratic requirements of the new Erasmus+ package. “As a

consequence, the mobility candidate did not get much need support with OLS. The university

normally requires a B1 level for outbound students. Most target languages in the respective

university are English, Spanish, German and Italian. There are many French-Turkish students

from our university who go to Turkey to follow course in English.”

http://erasmusplusols.eu

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 110

User criticism and evaluation aspects

“Of some interest is the validation of early stage developments through abroad experience and

detection of new approaches and technologies. Even though much is possible online the face-to-

face-experience is much more comprehensive.”

The main goal of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 for higher education has been to remove

barriers to mobility, e.g. remove financial constraints, language barriers, or lack of

recognition. Additionally, the Commission is deploying efforts to increase the recognition

of stays abroad for all targeted sectors, not only higher education. An additional goal is to

add flexibility to Staff Mobility in higher education. E.g. the Commission has removed

the 5 days’ constraints of LLP and reduced the minimum duration of staff exchange to 2

days, while keeping the minimum 8 hours of teaching to ensure impact of this action.

User criticism of the staff exchange regulation in Erasmus+ (minimum 8 hours of

teaching and 2 days abroad) has been expressed, e.g. university teachers say they cannot

consider teaching a minimum 8 hours during as part of two days stay exclusive travel

time. Moreover, criticism has been voiced concerning the underfunding of real travel (flat

rates are used), stay and subsistence expenses for plane travels in Europe and elsewhere.

Many teachers in HEIs fear they may have to pay an important part of the expense

incurred to carry out teaching assignments abroad from their own pocket. Not all higher

education institutions have financial means to or are willing to add funds on top of the

Erasmus+ mobility grant.

The Commission will

“evaluate staff exchange

in higher education and consider these aspects. It

maintains, however, the view that a real flexibility has been introduced by

reducing the minimum duration of stays abroad for staff from 5 to 2 days. A

similar flexibility has been introduced for higher education student traineeships,

where the minimum duration has been reduced from 3 to 2 months. The

intention of such a reduction was to address the situation in some disciplines, e.g.

medicine, where students are bound by their local curriculum. Again the

objective has been to increase the accessibility to the programme, to not exclude

any discipline. This new regime may or may not be optimal in all cases.

However, such decisions are guided by the awareness that Erasmus+ has limited

resources. Key Action 1 is financing between 15% and 50% of the number of

applicants for mobility grants in higher education. So the recurrent issue is:

“where is it wise to use resources in order to get more impact on the users?” Erasmus+

cannot fund all mobility in higher education and other sectors. The Commission

allocates therefore money where it expects the best impact.”

The call for tender for the Erasmus+ mid-term evaluation (covering all the fields) has been

launched on 29 January 2016 and closed on 15 March 2016. The study will start end of May 2016 to

finish end of 2017.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 111

Knowledge about official target figures among respondents

5. Which early knowledge about the realism of the official target figures (individual, institutional

beneficiaries; regions; sectors) can be learned from that experience?

Erasmus+ starting phase and continuous operation can be estimated by statistics. Yet it is

expected that those statistics are not always complete of accessible especially when

established first time or for a completely renewed measure. Thus participants in reviews

and panel who have first-hand experience with their different institutions to discuss the

realism of the official target figures. As well the question was addressed what can be

learned from that experience.

Statistics of different origin and with different scope

A first insight is that besides the European level statistics “There are local statistics because

besides Erasmus there are many more (bilateral, Fulbright, DAAD, etc., some without

financing).” In Germany the DAAD was offering national statistics, but such doesn’t exist

anymore “which is unfortunate – because it has been a benchmarking background. EU statistics

are not specific enough.” It would be fine have statistics which could be re-worked locally.

The central administration can encourage and promote, but not impose policies to

improve mobility: “As our university has a decentralised management structure; it is difficult to

impose quantitative and qualitative targets for Erasmus+ mobility at faculty and department

level.” There is no obligation to fulfil target volumes for mobility, as opposed to targets

for lectures and scientific publications.

Eurostat provides only statistics. Thus further insight such can be linked as qualitative

Information. “Comparative data (trans- or international) is always wished by the EU member

states.” However, it should be noticed that Eurostat has not been allowed to build a new

survey (by introducing new indicators to be collected Europe-wide) and that it has not

been possible to identify such indicators about mobility in published surveys.

“The focus of the mobility scoreboard of CEDEFOP is on the qualitative side of mobility because

quantitative date in the form statistics comes already form the Eurostat, in order to learn

conditions for mobility country by country as well as to show ways for future improvement.” It

can be used in order to identify policy-making stakeholders around IVET learners,

especially EU Policy, national level policy, educational institutions, and unions who may

define suggestions for reforms of the sector.”

Usefulness of the data available

Respondents say that the question concerning the validity of the data available “cannot

yet to be answered clearly because reliable data only will become available in early autumn 2016

for 2014.” Overall, transparency has improved – which is positive. Especially comparative

(national and European) data helps even though the administrative efforts needed to

exploit such data are much higher. In some countries “Erasmus/Erasmus+ data is sometimes

the only internationalisation indicator in HEIs – i.e. a very positive and highly valuable source!).”

When it comes to mobility for school and pre-school children and staff, the users report

that they experience a high degree of quite detailed control of all aspects of the foreseen

mobility, e.g. they need to supply detailed information about the destination for mobility

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 112

stays, the number of mobility days, about the number of participants, about the length of

stays, the educational content, etc.

“While such systematic quality control is generally desirable, the National

Agency does not have the necessary personnel and resources to assess in-depth

all aspects, e.g. pedagogical approaches. Given limited resources we choose to

evaluate more the consistency and relevance of arguments provided by

applicants, than in-depth aspects of the educational offer. It may be a less optimal

approach, but the approach chosen is still useful. We address the formal

limitations imposed by the current Erasmus+ procedures, by organising project

start and mid-term workshops for these sectors.”

Interest in data for target stakeholders outside Erasmus+

 From the industry's perspective, “Lack of mobility options are a starting point for a

higher value of national competence assurance. Eventually high transfer costs and legal

arrangements become important - social and tax costs are relevant as well. Not only

globally but also in Europe the conditions for mobility have become more complex (still

possible by with higher administrative and regulatory efforts). Willingness to move in

new employees is examined - but nowadays only in relation to the actual current activity

requirements while earlier more appropriate experience was required.”

 An interviewee outside the EU states that “from outside Erasmus+ one does not have

knowledge of such, but a result of the [present] interview would eventually that one

takes a new look at official target figures. In that sense the interview itself is an

intervention, i.e. reactive.”

 “Of course the integration of all sectors is nice but it is not sure that a balance

participation of all institutions is guaranteed which is perhaps critical. The lots of

new statistical data collected should not function as a barrier. Very useful are the

compendia and reports of previous projects to identify both expertise of certain

institutions / stakeholders and eventually as well start with copy-pasting

successful activities instead always start concepts anew.”

2. Key Findings extracted from the interview material

Key findings I: experiences with mobility

This section summarises key findings regarding the experiences and views of

interviewees about mobility in the education, training and youth sectors. Their

statements reproduced verbatim (but translated) and reformulated indirectly or

summarised reflect to some extent their practical knowledge frequently illustrated by

suitable sample cases.

Transition from LLP to Erasmus+ is usually seen as a difference, but some of the

respondents feel it is mostly the same (“For me it is basically the same approach to student

mobility”). However, Erasmus+ is mostly experienced as being more complicated because

of administrative efforts, for example the Learning Agreement and the statistics are more

challenging etc.

Larger institutions that were asked indicate that they usually follow a strategic approach

in implementing mobility, which is as well followed by an administrative specialisation

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 113

that is need to handle processes in a suitable quality. It seems indeed that a certain critical

size is needed to develop an efficient approach toward international mobility. As well, on

a national level, a differentiation of stakeholders can be found when the National

Authority adopts a system perspective and a certain set of institutions shares the

responsibilities across educational sectors and in relation to the political dimension. This,

however, creates a certain complexity, which is a challenge for part-time activities as well

as for smaller institutions. By that, it comes out that international educational mobility is

an area, which needs a highly profiled qualification. Such qualification of mobility

experts seems however be rather experienced on the job and not by being trained

systematically. Here, perhaps, a new qualification pattern is needed in all respective

educational sectors.

Even though it is the NAs’ governmental role to encourage mobility in education and

training in the country, there is an awareness in NAs that mobility is not only a topic for

Erasmus+, especially with regards to the linkage between mobility, industries, and global

perspectives. However, such often freely designed mobility patterns, which are not so

easily assessed by statistics, are endangered as the institutional model would empower

the governments currently exhibiting autocratic tendencies.

Mainly among the European level stakeholders and the NAs, there is a detailed

awareness of the need for supporting technologies and measures. Other stakeholders are

mainly using those opportunities and sometimes describe that it is difficult or impossible

to specify data for managing their mobility processes. The upcoming instruments like the

mobility scoreboard are until now neither available nor know for local stakeholders. In

most cases, those are not able to integrate their sectoral activity in a wider, overarching

educational mobility framework.

Key findings II: the implementation of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 during the start phase

2014-2016

When asked about their experience with the implementation of Erasmus+ KA1 been

initiated during the start phase 2014-2016 respondents focus on both, the overall program

and the national or local activities and confirm that “the transition phase to Erasmus+ in

2014 was rather chaotic.”

Obviously, this goes along with special partnerships are usually perceived as fruitful.

Especially the “new strategic partnerships launched under the Erasmus+ programme Key Action

2 is perceived as a new dimension in our university”. There is a growing interest to engage in

such cooperation.

The mobility team in this university and in HEIs all over Europe experienced a huge flow

of information from the EU and the NA, with a lack of crucial information from the EU,

and the NA. Even though most voices are critical, some express a different and quite

positive perception: “The change from LLP to Erasmus+ has not been brutal in any aspect from

my position. Most mobility schemes were indeed effective before Erasmus+, e.g. PhD mobility was

possible, we had Staff Exchanges, etc. Perhaps the central Educational Administration has another

opinion. From our position there is not much difference.”

Another concern is the increased administrative and statistical load: “In comparison, the

administrative effort in Erasmus (LLP) compared with the new Erasmus+ effort has grown quite a

lot - learning agreements are more comprehensive, two reports by students (one online survey and

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 114

an experience report) were introduced additionally.” However, one may find a positive

feedback as well, i.e. “Thanks to a close and high-quality cooperation with the NA, our

university was able to overcome the initial implementation obstacles”.

Overall, it seems that implementation activities are still under construction when

respondents report that access to online reporting is new (online mobility tool) and is

about to starting only during 2016. Usually larger Educational actors employ specialized

staff dealing with the mobility.

To some extent, national specifications in relation to national coordination and

institutional specialisation are interesting. Typically, the Ministry of Education has

enforced a “full delegation of all implementation responsibilities to non-public HE-NA”. Seen as

a whole, the Erasmus+ phase stretching from 2014 to 2016 amounts to a “strengthening of a

vertical delegation model in the implementation of Erasmus+ and other mobility and cooperation

programmes in the educational sector in the country”.

What is noteworthy as well is that “from the HEIs perspective there is no interaction between

sectors observed so far. An exception might concern VET-related programmes due to their linkage

between teacher training and vocational education institutes. “

Concerning motivation for institutional participation in mobility, it is said, “an important

development in Higher Education in the country is the adoption of budgetary incentives for

institutions depending on participation in Erasmus+”

When investigating the political framing in Europe and beyond it is obvious, that Higher

Education benefits indeed from a more flexible and less limiting regime. E.g. the

Erasmus+ Charter, after a Higher Education Institution signs it, is not evaluated again

but accepted largely as is. While the intention is to create networks pooling together

strong partners, neither the NA nor, most of the time, HEIs have the capacity to assess the

quality and sustainability of these networks. Nevertheless, the NA carries out every year

an internal quality check of applications for mobility grants.

The NA supports very much the fact that Erasmus+ is building on two pillars: mobility

schemes and cooperation. However, it is observed, “the conditions set by the EU

Commission for the diverse sectors targeted by Key Action 1 are unequal. The VET sector are

experiencing a higher degree of flexibility with the implementation of VET Mobility Charter”.

Globally international networks in industry have “No specific usage of Erasmus+ because of

non-European heritage.” However, there are specific programmes by a national

organisation in many countries, mostly with a strong linkage to the workplace and

“overall only part of the contact (some time) is dealing with international mobility.”

Further on there are many specific aspects of the program perceived by different target

audiences, which are not listed in detail here.

Key findings III: administrative and management aspects

Respondents’ have collected experiences with different administrative and management

aspects, including specifically the financial, organisational and online learning

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 115

dimension. All there are quite relevant for the functioning of Erasmus+ but can be

described in separate perspective.

A first organisational aspect the role of the National Authority that is managing the

communication with Brussels and the National Agency, a challenging responsibility

especially during the implementation of Erasmus+ in the country. It is said that “in

retrospect, under LLP, the National Authority occupied a much more central position in the

national governance of the Programme. These recent developments, focusing on the DG EAC –

National Agency communication are linked with new monitoring rules enforced Commission”.

Overall, the relation of the National Authority to the National Agency and the

Commission is constructive.

“Erasmus+ means much more administrative effort.” This is the main finding on the

administrative dimension in all the sectors – but does not only focus on statistics but

moreover on communication and information needed to reach and mobility the target

groups. There is evidence of local profiles as politically motivated imbalances in

allocation of Erasmus+ mobility budgets between various partner country regions, and

comparatively low level of grant allocations to regions and countries with whom the

university cooperates.

Visa Affairs and migration aspects recently deserve attention as well. However, a positive

sign is that in another case former obstacles due to immigration regulations for mobile

students coming to the country have been removed recently. E.g. strict rules requiring

incoming students to document a minimum personal cash reserve prior to getting visa

and stay permit in the country have been removed for non-EEA students. As well, a

National Authority considers “that developing complementary national initiatives in synergy

with Erasmus+ is very important for the Higher Education sector in the country”.

Financial aspects can be fits seen as a technical issue and here it is confirmed, “Budget is

generally quite clear but a concerned exists regarding the transfer of money to the partners by the

National Agency to the coordinators.” However, such means that if the NA does save effort

but problems for smaller partners might occur (if those smaller partners do not know

how much is available). “As well, it seems that a main effort goes into the production of

confirmation sheets and collecting bills instead of focusing on the real action. So the question

arises if collecting bills is the focused EU policy instead?”

More globally, respondents mention that the European Commission has communicated

very much about the 40% budget increase from LLP to Erasmus+ but this increase has

not yet materialized (nevertheless in an interviewed university the Erasmus+ budget has

been improved for both teachers and students). There are clear positive indicators: e.g.

the overall number of mobilities has increased since the start of Erasmus+ in 2014 and

new services, which were not provided under LLP, e.g. Online Language Service (OLS),

have been added. The key message from DG EAC is that despite a limited increase in the

budget, the Commission has managed to increase the number of outputs of the various

Erasmus+ Actions in all sectors, combined with improvement of the quality for the

beneficiaries.

However, it shall be mentioned that Erasmus+ (like Erasmus) does deliver only a part of

the financing needed for international educational mobility. It is obvious that there is

more request for budget allocations due to the number of applications in Europe,

reported in one case 2.5 times higher, and globally (in Partner countries) reported 4 times

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 116

higher. Thus from an individual perspective, Erasmus was and is always seen as

additional financing (not full financing) as the information collected demonstrates that:

 There are complementary funds from the national Ministries;

 Non-European partners in adult and academic education use further financing

schemes;

 The grant situation for VET mobility may illustrate some aspect of the financial

mechanisms used to support the mobility of apprentices under Erasmus+ in

some cases where mobility grants for apprentices have undergone an 80% cut

because these apprentices keep their salary while on mobility stay.

“We are very enthusiastic about Erasmus+ Global Mobility Programme /Erasmus+ International

Credit Mobility (ICM). Earlier, our university welcomed many incoming students receiving

grants based on bilateral agreements. These grants were often not sufficient to offer these exchange

students decent living conditions in our city.”

ELearning and distance learning are seen as highly relevant issues in the new funding

lines – for example OLS for language learning and testing. As well, the programme

management in the respective university is completely online – which plays a huge role

for those who are funded and as well for the management and administration of mobility

activity.

Even though webinars are used often, the virtual mobility is however, no replacement for

physical mobility.

Key findings IV: new aspects of Erasmus+ or need for political intervention

In a next section of the interviews and panels, respondents were asked to discuss new

aspects of the Erasmus+ program they observed internally or externally which would call

for new initiatives, awareness, or even political intervention. Such should as well be the

opener for addressing new demands and deliver suggestions for improvement of the

action and the respective measures.

A first issue is the improved promotion of Erasmus+ knowledge and the integration of

respective mobilities into the curricula. Respondents did explain first, “A more open

consideration of mobility as additional phase in Higher Education degree programs should be

given. The more an inclusion into the regular studies is forced the more such might become an elite

activity. A general integration of an ‘abroad-semester’ would be principally possible but is

logistically and economically a huge effort. Yet not all students would be able to use such

international mobility due to their competence. Overall, a strategic approach would be perfect – for

example, the respective students have stopped internship versus abroad in one semester or modules

etc. in the case of one department an obligatory international mobility. “

Another important concern is the separation of the education sectors. Some respondent

argue that a separation of the education sectors is useful – even though collaboration is

wished and positive, i.e. the horizontal aspect did lead to much administrative work,

which does not fit the capabilities of all the sectors representatives. In such way further

decentralisation should be supported – concerning especially the Key Action 2 topics of

capacity building in Higher Education and the Key Action 1 Joint Master Degrees and as

well the mobility budget and especially decentral project budgets in the Key Action 2

Strategic Partnerships.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 117

Even though respondents in education sectors show weak awareness of the neighbouring

sectors opportunities and functioning the Cooperation between HEI and Industry is

growing rapidly, huge interest in internships (Erasmus+ helps a lot in comparison to real

employment).

Administrative procedures are often requested when respondents confirm a clear need to

introduce more flexibility in all aspects of grant preparation and application processes.

Altogether procedures and requirements need particularly to be simplified, so that users

may not opt out altogether from Erasmus+ mobility in primary, secondary, adult

education, and VET. In VET, not all applicants document the same level of competencies

and previous mobility.

Still recognition of international qualifications is an issue, which requires review by

national authorities. From the industry’s perspective, how a new competency assessment

may function, is perceived as relevant issue. E.g. it is relevant for industry to know what

role public rankings are playing when a student decides to go to a specific university.

Also, industry-specific qualifications (i.e. specified training) and the use of test methods

for detecting certain dispositions are important. The role of the EQF other qualifications

frameworks in the context of sector overarching mobilities and how skills are identified

as starting points for an assignment is still highly relevant, but not well understood.

Language related aspects may be seen as a special category with a special profile.

Respondents explain that testing of language skills of outbound students has been and is

still, and will probably always be a problem as external factors are limiting the efficiency

of the testing and feedback procedures.

Concerning Online Linguistic Support (OLS) it is mandatory that all students must pass a

linguistic test. However, in some university reviewed some students have been confused

and have misunderstood the requirements for the test.

Finally, the opportunities for user criticism and mechanisms of evaluation are discussed.

Here respondents explain their “interest in a validation of early stage developments through

abroad experience and detection of new approaches and technologies”. Because the main goal of

Erasmus+ Key Action 1 for all education sectors has been to remove barriers to mobility,

e.g. financial constraints, recognition of stays abroad for all targeted sectors, but as well

the flexibility to staff in mobility has been questioned.

Moreover, criticism has been voiced concerning the underfunding of real travel (flat rates

are used), stay and subsistence expenses for plane travels in Europe and elsewhere. Many

teachers in HEIs fear they may have to pay an important part of the expense incurred to

carry out teaching assignments abroad from their own pocket. Not all higher education

institutions have financial means to or are willing to add funds on top of the Erasmus+

mobility grant.

The intention of the simplifications introduced by the Commission with regards to

teacher exchanges in Higher Education was to address situations in some disciplines, e.g.

medicine, where students and teachers are bound by their local curriculum. This new

regime may or may not be optimal in all cases. However, such decisions are guided by

the awareness that Erasmus+ has limited resources. In any case, the European

Commission reports that it allocates budgets where it expects the best impact.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 118

Key findings V: realism of the official target figures

Erasmus+ starting phase and continuous operation can be estimated by statistics. Yet it is

expected that those statistics are not always complete of accessible especially when

established first time or for a completely renewed measure. Thus participants in reviews

and panel who have first-hand experience with their respective institutions discuss the

realism of the official target figures. As well, the question was addressed: “What can be

learned from this experience?”

Statistics of different heritage and with different scope and a first insight is that besides

the European level statistics “There are local statistics because besides Erasmus there are many

more” and sometimes the NAs do not offer national statistics anymore “which is

unfortunate – because it has been a benchmarking background. EU statistics are not specific

enough.” Still in some countries Erasmus/Erasmus+ data is sometime the only

internationalisation indicator in HEIs – i.e. a very positive and highly valuable source!).

I would be fine to have a statistic, which could be locally re-worked.

Eurostat provides only statistics. Further insight can be linked as qualitative information.

“Comparative data (trans- or international) is always wished by the EU member states.” As well

it is needed to mark that Eurostat has not been allowed to build a new survey (by

introducing new indicators to be collected Europe-wide) and was not able to identify

such indicators about mobility from the already surveys and the new scoreboards are not

yet available. Overall, there is a lack in statistic in many levels and qualities.

“Of course the integration of all sectors is nice but it is not sure that a balance participation of all

institutions is guaranteed which is perhaps critical. The lots of new statistical data collected

should not function as a barrier. Very useful are the compendia and reports of previous projects to

identify both expertise of certain institutions / stakeholders and eventually as well start with copy-

pasting successful activities instead always start concepts anew.”

Another aspect is the validity of the data available. Respondents say that it “is not yet

clearly to be answered because reliable data will become available only in early autumn 2016 for

2014.” Overall, transparency has improved – what is still very positive, especially

comparative (national and European) even though the administrative effort is much

higher.

While such systematic quality control is generally desirable, the National Agency does

not have the necessary personnel and resources to assess in-depth all aspects, e.g.

pedagogical approaches. Given limited resources, we choose to evaluate more the

consistency and relevance of arguments provided by applicants, than in-depth aspects of

the educational offer. It may be a less optimal approach, but the approach chosen is still

useful.

As well, there is serious interest in data for target stakeholders outside Erasmus+ by the

industry whose perspective mobility is first across regions, only for the management

globally. Lack of mobility options are a starting point for a higher value of national

competence assurance. Eventually high transfer costs and legal arrangements become

important - social and tax costs are relevant as well. Not only globally but also in Europe

the conditions for mobility have become more complex (still possible by with higher

administrative and regulatory efforts). Willingness to move in new employees is

examined - but nowadays only in relation to the actual current activity requirements

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 119

while earlier experience that is more appropriate was required. Respondents from

outside Erasmus+ do not have knowledge of such data and, this would be a possible

effect of the interview, would take a new look at official target figures. In that sense the

interview, it is an intervention, i.e. reactive.

3. Data from the sectoral specific questions

The following sub-chapter presents the answers from the sectoral specific questions.

Respondents did select one of four sections that did fit best their experience with the

Erasmus+ mobility activities. Usually respondents who did give answer are directly

involved in one of those sectoral activities as part of their institutional profile, i.e. as

educational institutions or labour market stakeholders.

This section has been suggested for short answers perhaps with 1-3 words only.

However, respondents eventually discussed those questions as well in detail and

produced answers that are more comprehensive. For some of the questions however

almost no answers were given, which is described in the text briefly. In case there is a

very detailed answer-section, this corresponds with a large interest in the respective

question shown by many of the interviewees and panellists.

Sectoral specific questions I: Higher Education

Question: International Credit Mobility (ECTS)?

Answers:

 Erasmus+ PhD needs to be restructured. Complementarity between e.g. ERC

starting grants, Marie Curie and Erasmus+ ICM needs to be improved

significantly. There is specific critique towards the Learning Agreements (LA)

that is a source of many frustrations:

- The LA in its original, but also in its present form, appears to be rather

impractical instrument, as many items appear to be superfluous.

- The current Learning Agreements stipulate only minimum requirements, but

additional requirements and options can also be added to the agreement.

HB’s general impression is that the present situation, characterized by the

fact that many departments and students do not use this opportunity,

undermines the credibility of the Erasmus+ learner mobility among their

primary users. The possibilities to assemble specific learning agreements that

respond better to the needs of learners and department seem vastly

underexploited by the institutions (departments and faculty) and the

students.

- Timing from students’ perspective is “difficult or impossible to fill in the LA

properly before the start of the mobility. Some universities require corrections in

order to do the payment.”

- Finding information from students’ perspective is difficult as “The LA is too

long and complicated. It is quite easy to make mistakes when filling it in.”.

- Filling the Learning agreement from the students’ perspective is rather

complicated: “The LA has three parts, before mobility, during mobility and

after mobility. In the real life almost nobody uses the final part. A few do fill

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 120

in feeling it as an unnecessary work exercise. Actually many universities

simply take it away.”

- Timing from HEI perspective is a challenge because the universities in

Europe have different academic calendars.

- Measuring Workload from HEIs’ perspective takes a lot of time if it is to be

done correctly.

- The document format is an issue of critique as “Sometimes there is no space for

the signature. The first format in Erasmus+ was much too long. The new format has

too little space for writing.” There is a need to change the layout in order to

make it clearer, e.g. taking away footnotes.

- Although the HEIs tend to guarantee the recognition after staying abroad,

the guarantee of recognition by home HEI is not as binding as it may seem.

- Suggestions for improvement of the Learning Agreement are:

- An Online learning agreement is the way to go, as demonstrated: “There was

one presentation of best practice of the LA. Masaryk University showed how a

digitalisation of the LA can be done. They have designed an interactive document

where all information is given electronically; it is saved and can be updated when

necessary. It is an administrative tool that covers all need of information for the

student and the administrator for planning the mobility and later the recognition

and integration of the courses in the home degree.”

- To remove the tables C and D (After mobility) from the LA, or alternatively,

to make it optional; remove the ‘minimum requirement’ wording from the

Guidelines. Instead a wording like ‘the LA can be adjusted to the needs of the

institutions as long as the basic principles of the students as expressed in the

Erasmus charter are maintained’.

 For the interinstitutional agreements no changes proposed, they seem to function

as they are.

 Another issue of interest is the inbound /outbound ratio:

- Difference is in most cases not a critical issue, as the institutions have often

opted for as much flexibility as possible and can be interpreted as a strength

to adapt to fluctuation in mobility.

- Contrary to other countries, which endeavour to establish a balance between

inbound and outbound mobility, it has not been a political issue.

 There is an increased interest for practice-oriented, internship mobility as well in

HEI, going along with an increase of outbound students and more requests for

information.

 The “ECTS User Guide” is “very good, all personnel involved in mobility in HEIs

should read through this guide.”

 The integration of Bologna process with Erasmus+ ICM mobility is still

problematic.

http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/publications/2015/ects-users-guide_en.pdf

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 121

 There imbalances in courses awarding ECTS and experiencing problems in

having these courses recognised at home, examples reported in the recent study

can be found in various countries in- and outside the EU. Conclusion: recognition

process between countries must be improved significantly. As well there is still a

lack of awareness concerning Erasmus+ ICM outside the EU.

Question: Strategic potential?

Answers:

Absolutely yes, addressed! Erasmus has changed a lot over the last 20 years, but the

rectorates doesn’t see it always – which is to be improved. Institution needs however to

increase the staff working with internationalisation. Specific aspects are:

- The complementary use of Erasmus+ PhD mobility at University which is

not (yet) a central theme.

- The enormous potential for inbound and outbound higher educational

mobility in the country.

- Outbound PhD mobility as part of Erasmus+ has not taken off really.

- The strong demand for internship and work placement (stages) which is

increasing.

- Cross-sector aspects that are not addressed - no involvement of SMEs in the

respective mobility.

Question: Role of the Erasmus+ handbook?

Answers:

There are only a few comments on the handbook (“program guide”) which is seen as a

chance but to comprehensive (due to horizontal integration). Thus respondents point on:

- Own guides for HEIs according to actions in Germany.

- Recommendation only for very special cases, when applying for specific

projects.

- More important is the NAs guide (with only 50 pages).

Question: Obstacles to mobilising professional and students?

Answers:

There are a number of specific obstacles to mobilising professional and students

mentioned:

- “Inbound mobility of PhDs to our university is high but outbound PhD mobility is

too extremely low, i.e. there is a huge problem, as there is a significant imbalance

between inbound mobility to university from abroad. University has been meeting

structural issues at various levels, when attempting to boost the outward mobility of

PhD candidate who are part of the official PhD programme at university.”

- There are local and national differences compared with universities in

neighbouring countries in numbers of PhD level mobilities.

- Institutional mobility grants with better conditions than Erasmus+ ICM, e.g.

Seed Money funds from the university have too few applications.

- Erasmus+ Teacher exchange is still low. “It has been and is difficult to motivate

university teachers to engage in Erasmus+ exchange and ICM networking”. The

general perception is that it involves too much work for the return value.

Additionally, there has been until recently budget means in most

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 122

departments to invite guest lecturers, curriculum programme censors, and

examiners from abroad.

- Some universities have a long-term planning horizon but many partnering

HEIs do not have such a long-term planning perspective, and as a

consequence react very late in the Learning Agreement process. This puts

additional demands on human resources in the mobility teams.

- In some cases, most mobility candidates are Bachelor students (1st cycle) and

much less 2nd cycle students (Master level).

- Often there are significant differences among faculties at the same university

with regards to how student and teacher mobility is prioritised and

practised. Some faculties invest time and resources in Erasmus+ ICM, other

not, due to different management structures.

- Expenses incurred during Staff Mobility, e.g. teacher exchanges, are not

adequately covered under Erasmus+. Some departments are granting extra

money; other departments cannot afford to cover all expenses. As a

consequence, teacher exchanges have not taken off satisfactorily.

- Moreover, the “basic requirement to teach a minimum of 8 hours is not received

well among teachers, as this is not feasible in many cases. Overall teacher mobility

has decreased because teachers do not have time to leave for a whole week.”

- The application process for obtaining outgoing Erasmus+ ICM mobility

grants is still experienced as demanding and complicated for these students.

Compliance to EU codes, the general Web based interface, are among other

things recurrently mentioned as obstacles. Some universities have developed

a local software interface that is meant to improve access to Erasmus+

mobility applications procedures.

- Mainly students from wealthy countries tend to have collected experiences

abroad already during their vacation – and are therefore less interested in

academic mobility while their home countries are preferred location for

students from less wealthy countries.

- Suboptimal acquisition of foreign language skills prior to mobility stays

abroad, and lack of language testing facilities still represent a potential

obstacle to enrolment abroad. In case of less spoken languages, it may be a

challenge identifying a training provider (it depends on the student’s

initiative to acquire the necessary foreign language skills).

- Professionals: it seems that teachers are less interested in teaching abroad

than previously.

- Teacher training students have a weak participation in study mobility. This is

due to the fact that we do not have 1st cycle and 2nd cycle students which are

the most favourable study phases to travel abroad. The majority of students

want to integrate the teacher training colleges (ESPE) and when they

integrate, they are no very mobile, because they have to pass special exams

(concourse or Staatsexamen) which, again, makes studying abroad very

difficult.

- As well in some disciplines is a larger share of older students, who frequently

have a family to care for.

- Interestingly in some cases female students are more willing to travel abroad

than males.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 123

Question: How realistic are grant sizes and grant allocation mechanisms?

Answers:

 Money is not a problem for mobility at HEI in Norway for financing of outbound

University students as the financial support through state grants and loans is

excellent compared to most if not all EU-EEA countries. As well, in Germany

grant selections and grant amounts for students are reported to be fine (grants

have increase from 100 to up to 270 EUR). Allocation mechanism have become

more difficult, as they are not flexible enough due to a very early and rigid

definition. However, all over Europe, there are still problematic discrepancies in

the amount of grant money allocated to Erasmus+ mobile students.

 Grant allocation often takes place in the grant committee at university. All

students who are resident in the EU are eligible. Budgets are usually quite good

and better than in the bilateral agreement. In those cases, where the demand for

mobility grants exceeds the budget means allocated under Erasmus+, the

university tries to match the demand by providing additional funding (budget

means from the Ministry, the Region and other sources).

 The feedback from student about payment of the Erasmus+ grant is that

everything takes place online. Payments happened much slower under LLP.

Question: Immediate innovative effects?

Answers: There are only a few answers on immediate innovative effects that mention:

1. Discussion about recognition has been triggered a lot – “Lisbon Convention” is

addressed in more detail.

2. New transparency concerning all participants which come back aggregated 1 x

p.a. or 1 x project.

3. OLS: The bilingual bilateral projects wherefore Erasmus+ offers a full packaged

support - quite positive!

Question: Which knowledge do students have of the ideas of the Erasmus+ program and which

aspects are perceived as most and less attractive?

Answers:

 Not for all respondents the students’ knowledge about mobility is an issue.

However, it is argued that students are usually well informed, HEIs meet the

needs to inform about the many opportunities. It seems that Erasmus is well

known, i.e. attractive as well, independently of the bureaucracy. Students like the

structured frame as well. Some students however prefer a more individual

decision, which is only a minority.

 Another aspect is the selection of students for stays abroad. Here it is important

to see if the candidate for mobility is the kind of person who constructs himself

or herself. The professionalisation process in which the student engages,

constitutes also an important factor for the selection of candidates - to choose a

destination or a course applicants need to reflect on the mobility process and

gather information. The HEI is providing follow-up measures.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 124

Question: Virtual mobility?

Answer:

There is only marginal awareness of Virtual mobility! Some discuss environmental

quality, low emissions, and ‘green’ reforms on the political agenda in all domains in the

country. Virtual mobility instruments, e.g. MOOCs and new platforms may contribute to

replace aspects of physical mobility by virtual mobility, thus contributing to sustainable

environment. There is however no serious discussion at all about the educational

meaning of Virtual mobility.

Question: How are Joint Degree programmes (Joint Masters, Joint PhDs) implemented?

Answers:

Joint Master Degrees (EMJMD) are sometimes projected as part of new Masters. The

current university presidency is very keen to boost internationalisation and may back the

promotion of EMJMDs in the future. There is no resistance against joint degrees at

University, on the contrary, as joint degrees may attract additional funding from

University when enrolling in EMJMD. Challenging aspects are:

 A lot of paperwork, which requires time and efforts - there is also a need for

support to develop the project – i.e. too much hassle, too much work.

 No knowledge (very little knowledge if any about Erasmus+ KA1 EMJMD grants

and conditions; this applies too to joint European PhDs and double degrees).

 Funding is rather small and there is a huge demand. Here, much more budget

would be needed because of the high innovation potential of that.

 Too complicated to agree and add unnecessary administrative and human

resource burdens to understaffed mobility team.

 Departments and teachers and students do not see immediate rewards in joining

EMJMD programmes.

 Legal and administrative differences between partner and programme countries

constitute major obstacles to implementing EMJMDs, which appear more as part

of a political wish list, rather than a clear need and demand from HEIs.

 Not perceived as a weakness for HEI but the lack of attractiveness of e.g. JMDs is

perceived at HEI as a weakness of Erasmus KA1.

 It is generally difficult to “sell” joint and double degrees to university.

 As teachers have to produce strict report on their teaching activities, the extra

efforts to develop Joint Master Degrees or Joint PhDs or double degrees is not

recognised as accountable teaching load in some departments – which leads to

low motivation to accept such burden.

Question: Knowledge about EU loans to master students?

Answer: Not an issue because students who use loans are no local students anymore. As

well there is no knowledge if eventually students use loans in order to finance their

mobility to the respective university – as well it has just started. In some countries

(Germany) no special need because no national bank is involved. In another country it is

reported that money is not a problem for mobility at the University and overall.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 125

Sector-specific questions II: (Vocational) Education and Training &

Youth

Question: What is the role of the programme in E&T?

Answer:

Erasmus+ is extremely important Education and Training & Youth because of ideal

opportunities that one does not get otherwise. Besides the educational and the cultural

experience there is a very strong social and linguistic experience within all mobility.

European Parliaments effort – policy is first than the programmes follow – via the 5

European Parliaments policy departments.

Question: How are the new and “old” aspects of Erasmus and Erasmus+ combined in the various

EAT layers of KA1?

Answer:

Erasmus crosses the barriers between different sectors of education, between formal and

informal education. Erasmus+ has simplified the process because of the unified

approach. Important changes happen in 2 aspects: 1) procedures have been simplified as

national agencies confirm and 2) work on the mobility scoreboard leads to see which

areas of mobility are well implemented and which are less – for example Erasmus+

performs very well.

Question: How are labour market needs assessed and integrated?

Answer:

Usually recent skills should be addressed, very important. Via partnerships with industry

this is addressed. In almost all countries VET + business sector links are real.

Question: Virtual mobility?

Answer:

Virtual mobility is no substitute for real mobility but may be used for continuing after

ending the real mobility. In IVET virtual mobility is marginal because physical experience

is typical. It still needs to be explored how it may function and which specific added

value might arise. However, there are some early sample cases which may demonstrate

innovative approaches of Virtual mobility.

Question: How are educational and cross-sector issues integrated?

Answer:

Sectoral borders are weakened now as well for diverse institutional partnership.

Educational and cross-sector issues are not addressed in the statistical tools used for

monitoring.

Question: Which specific knowledge can be gathered about mobility of school staff?

Answer:

School staff usually has knowledge of the particular sector but also about daily issues

(supporting students in housing, care, safety etc.). A very big issue is still the recognition

of learning experiences acquired abroad

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 126

Question: How are Joint Degrees programmes (Joint Masters, Joint PhDs) implemented?

Answer:

In the Bologna context, Joint Degrees programmes are important but acceptance in

practice seems to be limited.

Question: Knowledge about loans for joint / abroad degrees?

Answer:

Usually Europeans receive loans but internationals from outside Europe don’t.

Question: How are Sustainability Issues identified and addressed by projects and implementers?

Answer:

There is no doubt about sustainability. Most participants feel the usefulness of mobility,

i.e. there is a wide institutional acceptance if the financial or institutional framework is

given. Yet it happens that not always a stable (sustainable) project is developed because

the single project it is often an extra income for the institution. Thus there is a likelihood

the institution will go for new activities instead of continuing the precious activity on

their own funds.

Sector specific questions III: Adult Education

Question: What is the role of the programme in the field of Adult Education?

Answer:

In the field of Adult Education there is a special interest in continuous education master

programmes.

Question: How are labour market needs assessed and integrated?

Answer:

The labour market needs do not mean any regulatory requirements, only concerning

compliance topics (safety, etc.). Overall user needs are core issue and always strongly

linked with the work place and the individuals’ professional development on individual

level.

Question: Virtual mobility?

Answer:

Even though online learning is very useful it is always only a part of overall and not a

replacement of it.

Question: How are educational and cross-sector issues integrated?

Answer:

Cross-sector issues are of interest – especially with the state government, with a corporate

sector training institute, with the NGO training sector. As well sharing (training) delivery

of services with other sectors is an interesting option. Another aspect is the opportunity

of quality insurance by cross-sector cooperation.

Question: Which specific knowledge can be gathered about mobility of staff in adult education?

Answer:

Cp. sustainability issues described below.

Question: How are Sustainability Issues identified and addressed by projects and implemented?

Answers:

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 127

 Usually the (training) institution does first design the material and afterwards

does develop links with universities in order to search for approval and

sustainability.

 Accreditation is an issues but works only in cooperation with universities (which

was usually not continued by industry). However ex-university lecturers are

used to deliver the lectures – but without linking to the universities (which is a

cross-sector issue as well).

Key findings on the education-sectoral specific questions

The following aspects had been found with respect to education-sectoral specific

questions but may be seen as a conclusion of key findings presented below.

Sustainability and innovative aspects:

 There is no doubt about sustainability. Most participants feel the usefulness of

mobility, i.e. there is a wide institutional acceptance if the financial or

institutional framework is given.

 However, there are still a number of specific obstacles to mobilising professional

and students mentioned, including mainly the universities long-term planning

horizon and the demanding and complicated application process for obtaining

outgoing Erasmus+ ICM mobility grants for these students.

 There are only a few answers on immediate innovative effects that mention:

o Discussion about recognition has been triggered a lot - the “Lisbon

Convention” is addressed in more detail.

o New transparency concerning all participants.

o The feed-back from student on payment of the Erasmus+ grant is that

everything takes place online. Payments happened much slower under

LLP.

o OLS: The bilingual bilateral projects wherefore Erasmus+ offers a full

packaged support are very positive.

Online Learning:

 Virtual mobility is an unexplored challenge! Even though online learning is

considered being very useful it is always only a part of overall and not a

replacement of it – and almost completely misses consideration.

 Virtual mobility instruments, e.g. MOOCs and new platforms may contribute to

replace aspects of physical mobility by virtual mobility, thus contributing to

sustainable environment. There is however no serious discussion at all about the

educational meaning of Virtual mobility.

Sectoral integration and accreditation:

 Erasmus crosses the barriers between different sectors of education, between

formal and informal education, borders are weakened now as well for diverse

institutional partnership. However educational and cross-sector issues are not

addressed in the statistical tools used for monitoring. Mainly in VET and Adult

Education cross-sector issues are of interest – especially with the state

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 128

government, with a corporate sector training institute, with the NGO training

sector. This extends towards learning material as well.

 Accreditation of programmes and materials is an issue in all sectors but seems to

work only in cooperation with universities.

Labour market and skills:

 Usually recent skills should be addressed, very important. Via partnerships with

industry this is addressed and in almost all countries VET + business sector links

are real.

 In the field of Adult Education there is a special interest in continuous education

master programmes. Labour market needs could be assessed and integrated

better but not by any regulatory requirements, only concerning compliance

topics. Overall user needs are core issue and always strongly linked with the

work place and the individuals’ professional development. Such may take place

in a very highly individualised way.

Program structure and materials:

 The integration of Bologna process with Erasmus+ ICM mobility is still

problematic. There imbalances in courses awarding ECTS and experiencing

problems in having these courses recognised at home.

 Joint degrees programmes are important but acceptance in practice seems to be

limited. There is concern about Joint Degree programmes (Joint Masters, Joint

PhDs) due to administrative efforts and hurdles and the sometimes relatively

small results.

 Erasmus+ PhD needs to be restructured. Complementarity between e.g. ERC

starting grants, Marie Skłodowska-Curie and Erasmus+ ICM needs to be

improved significantly.

 The Erasmus+ handbook is seen as a chance but too comprehensive (due to

horizontal integration). Thus respondents point on own national guides for HEIs

according to actions with only 50 pages.

 The Learning Agreement in its original, but also in its present form, appears to be

rather impractical instrument, as many items appear to be superfluous.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 129

PART III

Implementation of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 - Mobility of

Individuals in the Field of Education and Training

Chapter 4: Implementation Structure

1. Erasmus+ Key actions and interaction between implementation levels

Erasmus+ target groups

The analysis of the Implementation Model enforced in Key Action 1 should take into

account as a fundamental framing condition the fact that Erasmus+ constitutes a massive

programme when measured in terms of volumes of targeted individuals, groups and

organisations. It is also a massive programme in terms of budget allocation. Erasmus+

targets for the period 2014-2020 than 4 million people, most of these distributed across

the various sectors covered by Key Action 1 as displayed in Table 9 below:

Table 9:Target number of participants for Erasmus+ (2014-2020)

Overall mobility opportunities

More than 4 million people

Higher education

Around 2 million students

Vocational education and training

students

Around 650 000 students

Staff mobility

Around 800 000 lecturers, teachers, education

staff and youth workers

Volunteer and youth exchange schemes

More than 500 000 young people

Organisations and institutions

Around 125 000

Source: European Commission

Considering that a mid-term evaluation started by the European Commission in 2015 to

be completed the end of 2017

will assess the reality of these targets, and that a

corresponding evaluation by the Parliament may be in preparation, the present study

does not offer systematic impact analyses, but presents where necessary possible

discrepancies between targeted numbers of participants and observed actual

participations, insofar as it sheds light upon implementation aspects of Key Action 1.

This is a non-legislative procedure of category CWP 2016 follow-up (MFF review) covering both

the LLP actions and the current Erasmus+ actions, as described in European Commission (2016).

‘Erasmus+, The First year 26.01.2016’, MEMO/16/143 26 January 2016. p.13, “The results of the

evaluation will be used to feed into the impact assessment for a possible successor programme for Erasmus+.”

For a full description see European Commission (2015). ‘EVALUATION ROADMAP, Mid-term

evaluation of Erasmus+’.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 130

The Implementation Model Governing Key Action 1

The basic equation: Levels, Bodies, Actions

With regard to education, training and youth, successive proposals from the Commission

have stressed “a need for administrative simplification and for streamlining of actions and

priorities as laid in successive regulations”

. Already from 2011 the simplification

announced foreshadowed the implementation of Erasmus+

. The Implementation Model

for Key Action 1 concretises this need. For the purpose of this study, implementation

aspects of Key Action 1 will be deconstructed in three distinct Implementation Entities:

1. Implementation Levels

a. Individual Level

b. Institutional Level

c. Systemic Level, EU level and national level

2. Implementation Bodies

a. the Commission, including The Executive Agency EACEA

b. National Authorities including National Agencies

3. Implementation mechanisms, e.g. “Actions”, Erasmus+ Key Actions 1, 2 and 3

Each Key Action is intended to address one of the three Implementation Levels, e.g. the

individual, institutional, or systemic level. The Implementation Plan of Key Action 1 in

Erasmus+ is governed by a basic equation governing the flow of decisions and

interactions between these Implementation Entities. As each Key Action has been

established to target a specific Implementation Level, Key Action 1 has been programmed

to target primarily the Individual Level. This basic equation is fairly simple.

The complex equation: interactions between Bodies, Levels, and Actions

In order to match the overall objectives of the ET 2020 roadmap as well as the evolving

realities of states, organisations and institutions, this basic equation needs, however, to be

expanded into a new more complex equation that includes interaction mechanisms

(sometimes called “effects”). Such interactions mechanisms may target cross-level and/or

cross-sector spill-over effects seeking to respond to the evolving priorities of ET 2020. For

European Parliament (2012). ‘Proposal of 23/01/2011, for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing "ERASMUS FOR ALL" The Union

Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport /* COM/2011/0788 final - 2011/0371 (COD)

*/’, p. 2.

ibid, p. 4:” The Programme will reduce the number of activities supported. It will use more flat rate grants

to increase efficiency; successful examples such as the lump sum grants for Erasmus student mobility will be

widely used for mobility actions. National Agencies will no longer manage individual mobility and thereby

reducing the administrative workload. The Programme will reduce the number of activities supported. It will

use more flat rate grants to increase efficiency; successful examples such as the lump sum grants for Erasmus

student mobility will be widely used for mobility actions. National Agencies will no longer manage

individual mobility and thereby reducing the administrative workload. The National Agencies will become

the main entry point for learning mobility activities, open to young people whether they participate as

student, trainee or volunteer. The user-friendliness will also be enhanced for participating higher education

institutions at international level, by the integration of disparate international cooperation programmes.”

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 131

example, the inclusion of a special mobility strand Capacity Building in Higher

Education, or in Knowledge Alliance projects Key Action 2 is an interaction mechanism

between the individual level (e.g. stays abroad for students and staff) and the

institutional level (e.g. formal and practical cooperation between universities), and

between Key Action 2 and Key Action 1.

Side-effects of internal vs. external mechanism

While the general implementation model for Key Actions (“the basic equation”) offers

satisfactory readability for stakeholders and beneficiaries, the detailed implementation

model (“the complex equation”) adds a significant amount of interwoven processes

When such interactions are internal mechanisms that channel and regulate decisions

between Implementation Bodies, the most usual negative side-effect may be increased

administrative overhead and operational costs. However, when external mechanisms

become part of the interaction with applicants and individual beneficiaries, the ultimate

readability of the Erasmus+ Programme may be hampered (see Figure 4 below). A

possible maze of external mechanisms and bureaucratic particularisms proprietary to a

call for proposals may also discourage many applicants from participating in and

contributing to Erasmus+.

FIGURE 4: SPILLOVER EFFECT BETWEEN IMPLEMENTATION LEVELS AND

ERASMUS+ KEY ACTIONS.

Source: European Commission, ”Mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+”

Ideological tenets of Erasmus+ and side-effects on Key Action 1

The “No Support Given To Individual Participants” Ideology

The Erasmus+ programme enforces

an almost purist institutionalised approach to

dealing with the mobility of individuals (as well as all other activities in all Key Actions

European Commission (2015). ‘EVALUATION ROADMAP, Mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+’,

p. 2.

ibid p. 3

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 132

of the Programme). While Regulation No 1288/2013 establishes only general principles

for the implementation of Erasmus+, documents from the EU Commission are very clear

about how the institutionalised approach in the regulation should be interpreted. E.g.

preparing the mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+, the Commission states rather directly

that “under Erasmus+, no direct support is given to individual participants; all support is

channelled through institutions, which distribute the support to their individual staff and/or

learners.”

Variants of multilevel governance

Such approach in public administration, excluding direct contact or exchanges with end-

users, e.g. learners or youth or staff members, or non-legal entities (e.g. schools) can be

interpreted as a specific variant of multilevel governance models, studied since the

1990s

in political science, and adopted by the EU as its official vision for public

governance. Multilevel governance is conceived as an approach “based on coordinated

action by the EU, the Member States and regional and local authorities according to the principles

of subsidiarity and proportionality and in partnership, taking the form of operational and

institutionalised cooperation in the drawing-up and implementation of the European Union's

policies”.

For the purpose of this study, the present authors will not engage in a detailed discussion

of competing theories of multilevel governance (MLG), but offer a few remarks based the

general scholarly debate

about MLG that may shed light upon side-effects of the “fully

institutionalised Erasmus+”:

 Multilevel governance builds upon the notion of levels, e.g. territorial levels, but also,

levels of authority and jurisdiction. Subnational government constitutes an important

dimension, but this is not necessarily the primary focus as the multilevel dynamics is

thought as “centrifugal process in which decision-making is spun away from member states

in two directions”, namely to the subnational as well as the supranational levels

(Marks 1993, pp. 401-402). MLG organises the dispersion of authority away from

central states to subnational and supranational.

 There are two, and possibly three types of MLG: Type 1 is rooted in the subsidiarity

principle and “would foresee regional and local public actors cooperating with the higher

levels in a variety of policy areas and public services broadly conceived. Regional and local

government would act as a third territorial layer in EU policy-making. Where this level is

lacking, efforts should be made to erect the necessary bodies in order to safeguard the effective

application of EU laws and to organize input from civil society.” Type 2, “is characterised by

Regulation No 1288/2013. See full reference further below.

European Commission (2015). ‘EVALUATION ROADMAP, Mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+’,

p. 2.

See Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2001).

European Union, Committee of Regions (2012). “Building a European Culture of Multilevel

Governance: Follow-up to the Committee of the Regions’ White Paper”, CIVEX-V-020, 15 and 16

February 2012, Opinion of the Committee of the Regions, p.2.

Cp. Conzelmann, T. (2008).

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 133

task-specific (instead of general purpose) jurisdictions, intersecting memberships and a

flexible design that is responsive to temporary need”. A possible Type 3 may evolve from

Type 2, as “[i]n its more recent versions, the MLG discourse has begun to address more

generally the diffusion of political authority into a less hierarchical and more network-like

structure of EU policy-making; often portrayed as ‘new modes of governance’ (NMG).”

In conclusion, the leap from the hybrid governance model of LLP programme mixing

institutional governance with user-centred dimensions (e.g. teachers and schools could

apply for mobility grants under LLP), to the pure institutional governance model of

Erasmus+ (e.g. teachers and schools cannot apply for mobility grants under Erasmus+

only their employers can) represents a decisive move towards a rather rigid variant of the

Type 1 model.

Governance of Erasmus+ considered as a virtual organisation

It might be of interest to consider the idea that mobility participants in the field of

education and training, in themselves, constitute a considerable virtual group or even a

virtual organisation which has not yet been fully studied with regard to its independent

institutional dimension. Moreover, the approach to mobility participants that is currently

adopted by institutions, such as the EU, tends to consider these mobile individuals

predominantly as members of their home institution, and much less as members of their

host institution. However, from a contemporary governance research perspective, this

huge group of Erasmus+ movers should be addressed as a virtual organisational entity as

well (Snow et al., 1999; Lattemann & Köhler, 2005). Research about social networks

stresses that the role of ‘weak ties’ like trust and meaning constitute crucial building

blocks of online communication infrastructures, i.e. in social media. Such widely

acknowledged findings about the power of ‘weak ties’ (Granovetter 1973) would entail

rethinking governance and communication, as well as encouraging institutions to

develop additional measures. In the longer run, such a new type of awareness would

offer a valuable platform for addressing challenging issues pertaining to European

identity, European integration, and more specifically, an integrated European

educational perspective. The network dimension described here would quite easily

address cross-sectoral and virtual mobility aspects.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 134

RECOMMENDATIONS

 With regards to Key Action 1 targeting the mobility of individuals in education, training and

youth,

 Given the policies and principles laid down in EU regulations,

 Given the Implementation Model enforced in Erasmus+ involving tiers of administration

within a hierarchy,

 Given that the new Implementation Model of Key Action 1 can accommodate private

companies as partners or subcontracted service providers,

 Given that the new Implementation Model of Key Action 1 can accommodate legal entities,

institutions or associations as applicants,

 Given that Key Action 1 targets the mobility of individuals but does not accommodate these

individuals or informal groups of such individuals as applicants, partners, or more generally

as ipso jure actors of the system,

 Given a resulting de facto reduction of mobility applicants, who are citizens, end-users and

customers, to Beneficiaries submitted to Implementation Bodies,

 The European Parliament may consider (1) assessing the appropriateness of the roles, rights

and status of mobility participants in the current implementation of Key Action 1, and (2)

finding ways to reinstate individual mobility participants or their representatives as real

interlocutors.

Free Movers and Key Action 1 - a test case

The slow death of the Free Mover?

“Free Movers” are students from all over the world who organise their study abroad on

their own, without participating in an exchange program. Table 10 below shows that

“Free Movers” surveyed during the period 2012-2015 still constitute a significant

proportion of the mobile student body.

There is still a strong diversity in the levels of attention and the treatments dispensed in

Europe to potential Free Movers by countries and institutions. E.g. universities in the

United Kingdom and Spain usually do not accept incoming Free Movers, while Swedish

and Norwegian HEIs tend to welcome Free Movers on a national basis. E.g. in 2016,

while many HEIs continue to accept Free Movers, e.g. HEC in Paris, some major HEIs,

e.g. Freie Universität Berlin (see Box below) have stopped accepting incoming Free

Movers and enforced a strict institutionalised model for incoming student mobility.

Other universities, such as the University of Maastricht have abolished outgoing “Free

Movers” mobility opportunities for their regular students from 2012

“From the academic year 2012-2013 the Free movers option will be abolished and it will no longer be

possible to apply for study abroad as a Free Mover from 1 September 2011.” p. 39, BACHELOR

EDUCATION AND EXAMINATION REGULATIONS 2011-2012, SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND

ECONOMICS, MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY, Version September 2011, retrieved from

http://studentinfo.sbe.maastrichtuniversity.nl/Documents/OER/old/004.11I%20Bachelor%20EE

R%202011-2012%20Sept%20Final%20ELEUM%20incl%20appendix.pdf.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 135

Table 10: Free Movers vs. EU funded mobility in higher education in some member states.

Source: Eurostudent V

Programme

Country

Free

Movers

funded

stays

Number

Students

surveyed

8.3

81.3

2 212

12.2

64.9

40 246

13.9

54.1

36 044

14.7

80.4

4 647

17.7

59.6

14 080

22.3

74.8

2 025

18.6

57.8

3 620

35.8

31.7

6 733

39.1

45.3

19 277

41.7

5 349

56.5

26.9

1 433

All

20.2%

57.1%

135 666

Side-effects of the full institutionalised model adopted in Key Action 1

Considering the proportion of Free Movers in European HEIs (see Table 10 above) and

the evolving practices in some institutions, a side effect of the fully institutionalised

implementation of the mobility of individuals in Key Action 1 could lead to one of the two

scenarios:

 HEIs may be pressed into the mould of EU-funded mobility agreements, with a

resulting increase in demands for, e.g. mobility grants under Erasmus+ ICM, and a

corresponding proportional decrease in the funded Erasmus+ grants as the increased

demand would not be met by additional budget allocations.

 The total mobility of individuals in European HEIs may decrease as Free Movers may

gradually be excluded or encounter serious administrative obstacles in home and

host institutions, due to the general adoption by European HEIs of a fully

institutionalised system.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 136

SIDE EFFECT OF THE INSTITUTIONALISATION OF MOBILITY:

‘FREE MOVERS’ MAY BECOME AN ENDANGERED SPECIES

“Every year, thousands of international students come to study at Freie Universität Berlin for a

period of time in the context of an international study program. Exchange students can come to

Freie Universität Berlin in the framework of different exchange programs: Direct exchange,

Erasmus+, DAAD, Fulbright, and other programs.

Please note: it is unfortunately not possible to come to Freie Universität Berlin as a free mover! In

order to be enrolled as an exchange student, your home university has to have a student

exchange agreement with Freie Universität Berlin.”

Website of Freie Universität Berlin

“In Berlin it is rather complicated to find a university which accepts such adventurous partnership

[Free Movers]. E.g. the largest of the four universities in Berlin Freie Universität Berlin does not

accept [free movers]. By contrast, in Hamburg, Munich, Leipzig and many other cities, Free

Movers come and go as they like, without guarantees [to have their studies recognised], but with

the kind of autonomy every student desires”.

Website of Le PetitJournal.com, Online Journal for French-speaking expatriates

Influence of the Implementation Model of Erasmus+ on local institutions

Future monitoring of the treatment offered by European HEIs and their National

Authorities to incoming and outgoing Free Movers may yield indicators of a possible

evolution in Europe towards an exclusive institutional exchange agreement regime,

progressively marginalising Free Movers (HEIs that operate with high tuitions and

inscription fees for foreigners will, of course tend to welcome those “Free Movers”

paying high fees). The systematic vertical institutional approach adopted by the

Commission for the implementation of Erasmus+ may reinforce tendencies in HEIs to

welcome incoming mobility only for those students who are enrolled in an exchange

programme.

RECOMMENDATIONS

 The European Parliament may consider assessing the impact of enforcing a fully

institutionalised organisation of the mobility of individuals in Key Action 1 on Free

Movers.

 The European Parliament may consider initiating a policy dialogue with the European

Commission and the National Authorities in Programme Countries to revitalise the Free

Mover dimension in the mobility of individuals in higher education.

http://www.fu-berlin.de/en/studium/international/studium_fu/auslandssemester/

Translated from French. http://www.lepetitjournal.com/berlin/pratique/159547-mobilite-

apres-erasmus-l-alternative-free-mover

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 137

Concluding remarks and further recommendations

Shrinkage of the perimeter of action for mobility candidates

It is worth noting that from the institutionalised perspective of the Commission, in Key

Action 1, the distance between decision-makers to mobility participants, e.g. learners and

staff members, may be considered shortened. However, from the perspective of end-users,

the political distance, measured by the norms of participatory democracy and of

bidirectional diffusion of power (MLG Type 2 or Type 3model), may not be reduced, but

rather increased. Currently, individual mobility participants are no longer ipso jure

interlocutors of the Commission, e.g. applicants, or the National Agency, but as

illustrated by the case of school staff, are dependent of their employer or legal

supervisors.

Individual mobility participants reduced to disenfranchised “beneficiaries”

As a consequence, the vertical institutionalised Implementation Model practised in

Erasmus+ may have particular negative side-effects in Key Action 1 which target

specifically the mobility of individuals. In this vertical-hierarchical institutionalised

version of the multilevel governance model, the so-called notion of “Individual Level” is

constructed as an administrative abstraction which is by no means synonymous with the

broader concept of ‘individuals’ or ‘citizen’. Such institutionalised individual

beneficiaries of e.g. mobility grants, are in a narrow sense neither ‘customers’ nor

‘citizens’ nor ‘users’ nor ‘partners’ in their full right. They are, in Key Action 1, endowed

with limited privileges

to negotiate with decision-makers and grant providers, as they

are ‘designed’ as merely recipients of mobility decisions.

In such a multilevel hierarchy of decisional power, the targeted Beneficiaries may end

being disenfranchised, rather than empowered individuals, despite possible personal

satisfaction with the conditions of mobility. Furthermore, in actions addressing staff

mobility and mobility of adults, the current implementation tends to offer mobility

applicants and participants a very limited perimeter of action.

The European Parliament might want to “facilitate a debate about the foreseeable consequences

of implementing a strategy based on large contracts run through intermediary bodies. It is highly

unlikely that the European Commission will stray from the path towards fewer and much bigger

grant contracts that it has been following for at least a decade and obviously wants to

systematise in the new proposal for the years 2014-2020. Very large contracts run by

intermediary organisations make the programme(s) even less accessible to ordinary citizens,

increase the distance between the Union and those individuals who actually design and

implement projects on the ground or participate in them, and would lead to the EU becoming

barely visible behind the institutional and national bureaucracies actually dealing with applicants.

The European Parliament should consider having an in-depth debate with the Commission on

these vital issues, even though such a debate is unlikely to open the way to a different course and

philosophy in the running of EU programmes in the short term.”

Recommendation No 9, Erasmus For All, p. 32

Rejection of project selections or individual grant applications assessed by National Agencies can

be contested by the persons concerned according to the law of that Member State.

See further: Faludi, A. (2012).

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 138

Need for reappraising the institutionalisation model in Key Action 1

As a result, the current fully institutionalised approach adopted for the implementation

of Key Action 1 may unacceptably limit opportunities for individuals and informal

groups (groups that are not legal entities, e.g. a local group of teachers), benefitting from

mobility, to initiate disruption and innovation processes, e.g. inducing local change in

schools or society upon return. The idea of EU funded mobility empowering individuals

to seek and obtain funding for going abroad, despite occasional organisational resistance,

needs therefore serious reappraisal by the Parliament.

A fully institutionalised model, as currently practised in Key Action 1, may ease the work

of the Commission and National Authorities, but at the price of keeping end-users in

organisational moulds that may inhibit sociocultural and professional change.

The mobility of individuals and the practices of autocratic states

An additional danger of forcing mobility (e.g. limiting opportunities for Free Movers)

into a MLG Type 1 model (the institutional model) would be to empower governments

currently exhibiting autocratic tendencies

to implement mobility arrangements

selectively, giving priority to students with certain ideological orientations or in

ideological networks.

Thanks to prof. Hakan Sicakkan, Dept. of Political Science, University of Bergen and ISP, Paris for

bringing to our attention the challenges posed by autocratic states. On the consequences of the

growing problems related to the growing number of autocracies in Europe, see i.e. Kelemen, R. and

Orenstein, M. (2016); Brouillette, A. (2014; and Ágha, A. (2016).

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 139

RECOMMENDATIONS

 Future evaluations of the Implementation of Erasmus+ in general, and of Key Action 1

in particular, may assess the appropriateness of external and internal interactions

between (1) Implementation Levels, (1) Implementation Bodies, and (2) Key Actions,

as well as possible undesirable side-effects on Applicants and Beneficiaries.

 The European Parliament may consider assessing to which degree the enforcement of

multilevel governance in the Erasmus+ Programme in general, and in Key Action 1 in

particular, contributes to increasing the distance between the targeted beneficiaries

of the Programme, e.g. mobility participants, and the decision-makers.

 In view of alternative, more networked, less hierarchical types of multilevel

governance, the European Parliament may consider alternative more flexible

implementation mechanisms for Key Action 1.

 In view of the systematic choices made by the Commission to institutionalise the

mobility of individuals in Key Action 1, and end supporting individual mobility

participants, the European Parliament may consider reinstating individual access to

mobility in Key Action 1.

 The European Parliament may consider regularly monitoring in Programme countries

the practices of autocratic governments relative to the selection of individuals for

mobility stay in Key Action 1.

2. Implementation Bodies

Implementation model prescribed by Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013

In light of the critical discussion above, this section will deal more specifically with the

Implementation Bodies of Erasmus+ and highlight aspects that have direct bearings on

Key Action 1. The European Parliament and European Council have instituted (Article

27)

two Implementing Bodies: the Commission at Union level and the National Agencies at

the national level in Programme countries. The National Authority in a Programme

country designates the National Agency. How a National Authority manages the

National Agency remains a prerogative of the National Authority. However, each

National Authority shall provide the Commission with an “appropriate ex-ante compliance

assessment that the National Agency complies” with stipulated Union regulations

, and “as

REGULATION (EU) No 1288/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE

COUNCIL of 11 December 2013 establishing 'Erasmus+': The Union programme for education,

training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No

1298/2008/EC.

See European Commission (n.d.), ”Erasmus+: Requirements for Establishing a National Agency”

(case of Serbia).

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 140

well as with the Union requirements for internal control standards for national agencies and rules

for the management of grant support.”

Role of National Authorities

“The National Authorities' (NAU) role is to supervise and monitor the NAs in

the aspects of the programme management and implementation. The official

communication takes place at different stages during the programme

management lifecycle. The NAU co-signs the NA annual Work Programme,

designates the Independent Audit Body which audits the NA's Yearly Report,

proceeds with their own regular monitoring and cooperation schedule with the

NA (described in the NA's Work Programme), submits the October report on the

implementation of EC's/auditors' recommendations by the NA and any other

relevant comments on the NA activities reported in the NA's Yearly Report.”

Monitoring of National Agencies

Asked to indicate where the monitoring procedure of National Agencies by DG EAC are

described, a representative from DG EAC commented to the authors that there exists no

single document which integrates all monitoring procedures:

” National Agencies are monitored by DG EAC through the following

instruments:

o reporting requirements by NAs to DG EAC (mainly the annual reporting) as

specified in the contractual framework;

o supervisory visits organised by DG EAC at NA and NAU/IAB level (risk-

based selection per year);

o financial audits organised by unit EAC-R2 (and outsourced to external

auditor) on a number of NAs (about 10 per year) (random selection per year);

o meetings organised with NAs: two NA directors' meetings per year;

See also: Parliamentary questions E-000941/2015, Answer given by Mr Navracsics 11 March 2015

on behalf of the Commission: “The Commission has defined a set of obligations to ensure the proper

management of Erasmus+ by the National Agencies, and provides control of the National Agencies by

various means. After the designation of a National Agency, each Member State has provided the Commission

with an ex ante compliance assessment. Every year all the agencies present an activity report and financial

report which are analysed by the Commission. These reports include information on the compliance of the

internal control system and procedures implemented by the agencies.

For the Erasmus+ programme, the reports of the National Agencies are accompanied by an audit opinion

issued by an independent audit body designated by the Member State. This opinion focuses on the financial

reporting and the functioning of the internal control systems and procedures of the agencies. On an annual

programme, the Commission also performs monitoring visits to a sample of National Agencies. These visits

are intended, among other things, to verify the compliance of procedures implemented by the agencies. In

addition, financial audits are performed on a sample of National Agencies each year by auditors appointed by

the Commission. Therefore, the Commission considers that a monitoring system for observations and the

implementation of recommendations, resulting from these controls, is in place.”

Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2015-

000941&language=EN).

Communication from a representative from DG EAC following the Panel Interviews conducted 4

May 2016 at DG EAC.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 141

o various working groups with NAs on different topics;

o currently it is ad hoc, structured approach to be developed.”

The current monitoring status of National Agencies has been communicated by a

representative of DG EAC to the authors:

“The NA performance assessment and the assurance level is based on the

assessment of the Yearly Management Declarations, Yearly Reports, Independent

Audit Opinions and NAU Reports. Following the 2014 assessment, there was an

acceptable assurance on 59 National Agencies (including the Switzerland NA in

charge of LLP and Youth in Action), partial assurance for the Spanish NA in

charge of the Education and Training field and no assurance for the Greece NA

competent in the youth field. Currently, we are in the process as of the 2015

assessment and the final results will be known in the autumn/winter 2016.

Throughout the year, the NAs are monitored as regards their follow-up of open

recommendations made by EAC. Overall, the NAs have been performing well,

and there is currently no threat of suspending the programme in any country.”

Centralised and decentralised implementation

In practice, the Implementation Model of Erasmus+ follows a dual sequence. The first

sequence – the decentralised national sequence – of tasks is delegated through the National

Authorities to the designated National Agencies, which need to comply with internal

control rules set by the Commission. Tasks and responsibilities are delegated further

from the National Agencies to institutions and to the ultimate beneficiaries, e.g. mobile

grant holders. The second sequence, the centralised sequence, regroups activities within the

Erasmus+ Programme that cannot or should not be decentralised, and need to be

managed centrally from the Commission, through DG EAC acting with and through its

Executive Agency (EACEA), when and where required. In the Erasmus+ Programme,

The Executive Agency is fully integrated in DG EAC, while in previous programmes this

executive function would be contracted, e.g. to an external organisation

. The rationale

underlying this dual sequence is both political, E.g. the need to involve Programme

countries in the implementation of Erasmus+, and practical, e.g. it would be impossible

to manage mobility grants centrally. There are also political reasons, some of these not

always immediately evident to the general public, to keep some activities centralised, e.g.

such initiatives that are political priorities for the Union.

Analysis of the Commission’s organisational model for Key Action 1

Demands from users have been voiced occasionally requesting that the treatment offered

by the National Agencies to applicants in Key Action 1 should be more homogeneous

and that a recentralisation of services and procedures would secure fair treatment. The

authors of this study have also collected expressions of concern relative to discrepancies

between Programme countries in the practice and standards for the evaluation of

Erasmus+ ICM applications. These are just a few introductory examples of critical views

articulated by system actors, applicants, and beneficiaries. Considering also that critical

views have been articulated by European MPs underscoring that DG EAC or the

Executive Agency is not close enough to people, a description and analysis of the views

I.e. The Socrates, Leonardo & Youth Technical Assistance Office was part of the ETAPE

Consortium with a contract to assist the European Commission in the technical management of the

Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth programmes.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 142

expressed by representatives from the Commission relative to the Implementation of Key

Action 1 would yield a useful basis for comparison with various perceptions gathered

from stakeholders and beneficiaries.

The previous analysis of multilevel governance may, together with perspectives from

New Institutionalisms, contribute to more balanced appraisals of the underlying

construction of the ‘mental organisation’ that is reflected by the official narratives and

practical moves of the Commission concerning Key Action 1.

The Commission’s narrative about the Implementation of Key Action 1

Panel interviews with the Commission addressing the implementation of Key Action 1

were conducted in May 2016

. The analysis of the views expressed during this session

shed light on how central institutional actors in DG EAC construct a personal and

organisational rationale for maintaining the current status quo with regards to the

Implementation of Key Action 1. A summarised presentation

of the implementation

narrative follows:

 In the view of the participating Commission representatives, there may be pragmatic

reasons to acknowledge that there are aspects of the implementation that may call for

decisions to recentralise, or conversely, decentralise current activities. E.g.

reorganising parts of Key Action 1 may be an option to consider in the eventuality of

a substantial increase of Erasmus+ budget decided by the Parliament. As such an

increase would result in the intensifications of activities targeting the mobility of

individuals the human and financial and logistic resource of Implementation Bodies

would require upscaling.

 Supposing that the Erasmus+ budget will be increasing from 2017, it may make

sense, hypothetically, given the money allocated for every member state, to consider

decentralising further some activities to the national level. However, such

reallocations of responsibilities, i.e. delegation of new tasks to National Agencies or,

conversely recentralisation to DG EAC / EACEA occur normally between two

programmes, as it has been the case in 2013-2014 for the transition from LLP to

Erasmus+. Such reallocations do not take place historically at mid-programme stage.

Again, such changes are not likely to happen for regulatory reasons.

 There are additional operational and organisational arguments that may speak against

profoundly modifying the status quo of the Implementation Model of Erasmus+ Key

Action 1 (and other Key Actions, as these are functionally integrated). Should the

Parliament and the Council amend the original regulations and instruct the

Commission to recentralise activities and responsibilities in Key Action 1 that are

currently delegated to National Authorities and their National Agencies, logistic and

organisational constraints would still limit the Commission’s capacity to deliver the

Programme with the required level of quality and responsiveness.

 Considering these constraints, the current position of the Commission (as voiced by

DG EAC) is to keep at a national level the implementation of such activities that are

Conducted by one of the authors 4/5/2016 with participation of several representatives of DG

EAC

Statements listed are not verbatim statements but summative narratives reformulated by the

authors.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 143

closest to end-users. Mobility and cooperation actions that involve large numbers of

grass-root activities are decentralised. This is a logical approach because (1) the large

number of applications makes it impractical, if not impossible, to manage centrally,

and (2) the National Agencies are closer to the beneficiaries and better placed to

support them. Seen from the perspective of the Commission, there is a clear logic

underlying this system, which should be maintained more or less as it is today.

 The present implementation of Key Action 1, incorporating tasks and responsibilities

that are delegated through National Authorities to the National Agencies, as

repeatedly underlined by the panel, practices a form of public governance that offers

the shortest possible path to end-users, save dealing directly with them.

 There is also, in the view of the Commission, a well-functioning network of National

Agencies. By May 2016, the Commission has a positive appreciation of the

management by National Agencies of allocated funds within the framework of the

financial regulations for Erasmus+. National Agencies are operating only at a

national level, and deliver what the Commission expect from them. National

Agencies have an obligation to deliver quantitative and qualitative results. From a

purely administrative and logistic perspective, the current delegation of tasks and

responsibilities to National Agencies functions satisfactorily. As of today, the DG

EAC has no indications emanating from beneficiaries that the National Agency

system may pose severe problems.

 Occasional problems have occurred that have been solved, e.g. a temporary suspension

of a programme in Greece in the Youth sector was enforced recently while new

solutions were found

. Such problems, however, are very rare in the history of

Erasmus+ and former Programmes, as they occur once or twice in one or two

Programme countries within the duration of a whole Programme period. In the case

of Greek Youth and Lifelong Learning Foundation (INEDIVIM) the nature of the

problems that have been addressed do not justify revising the global implementation

model of Erasmus+

See Answer given by Mr Navracsics on behalf of the Commission 18 February 2016 to 13 January

2016 Question for written answer to the Commission Rule 130 No. P-000217-16 by MP Giorgos

Grammatikakis (S&D) 13 January 2016: Precautionary measures have been in place as of December 2014

instructing Inedivim neither to select projects nor to issue grants. As there was no operational National

Agency in the field of youth in Greece in 2015, no Delegation Agreement could be signed with the

Commission. As a result, the applications submitted under the 2015 call could not be considered for

Erasmus+ funding. On 18January 2016 the Greek National Authorities re-designated Inedivim as the future

National Agency for youth and on 21January 2016 they sent the new documentation regarding Inedivim to

the Commission. The Commission is currently proceeding with the necessary checks, including on-site visits,

to verify the current level of assurance with a view to assessing if the programme can be managed in a sound

manner in the field of youth.” Retrieved from

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=P-2016-

000217&language=LT.

Further comment forwarded to the authors from a representative from DG EAC: ”For the Greek

case, it should be noted that it was also the National Authority that was malfunctioning: the NAU did not

succeed in delivering the 2013 Declaration of Assurance to DG EAC on time and also the NAU was unable

to properly monitor and supervise the NA in 2014 and 2015 as requested in our Guidelines for the Erasmus+

Programme.”

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 144

 There are also other actions which are either smaller actions or which may not make

sense to spread among many countries, and there are actions which have a high

political interest for the Commission, and can be managed more efficiently by the

Executive Agency.

 Overall, the key message from DG EAC is that the dual approach described above is

both cost-effective, and politically and humanly appropriate.

Interpreting the narrative from the perspective of New Institutionalism

The views of the Commission summarised above can be interpreted in light of new

institutionalism

, a theory in organisational sciences that analyses mental and formal

institutional homogeneity. “Theories of new institutionalism are particularly useful in

explaining (lack of) policy change, since they focus on how and why institutions originate, persist

and evolve, and on the processes of institutional reproduction and institutionalisation.”

New

institutionalism is historically influenced by Max Weber’s iron cage theory about the

institutionalisation process, but replaces earlier focus on formal aspects of bureaucracies

and institutions by the deconstruction of narratives, shared mental models, and modes of

actions. A crucial insight of both ‘old’ and ‘new’ institutionalism is that organisations

tend historically, to become more homogeneous without necessarily becoming more

efficient or accountable to their users. In this internal solidification process organisations

tend to become focused on their own survival. Efforts to establish robust legitimacy

contribute to maintain internal cohesion and define symbolic and formal perimeters

delimiting appropriate from inappropriate moves and discourses. Constructions of the

world of users (or beneficiaries, or citizens) tend to be developed as internal narratives in

a self-referencing institutional environment, rather than as true reflections of the reality

“out there”.

A specification for all Key Action 1 tasks delegated to the Executive Agency from 2014 to 2016

can be found in: European Commission (2013). 2014 annual work programme for the

implementation of ‘Erasmus+, the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport,

C(2013)8193 of 27 November 2013, WP 2014 and in: European Commission (2014). 2015 annual

work programme for the implementation of 'Erasmus+': the Union Programme for Education,

Training, Youth and Sport, C(2014)6856 of 30 September 2014, WP2015, and in: European

Commission (2015). 2016 Annual work programme for the implementation of 'Erasmus+' the Union

Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport C (2015)6151 of September 2015, WP 2015.

About new institutionalism, see: Powell, W. and DiMaggio, P. J. eds. (1991) and Oliver, C. (1991).

Vijge, M. (2012, p. 157).

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 145

LACK OF CHANGE IN INSTITUTIONS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF NEW

INSTITUTIONALISM

 New Institutionalism highlights how and why lack of change is frequently the

ruling opinion in organisations. Source: Vijge (2012), pp. 157-159:

 Path Dependency: ”Institutional context, which is inherited from the past,

influences developments and pushes these along so-called ‘trajectories’’’.

 Locked-in Syndrome: “Path-dependent developments necessarily [do not

always] mean ‘virtuous’ progress, but can instead also lead to inefficient,

unintended or ‘vicious’ outcomes”.

 Only One Future Option: “Once ‘’inefficient’’ structures are institutionalised,

they influence the trajectories or institutional developments and make the

move towards other—possibly more efficient—structures more difficult and

costlier”.

 Iron-Caging Actors: “Institutions influence not only actors’ choices but also the

interactions between actors, since institutions are the main fora in which

political debates or conflicts take place.

Less virtuous outcomes of virtuous implementation processes in Key Action 1

In light of insights gained from new institutionalism, and with regards to the discussion

in the previous section of this chapter, the implementation model developed by the

Commission for Key Action 1:

1. may or may not be cost-efficient (cost analysis is not within the scope of this

study);

2. may be efficient, but chiefly from the perspective of the institutional

environment;

3. may not respond optimally to the broader vision of decentred, network-like, less

hierarchical multilevel governance (Type 2 and Type 3 MLG model);

4. may not contribute in the perception of stakeholders, e.g. learners, youth,

workers, or educational staff, to reduce the distance to decision-centres;

5. may choose approaches for current and future evaluations of Erasmus+ and Key

Action 1 that are too path-dependent;

6. may be subject to becoming locked-in in a particular institutionalised vision;

7. may be dependent on fresh, external input to envisage a broader set of future

paths for the mobility of individuals under Key Action 1;

8. may tend to influence, more than it may be democratically appropriate,

interactions between various actors and stakeholders.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 146

Furthermore, the re-institutionalisation process witnessed in Key Action 1 may serve the

short-term objectives of the Commission and of ruling authorities in Programme

countries, but will neither be serving the sociocultural goal of promoting European

integration through mobility because socialisation into European values happens through direct

contact with the EU institutions. Such crucial socialisation may involve e.g. teachers or

groups of teachers applying directly for mobility grants, applicants and stakeholders

interacting with EU institutions and experiencing models for impartial treatment,

encouraging mobility candidates and participants to acquire a sense of the rule of law by

applying for grants, contracting directly with EU institutions which may also offer

productive channels for engaging in structured negotiations and acquiring transferable

skills to local environments.

RECOMMENDATION

In light of the Commission’s view that it is not possible nor realistic to modify thoroughly the

Implementation Model of Erasmus+ in 2017, the European Parliament may consider exploring

legal and practical needs and opportunities for changing the centralised and decentralised

Erasmus+ Implementation Model.

3. Public communication about general budgetary aspects with relevance to Key

Action 1

Communication practices of the Commission about the Erasmus+ budget

The final signature by the European Parliament and the Council 11th of December 2013

fixed a very ambitious budget for the Erasmus+ Programme. Since then, The Commission

has been communicating intensively the message about the 40% budget increase from

LLP to Erasmus+, conveying the impression to users and actors in the field that such

increase would unleash a considerable increase of activities in all sectors addressed by

Key Action 1.

For example, the widely diffused promotional brochure “Erasmus+ 2014-2016 What’s in

it for education, training, youth and sport?”

states that the Erasmus+ Programme has a

“total budget of €14.7 billion, representing a 40% budget increase”. In the same vein, former

Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou responsible for Education, Culture, Multilingualism

and Youth stated in a speech to the European Parliament 19 November 2013 that

“The €14.7 billion budget agreed today is nearly 40% higher than current levels.

It means that we will be able to provide grants for more than 4 million young

people and others to study, train, work or volunteer abroad. ... The budget

increase we have secured represents a massive expansion of the world's biggest

and best mobility programme, and we should all take pride in that

achievement.”

European Commission (2014). “Erasmus+ 2014-2016 What’s in it for education, training, youth

and sport?”.

European Commission (2013). Androulla VASSILIOU. ‘Erasmus+: 40% budget boost for the

world's biggest and best mobility programme’, Press release 19 November 2013, last updated

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 147

The key message about budget increase was that it would unleash an unprecedented

increase in the volume and quality of mobility in Europe and elsewhere. The targeted

4 million mobility participants are detailed further by Commissioner Vassiliou in the

same speech:

“Erasmus+ will provide more grants across the board. For example, it will support:

 2 million higher education students and 650 000 vocational training students;

 800 000 teachers, trainers, education staff and youth workers will be able to teach

or train abroad;

 More than 500 000 young people will receive grants to volunteer abroad or take

part in youth exchanges;

 200 000 Master's level students will benefit from a new loan guarantee;

 125 000 organisations and institutions expected to benefit.”

The foreseen increases in mobility have since been communicated by DG EAC, i.e., in a

brochure dated 30 January 2014 which predicts 20% more mobility for higher education

students and a 6% increase in the number of mobilities for VET learners by 2020.

To illustrate the impact of this communication offensive, Germany-based ICEF Monitor,

relying exclusively on the 2016 annual work programme for the implementation of

'Erasmus+

(direct quotation in italic), presents in an almost panegyric style the

announced increase in mobilities as near sensational:

“Under an expanded funding formula, participation in the Erasmus+ European

student mobility programme more than doubled in 2014. 500 000 students and

150,000 educators received funding for training, study, and volunteering abroad

that year. The programme has been shown to have significant effects on the

employability of participants. This is especially true for programme alumni in

Eastern Europe, whose risk of long-term unemployment was reduced by 83%,

and Southern Europe, where mobile students were half as likely to experience

long-term unemployment.... Erasmus+ has a total budget of €14.7 billion (US$16.4

billion) and a newly released report for 2014, the first full year under the new

programme, confirms total spending of €2.07 billion (US$2.3 billion) over the year, with

two-thirds of that total (or about €1.2 billion) allocated to mobility programmes.

That concentrated spending led to a dramatic increase in European student

mobility in 2014. Nearly 650,000 people participated in training, study, or

volunteering abroad, including roughly 500 000 students and trainees and

150 000 teachers and educators who had “the opportunity to improve their

competencies by teaching and training abroad.” The majority of Erasmus+

participants come from six EU countries: Germany (11.6%), France (10 %), Spain

(9.3%), Poland (8.2%), Italy (7.3%), and Turkey (5.3%).”

22/10/2015.

European Commission (2014). Tyson A. “Higher Education in Erasmus+”. PDF Brochure.

Source: European Commission (2016). Annual work programme for the implementation of 'Erasmus+':

the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport, C(2015)6151 of 14 September 2015”.

ICEF (2016). Erasmus+ participation doubles in 2014; boosts youth employment, ICEF Monitor report

12 February 2016. The same kind of uncritical coverage may be found November 21, 2013 in the

Times Higher Education article ‘Horizon 2020 and Erasmus budgets approved’.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 148

The Commission’s narrative about the Erasmus+ budget situation

One of the authors of this study collected the views of representatives from the

Commissions about the budget situation. A narrative describing several aspect of the

budgetary situation of Erasmus+ in May 2016 follows:

 Given previous and repeated announcements that the Erasmus+ budget would

grow by 40% over the 2014-2020 period

to a total of €14.7 billion, the reality is

that, by May 2016, according to DG EAC, this increase has not yet materialised fully.

According to the planning of the Erasmus+ budget framework, the budget for the

first three years of the Programme remains comparable to its predecessors. While

there has been no decrease in the amount of allocations, there has been no significant

increase of the budget for use in Key Action 1. From 2014 to 2016, the KA1 budget has

increased by 2%. However, for School Education KA1 shows a marked increase

compared to the LLP Comenius In-Service Training action: from ca. 27 million

EUR in 2013 to approximately 40 million EUR in 2014.

 External factors, e.g. the financial crisis in Europe and elsewhere, have played a

role in the decision not to give a substantial increase of the budget before 2017.

 This leaves Erasmus+ with an increase of 2% to 3% every year for 2014-2015 and,

possibly, 12%-13% more in the remaining years.

In December 2015 DG EAC

communicated to the Erasmus+ Committee a projection of the budget allocation

between sectors and Key Actions until 2020. The figures provided are purely

indicative as many factors may influence the allocation decisions until the end of

the programme (policy priorities, mid-term review of the multiannual financial

framework, absorption capacity…). However, this projection clearly shows from

2017 an important increase of the yearly EU budget (+17% total budget, +16%

total KA1). “The Commission intends to substantially increase the allocation to

pillar actions of the programme, notably the mobility projects within Key Action

1 (about 165Mio€ more

)

”

 The Commission has communicated frequently and proactively with the European

Parliament to explain the implications of the budgetary policy for the Programme

for implementing activities, as well as implications for short-term planning and

long-term projections.

Statements listed are not verbatim statements but summative narratives reformulated by the

authors.

ICEF (2013). ‘EU ministers conclude €93 billion funding arrangement for Erasmus+ and Horizon

2020’, ICEF Monitor. Online article.

Source: Panel Interview with representatives from DG EAC 4th May 2016

”In 2017, thanks to the budgetary authority support to the programme, the Erasmus+ budget is expected to

sharply increase for the first year since the programme has started (14% or circa 280Mio€ as compared to

2016). In line with the budgetary profile of the MFF 2014-2020, this increase is meant to be repeated over the

rest of the programming period (over 10% per year).”(Reference in Note 91).

European Commission (2016). ”CULT Committee, EP Exchange of views on Annual work

programmes” Brussels, 25 April 2016. Document communicated by DG EAC to authors.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 149

 The Commission has made full use of the available budget appropriations for

Erasmus+ in all targeted activity sectors.

“. In light of this high demand,

National Agencies as in previous years have used more than 99% of the

programme funds.”

 There are in clear positive indicators: e.g. the overall number of mobilities has

increased since the start of Erasmus+ in 2014, e.g. around 660 000 students and

staff received mobility grants in 2015, 10 000 more than in 2014. “On substance,

2017 is expected to be a year of relative continuity on content, however - for the

first time – with a substantial increase in the budget.”

 New services which were not provided under LLP, e.g. Online Language

Support (OLS), have been added.

 The key message from DG EAC is that despite a limited increase in the budget,

the Commission has managed to increase the number of outputs of the various

Erasmus+ Actions in all sectors, combined with improvement of the quality for

the beneficiaries.

4. Grant level discrepancies

Examples in this section are from Higher Education but are applicable to other sectors in

Key Action 1.

Socio-Economic selectivity of Student Mobility

Conclusions and recommendations from the 2006 survey are still valid

The theme of social-economic selectivity and sensitivity of both general and EU-funded

student mobility is a recurring theme in surveys and academic research on learner

mobility in Europe and elsewhere.

Source: Panel Interview with representatives from DG EAC 4th May 2016.

RECOMMENDATION

In light of the interviews conducted for this study, the public communication of the

Commission about increases in budget and mobility volume, intendedly or unintendedly,

has fuelled unfulfilled expectations among stakeholders, including National Agencies and

applicants. This affects particularly actions targeting the mobility of individuals in Key

Action 1.

The European Parliament may consider assessing not only the effects of the decision to

spread the Erasmus+ 40% budget increase over the duration of Erasmus+ Programmes

(7 years from 2014 to 2020), but also the effects of the public communication of the

Commission about expected budget increase on stakeholders.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 150

Earlier studies have already surveyed the economic conditions of mobile students,

considering not only financial resources available to individuals before and during

mobility, but also taking into account the broader picture offered by correlating financial

data the socio-economic and educational background of their parents. Souto et. al. (2006)

compared reproduced in 2005 earlier studies carried out in 2000, to conclude that there

was a high degree of consistency between the two surveys with regards to the

demographic characteristics of respondents. While the authors observed that “there seems

to have been some progress in attracting people from less well-off backgrounds in the last five

years” they noted nevertheless that “such trends are less well reflected in parental background

by level of education” (pp. iv-v). The conclusion of Souto et al. that the role of the grant

allocation system enforced during the 2000-2006 period to address social disparities,

remained minor as it was mainly “a necessary financial supplement for mobility that did to

some extent cover the extra costs of studying abroad”, covering near 100% of additional cost

compared with 80% in 2000. Moreover, there was an increase of 10% of students suffering

additional expenses in relation to their stay abroad was observed in the 2006 study.

The key findings of Souto et al. (page v) offer a platform for assessing possible improvements

regarding social selectivity in mobility enrolment in Key Action 1:

“There are still important socio-economic barriers in relation to take-up of the programme. A

large proportion of students reported their parents to have an economic status above the

average in their country, although a change in the profile of programme participants can be

observed from the 2000 survey, with more students from average and below-average economic

background participating in the programme than before.”

Eurostudent V 2012 - 2015 confirms that social selectivity is still an issue

Our analysis of subsequent survey data from the Eurostudent IV (2008-2011) and

Eurostudent V surveys support the conclusions of Souto et al. regarding social selectivity

in enrolment in student mobility. The two Eurostudent surveys collected data about student

mobility (including EU and non-EU funding sources) indicate that social selectivity

remains an issue across the two periods, suggesting that the socio-economic patterns of

enrolment should be part of the agenda in future assessments of Key Action 1.

Although, for 2012-2015, combining Eurostudent V data with GDP data for 2014

for

some Programme countries, one can observe a clear pattern showing that countries with

low GDP (e.g. under 80% of EU average) have a high proportion of student mobility funded by

EU grants, which would suggest that EU-funding has an overall bridging effect (see

Figure 5 below).

European Commission. Eurostat. Table ‘GDP per capita in PPS’, Data from 1st of December 2015.

Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tec00114&pl

ugin=1

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 151

FIGURE 5: GDP 2014 (EU=100) BY PERCENTAGE EU-FUNDED STUDENT MOBILITY.

Source: Eurostudent 2012-2015

Educational selectivity in mobility enrolment

However, extending the data analysis to include the parents’ education background

introduces strong nuances. Using the ISCED categorisation of educational level of the

student’s parents

, an educational background equality index (r) was used by the authors

based on the ratio of students’ background enrolling for studies abroad with parents

from low ISCED educational background compared with students with parents with a

high ISCED educational background (r= high/low)

. Analysis of the distribution of r for

mobility participants shows that social selectivity still is an important contextual variable

for assessing Key Action 1:

 High upward educational mobility (r≤1) is only attested a few countries, e.g.

Latvia, Sweden, and Germany.

 Only in a few countries with high above EU average GDP, Nordic countries, The

Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland there is a low percentage (under 25%) of

students who do not experience insufficient financial insecurity, and do not

report expecting significant financial obstacles to mobility.

 With the exception of Nordic countries, there is a high percentage (higher or

equal to 50%) of countries in which students are dependent on support from their

UNESCO (2014). ‘UNESCO International Standard Classification of Education’.

r= a/b; a= percentage of students with parents with high ISCED level 5 to 6, b= percentage of

students with parents with low education background ISCED level 0 to 2.

Eurostudent IV (2008-2011): Latvia (r=0.3), Sweden(r=0.9), Germany (r=1.0). [2012-2015].

Eurostudent V (2012-2015:) r is calculated using the social background equality for all students,

mobile or not, average of (father’s r + mother’s r)/2,

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 152

parents, family, or partner for their mobility. In some countries students are

extremely dependent (more than 70%) on such support, e.g. Slovak Republic

(90%), Italy (84.4%), Czech Republic (81.5%), Switzerland (80.8%), Austria

(78.8%), Croatia (76.9%), The Netherlands (74.4%), Germany (74%), France

(72.1%).

Recommendations

The conclusion and recommendations of Souto et al. from 2006 are neither outdated nor

invalidated by new grant allocation policies in Erasmus+ Key Action 1 from 2014. While

the new grant location system implemented in Key Action 1 may have some positive

effect on the financial disparities noted above, major challenges remain to be addressed in

this area.

The conclusions of Souto et al., pp. v-vi

, i.e., that “barriers to take-up of the programme are

not only economic but truly socio-economic”, may therefore be paraphrased to formulate

further recommendations

100

addressing social selectivity in Key Action 1:

RECOMMENDATIONS

 The European Parliament may consider restructuring the budget for Key Action 1 to enable

the mobility of people who now cannot take part in it due to financial reasons.

 The European Parliament may consider measuring this against the administrative costs of

setting up schemes that take into account the economic background of students.

 The European Parliament may consider initiating a more nuanced allocation of funds by

home and host country that would also encourage the participation of a wider socio-

economic spectrum of students in the programme since these aspects still have an impact on

the financial situation of students due to differences in the cost of living that is not fully

offset by the current distribution of grants.

Eurostudent V (2012-2015), Variable: ‘Sources of funding for realised enrolment abroad,

parents/family/partner, all students under mobility’.

Reproducing Souto et al., pp. v-vi

100

These findings and conclusions support the recommendations of 2012 EHEA Mobility Strategy

“Ensuring that different groups of students have similar opportunities of becoming internationally mobile

and thus of reaping the benefits of international student mobility is therefore an important goal of higher

education policy-makers. In fact, the ministers responsible for higher education have promised to ‘give extra

attention and opportunities to under-represented groups to be mobile’” (EHEA Mobility Strategy, 2012, p.

3 cited in EVSI5, p.186)

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 153

Analysis of the Commission’s position concerning grant amounts

The interview material gathered for this study confirms that while, some mobility

participants declare to be satisfied with the grant levels

101

, some students and local

Erasmus+ staff members report criticism about perceived grant discrepancies between

countries. Real or perceived, such grant size discrepancies may generate or reinforce

social selectivity, e.g. in Spain

102

where mobility candidates from more affluent social

categories in large Spanish urban areas may afford to go abroad, while students from

rural areas, whose parents have a modest income, would be de facto disqualified. There

are indications that National Agencies enforce grant allocation decisions quite differently

from country to country and from sector to sector in Key Action 1.

In VET mobility, Germany has cut all grants to apprentices by 80% leaving only 20% to

the mobility candidate to cover extra expenses since these persons are considered to

receive already a salary. In Norway, by contrast, such cuts do not happen, and these

candidates receive the whole grant, because in the view of the authorities, there is enough

money available in national budgets to allocate a maximum grant amount.

While it is not within the scope of the study to offer a systematic analysis of the

geography and distribution of grant allocations across sectors in Key Action 1, it is

sufficient to comment that the combined effect of the principles laid down by the

Commission and the grant allocation practices enforced by the National Agencies, may

not be understood fully by stakeholders and beneficiaries.

Panel interviews with the Commission addressing among other themes grant disparities

in Key Action 1 were conducted in May 2016

103

. The analysis of the views expressed

during this session shed light on how central institutional actors in DG EAC construct a

personal and organisational rationale for maintaining a status quo with regards to the

grant allocation system under Key Action 1. A summarised presentation

104

of the

implementation narrative follows:

 In the former LLP programme there was a maximum grant sum depending on

the destination country. The National Agencies had the freedom to fix the level,

without any minimum. It led to wide discrepancies between the grant allocated

across the countries but also within the countries where flexibility was given to

101

Frequently, these student, e.g. French outbound students, do not distinguish sharply between

the Erasmus+ grant portion and additional private, institutional, and regional grants and support.

102

E.g. the authors collected reactions about alleged low grants allocated by the Spanish National

agency to Spanish students outbound to high cost host institutions, i.e., “Norwegian students

outbound to Spain get more grants than the Spanish students incoming to Norway, despite much higher

costs of living in Norway”. National agencies in host countries, i.e. Norway, and Erasmus+ contacts,

i.e. France commented they knew but could not do anything because it was the Spanish National

Agency that has decided to cut the grant amount for Spanish students.

103

Conducted by one of the authors 4/5/2016 with participation of several representatives of DG

EAC.

104

Statements listed are not verbatim statements but summative narratives reformulated by the

authors.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 154

beneficiaries, e.g. to incoming Spanish Students and to outbound Norwegian

students. There was a lack of clear criteria under LLP for fixing the size of grants.

 The Erasmus+ methodology to fix the level of unit costs is described in the

Commission Decision C(2013)8550

105

 The level of these unit costs is going to be analysed in the context of the Mid-

Term Evaluation review of Erasmus+. Depending on the results of this study,

grant levels might be adapted where needed as from the 2018 call.

 Erasmus+ has, according the Commission, enforced more transparent norms for

deciding the size of grants across Europe support across Europe. This is why a

certain flexibility has been kept in the Erasmus+ grant levels, but much more

reduced than under LLP and according to clear and transparent criteria. For

example, the following changes have been introduced for higher education

student grants in Erasmus+:

– They are fixed at national level (except in 6 countries

106

where HEIs can adapt

the grant level taking into account their regional funding) within a limited

range fixed at EU level (new in Erasmus+: introduction of a minimum level

of 150€/month) according to 2 criteria:

• the available level of national or regional co-financing (which is

substantial e.g. in France, Germany or Spain)

• the volume of demand for grants, (e.g. the demand for Erasmus+

grants is much higher in Spain than in the UK)

– These limited ranges for grant amounts take into account the difference in

living costs between the sending and receiving country.

– To make the programme more accessible, additional financial support is

awarded to:

• students from socio-economic disadvantaged backgrounds

• students and staff with special needs

• students from outermost countries and regions/overseas territories

 The Commission has considered the possibility to standardise the grant amounts

in every European country. However, the consequences of such a move would,

in the view of DG EAC representatives, have been negative, as a resulting higher

level of grants would divide by two or three the number of students who may

benefit from Erasmus+ support.

 A survey conducted in France by Agence Erasmus+ concludes that the

representativeness of Erasmus+ mobile students reflects the general profile of the

student population in France. Such survey results strengthen the view of DG

EAC that the proportion of Erasmus+ grant receivers is the same as in the total

population. Moreover, the Erasmus+ mobility scoreboard suggests that the

Programme makes a positive difference in term of representativeness of mobility

candidates relative to the general student population.

105

European Commission (2013). ‘The use of lump sums, the reimbursement on the basis of unit

costs and the flat-rate financing under the “Erasmus+ Programme C(2013)8550 of 4 December

2013’.

106

For France, see: https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F15077

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 155

 Additionally, National agencies have a legal obligation since 2014 to publish the

grant sum before the academic year, even before the students apply for mobility

grants.

 There are, meanwhile, 6 countries, among them France and Germany, have

granted universities the liberty to decide the grant level. In every case, the level

fixed by the National Agencies is to be published before the students are allowed

to apply for Erasmus+ mobility. The student should know before applying how

much they can get.

Erasmus not truly for everyone? Parliamentary criticism of grant amounts

Similar criticism has been voiced on 9 October 2014 in the Parliament in a Question for

written answer to the Commission Rule 130 by MP Andrej Plenković (PPE) that the

“amount of money provided to students going abroad to participate in Erasmus

remains very low when viewed against the cost of living in some of the Member

States. According to Commission data, the average amount of financial assistance

per student in the 2012-2013 academic year was EUR 253 per month. Former

MEP Doris Pack concluded back in 2013 that Erasmus was not truly ‘for

everyone’, as only those with additional financial support could participate. She

also stated that Erasmus+ would, despite her best efforts, remain a programme

for the ‘financial elite’.”

107

In an answer given 10 December 2014 by Mr Navracsics on behalf of the Commission the

argument of a greater social selectivity in Erasmus+ compared with the LLP Programme is

rejected as it is claimed that the differences in cost of living are taken into account:

”The Commission has made efforts to ensure that the new Erasmus+ programme

is more accessible and inclusive for higher education students. The grants for

mobility are increased from previous levels and they take now account of the

difference in living costs between the sending and receiving countries.

Additional financial support is available for participants from disadvantaged

backgrounds. Such students may receive a top-up grant of between EUR 100 and

200 per month in addition to the basic Erasmus+ grant upon the decision of the

national authorities. Students with special needs can benefit from specific

support and may get their full eligible real cost related to their mobility period

abroad reimbursed.

Moreover, students from geographically distant programme countries, or from

the outermost regions of EU Member States, receive higher grants for individual

support and a separate travel grant taking into consideration their remoteness.

Higher grant amounts are also fixed to support students travelling from or to

partner countries outside the EU.

Linguistic support has also been reinforced with a new online linguistic platform

to facilitate the participation of students who have not had the opportunity to

develop the necessary foreign languages skills.”

107

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-

%2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2bWQ%2bE-2014-

007791%2b0%2bDOC%2bXML%2bV0%2f%2fEN&language=EN

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 156

The Commission claims in the written answer reproduced above that differences in the

size of grants may not introduce significant social biases between Programme countries.

between Programme countries.

Further comments from DG EAC

108

refers to the case of France to support the claim that

Erasmus+ fund of student mobility has a positive impact on existing social biases:

“DG EAC has indications that differences in the size of grants may not introduce

significant social biases between Programme countries, in particular with the

new additional top-up (between 100 and 200€/month) that is allocated on top of

the basic grant to students from a disadvantaged socio-economic background.

E.g. in France a survey run by Agence Erasmus+ shows that representativeness

of Erasmus+ mobile students reflects the general profile of the student

population in France [the French ministry provides a specific financial support

for those French Erasmus+ students coming from a disadvantaged socio-

economic background]. Such survey results strengthen the view of DG EAC that

the extension of this best practice to all Erasmus+ programme countries [with the

specific Erasmus+ top-up grant for students from a disadvantaged socio-

economic background] will contribute to ensure that the proportion of Erasmus+

grant receivers is the same as in the total population.”

“In 2015, a survey conducted by the French Agence Erasmus+ covering 362 HEIs

in France shows that “47% of grant holders who are selected on social criteria and

who went abroad received financial support from Erasmus+. The proportion of

grant holders receiving Erasmus+ financial support (35%) is higher than the

national average of grant holders on social criteria in French higher education

(28%)”

109

Reference is made to students with special needs, long distance travel support, linguistic

support (OLS). It is furthermore claimed that the grant amounts are taking into account

the cost of living, but it is not reported if the calculation principles underlying these

amounts have a sufficient levelling effect on the financial autonomy of beneficiaries.

Concluding remark

The gap noted between, on one hand, the public position defended by the Commission in

the Parliament, together with the narrative collected during the Panel interview with

representatives from DG EAC and, on the other hand, available surveys commented in

this chapter, raises questions. Whereas earlier and more recent surveys, e.g. Eurostudent

V, suggest strongly that social selectivity remains a social obstacle to mobility, the

Commission supports publicly the view that the implementation of the grant system in

Key Action 1 counteracts such undesirable trends.

108

forwarded to the authors as an edited version of the transcripts following the Panel Interview

held 4 May 2016 at DG EAC.

109

Agence Erasmus + (2015, p5). Erasmus+ 2014-2015, Appel à propositions 2015, Report,

@ErasmusplusFR, April 2016.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 157

RECOMMENDATION

The European Parliament may consider assessing in greater depth and width the implications

of the policies of Commissions and the practices of National Agencies with regards to grant

amounts with special regards to reproduction of socio-economic disparities in Europe.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 158

Chapter 5: Mobility of School Staff

1. Key Action 1 offers only institutionalised school staff mobility

Key Action 1 concerns only the mobility of staff in the school sector. There are no

provisions in Key Action 1 activities targeting the school sector to offer mobility

opportunities to learners.

As this was the case in the LLP Programme of the Comenius Action Individual Mobility

of pupils that was launched in 2010, Erasmus+ has brought to an end significant efforts

deployed earlier to encourage e.g. school class exchanges.

110

The Comenius sub-

programme targeted “all levels of school education, as well as the individuals involved,

including pupils, teachers, local authorities, and education institutions, among others.”

111

The

ideology and rationale underlying such an abrupt policy change from LLP to Erasmus+

has not been submitted systematically to the appreciation of stakeholders, neither it has

debated in depth and width in the media nor in national professional arenas, prior to the

adoption of Regulation No 1288/2013 of 11 December 2013 establishing Erasmus+ and

Article restricting implicitly mobility in school sector to staff

112

. A close reading of the

Comenius related portions of Regulation No 1288/2013 reveals some ambiguities about

the systematic exclusion of Comenius-type mobility for learners from 13 years of age.

Only in Key Action 2, provisions are made to include pupils on short-term visits or

exchanges in School-only Strategic Partnerships, but only in such cases where the

exchanges contribute to deliver the project’s outcomes, e.g. to promote linguistic skills

and intercultural awareness.

113

110

Cp. the study of Bonnet (2012b) about individual mobility of learners in schools.

111

Cp. ‘Comenius - School Education (Socrates Action1)’, accessed at

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/static/en/overview/comenius_overview.htm

112

Article 17 applies to the issues raised in this Chapter: ”It is necessary to strengthen the intensity and

extent of European cooperation between schools, and of the mobility of school staff and learners, in order to

address the priorities set out in the Agenda for European Cooperation on Schools for the 21st century, namely

to improve the quality of school education in the Union in the fields of competence development and in order

to improve equity and inclusion within school systems and institutions, as well as to reinforce and provide

support for the teaching profession and school leadership. In this context, the strategic targets on reducing

early school leaving, improving performance in basic skills, and improving participation and quality in early

childhood education and care, should be prioritised along with targets reinforcing the professional

competences of school teachers and school leaders, and improving the educational opportunities for children

with a migrant background and those at a socio- economic disadvantage.”

113

” Long-term mobility of staff, the short and long-term mobility of pupils as well as the blended mobility of

adult learners can be supported under Key Action 2 Strategic Partnerships” Erasmus+ Programme Guide for

2016 Version 2 p. 33.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 159

RECOMMENDATION

The European Parliament may consider assessing to which degree the Commission’s policies

allowing almost exclusively school staff mobility LLP in Key Action 1, and not any more school

class exchanges, as it was the case in Comenius, faithfully addresses all aspects of the Comenius

dimension expressed in Regulation No 1288/2013.

Institutionalisation of school staff mobility in Key Action 1

Rationale

The strategic priorities of the schools are much more prioritised under Erasmus+ and

replace previous teachers-based initiatives under LLP. Under Erasmus+ teacher-based

initiatives to enrol in staff mobility depends on the approval of the school leadership or

school owners.

In order to clarify the question “Are the ‘strategic priorities of schools’ described at a

European level?”

114

, the Commission’s understanding of the notion of ‘strategic priorities

for schools’ was forwarded to the authors in a comment provided by a representative

from DG EAC:

“The focus on the strategic development of the school was introduced in

Erasmus+ to ensure that individual mobilities have an impact not only on the

person in question, but on his or her home institution, thereby promoting the

international capacity of the institution and the quality of the teaching offered.

The institution should be actively involved and invested in the project. This is

why schools must submit a European Development Plan in their application.

This plan should reflect the institution's own competence development needs

and plans. There are therefore no priority topics or subjects defined on the

European level, because the objective is to activate school leaders and the schools

as organisations, and encouraging activities that are in line with the needs of each

particular school.”

The most important change from the previous programme is the introduction of an

institutional model which accepts only application from the institutions, e.g. from the

schools provided they are legal entities, or from the ‘school owners’. The institutional

applicant may apply for grants financing a variety of mobilities for their staff. This is a

major difference compared with LLP, which accepted individual applications from

teachers. Where the authors of this study see a clear ideology (discussed in another

chapter), the representatives from the Commission interviewed 4 May 2016 stress that,

besides ideology, there are also a very practical reasons to adopt this approach, e.g. “the

administrative effort involved in processing thousands of applications for a few hundred euro each

could not be justified.”

115

In Erasmus+, institutions are invited to respond to specific calls

that deal with specific mobilities.

In some countries, e.g. Norway, the institutionalisation of school staff mobility proposals

has been systematised to the point that not even schools can apply for teacher mobility

grants (since schools are not legal entities), but only the school owner, e.g. the county or

114

Additional question submitted to DG EAC following the Panel held on 4 May 2016.

115

Comment on the Panel transcripts following the Panel Interview with DG EAC 4 May 2016

forwarded to the authors.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 160

the municipality

116

. The Commission supports this approach, as some schools do not

supposedly possess the necessary experience and skills to write and submit potentially

successful applications. The Erasmus+ strategy for schools is about building competence

in the school as a whole, including staff mobility under Key Action 1. The consequence is

that Erasmus+ offers a wider spectrum of mobilities within schools, e.g. including

possible participation from school leadership, in order to improve the international

capacity of the whole institution, as well as the teaching and learning offered by the

institution. The Commission has opted therefore for applications from institutions as

opposed to individual application from teachers.

Possible negative effects of institutionalised mobility on local change-makers

While this may serve the outlined strategic goals for the school sector, the

implementation of new institutional model described above may generate new obstacles

to mobility for innovative teachers in such schools where the leadership is not interested

in or competent in international mobility, and in regions or municipalities where school

staff mobility is not prioritised due to various formal regulations or work-force

constraints. As a result, some teachers now may encounter local or regional obstacles,

that were not equally present under LLP

117

, when trying to obtain grants for staff

mobility from Erasmus+.

The institutional model operates on the two implicit beliefs that, firstly, the innovation

potential of Erasmus+ staff mobility is appropriately recognised by the school leadership

or by school owners and, secondly, that innovation affecting positively staff and learners

in schools can be unleashed from within governing or managing bodies. This approach to

innovation (more driving than enabling) contravenes the general view that innovation in

organisation does not necessarily requires consensus, but indeed requires frequently

disruptive intervention.

116

This statement was part of the interview transcript following the Panel Interview held 4 May

2016 with representatives from DG EAC. A clarification was sent later by a representative of DG

EAC to the authors stating: “This mixes up two issues: 1 – in some countries, schools are not legal entities,

and therefore need to register their application with reference to the legal entity they are affiliated to, usually

the local authority. This is just an administrative issue, and does not impact the school's possibility to apply

on their own behalf. 2 - the Commission, based on consultations with the National Agencies, has from the

2015 call introduced the possibility for Consortium applications in KA1 School Education. This entails that

local authorities can apply on behalf of a number of schools, rather than each school applying individually.

This may be useful for smaller schools with limited capacity and experience. The Commission does not

however favour one procedure over the other. From the Commission's point of view, what is important about

the "institutional approach", i.e. applications by institutions rather than individual teachers, is that the

activities are linked to the school's competence development needs and the results will impact the institution

as a whole.”

117

This has been commented further by a representative from DG EAC in a communication to the

authors: ”While under LLP, it was to some extent easier for teachers to participate despite an uninterested or

negative school leadership, they did nevertheless encounter similar obstacles – difficulties to take time out of

the classroom to take part in European mobility, lack of recognition of the competences obtained, etc.”

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 161

RECOMMENDATION

The European Parliament may consider granting staff members in schools (and staff in other

sectors) the right to apply individually or collectively for mobility grants under Key Action 1.

2. Funding of staff mobility

There is overall a significant interest for such staff mobility, which is not met in the

current budget situation. Some respondents have mentioned that there may be

differences in the approach to school staff mobility among the National Agencies in

different countries which may affect the funding patterns

118

. E.g. smaller countries are

able to fund a much larger percentage of mobility applications than larger countries.

119

Threats originating in insufficient funding following increased demand for staff

mobility

Current budget availability has also bearings on the success rate of staff mobility

applications. As noted in the Youth sector, increased demand for grants in the school

sector may lead to a drop in the funding ratio. If the success rate becomes too low,

schools will not reapply. For the school institution an application represents a serious

investment in time and collective involvement. Increased demand for staff mobility may

become a budget issue.

Views expressed by the Commission

Panel interviews with the Commission covering the implementation of school staff

mobility Key Action 1 were conducted in May 2016

120

. The analysis of the views

expressed during this session shed light on how central institutional actors in DG EAC

construct a rationale for addressing possible increased demand for school staff mobility

within available budgetary constraints. A summarised presentation

121

of the

implementation narrative follows:

 To deal with such eventualities, DG EAC reported that the Commission had

intensified contacts with the National Agencies in these matters, providing them

with forecasts about which kind of funding results can be expected in the future.

118

When submitted this statement a representative from DG EAC has commented in a

communication to the authors: “I am not aware of any differences in the National Agencies' approach

which affect the percentage of applications funded. There is indeed great variation in the "success rate", i.e.

funding percentage, between NAs. But this is a function of different levels of demand compared to budget. In

turn, this variation in demand may have very different national explanations, ranging from the availability of

national professional development schemes, the national mechanisms for recognition, the rules and systems in

place for enabling teachers to travel abroad during the school year, etc. The Commission does not have the

basis for analysing these different national factors.”

119

More detailed overview can be found in Annex 2.3 of Erasmus+ Annual Report 2014.

120

Conducted by one of the authors 4/5/2016 with participation of several representatives of DG

EAC.

121

Statements listed are not verbatim statements but summative narratives reformulated by the

authors.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 162

 Some European MP’s have already asked the Commission why some countries

are exhibiting a low rate of funding of school staff mobility.

 There are discrepancies in application success rates across countries.

122

These

discrepancies are not exclusively related to the size of the population in these

Programme countries, but may be linked to the level of support in national

regulations for school staff going abroad.

 E.g. in some countries, teachers may be forced to take from their holidays;

otherwise their stay abroad would not be authorised by their employers.

 The national systems for professional development of teachers may also

introduce new obstacles, as some countries, grant professional credits to teachers

staying abroad, while other do not reward international staff mobility. Such

issues were already observed as part of a survey carried out towards the end of

the LLP programme period.

 These discrepancies have been monitored country by country.

 From the perspective of DG EAC, Key Action 1 for schools has been very

unproblematic. The transition from LLP has been working very nicely without

any major obstacles.

 There are yet remaining challenges in terms of contents of mobility that need to

be addressed. Still a large percentage of staff mobilities are mobilities are very

short and consist of participation in courses, whereas the Commission would like

to see an increase in job shadowing and teaching assignments in partner

institutions. National Agencies have an important role to play in supporting and

promoting these types of mobility.

 A further increase of funded staff exchange projects until 2020 is advanced.

 There is a need to exploit further possibilities for job shadowing of school staff in

institutions abroad and enrich the content of mobilities.

Parliamentary criticism of the implementation school staff mobility

Criticism has been voiced against what is considered to be a complicated application

procedure that may lead to a drop in staff exchange partnership being funded. E.g. in a

Question for written answer submitted 23 July 2015 by MP Herman Winkler (PPE) it is

noted that, in Germany,

“To take just one example, the number of German schools involved in

partnerships dropped from 585 in 2013 to just 180 in 2014. In 2015, it already

looks likely that many applications for well thought-out projects will have to be

rejected because the Erasmus+ programme is so oversubscribed. The programme

122

A comment forwarded after reading the transcripts of the Panel Interviews held 4 May 2016 by a

D.G. representative clarifies and expands this statement: ”The Commission has not conducted any

surveys on this issue in the context of Erasmus+. The success rate in the various countries can be read from

Erasmus+ statistical reports, and is published in Annex to the Erasmus+ Annual Report. The Commission

does not have the basis for analysing obstacles in specific countries. The impact study conducted on LLP

Comenius In-Service Training concluded that most of the teachers had not encountered significant obstacles,

but identified "finding a replacement during the training period". "gaining approval from their

organisation", "lack of recognition of the training as working time/loss of holidays" as obstacles met by

some.”

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 163

has a budget of EUR 16 million, but I have seen figures that put the total cost of

projects for which applications have been received at over EUR 64 million.”

123

In the answer given by M. Tibor Navracsics on behalf of the Commission this drop 25

September 2015 is attributed to the fact that “The Erasmus+ and the previous Lifelong

Learning programme (LLP) have different structures” and that the “[t]his implies that the

project budgets are higher, leading to the selection of fewer projects.” Presenting the latest

numbers of funded staff exchanges for the school sector in Germany, M. Navracsics

defends the decrease from LLP by emphasizing the relative increase from 2014 to 2015:

“Nonetheless, in 2015 the National Agencies scrutinised more closely the budget

of the proposed projects. These rationalisation efforts together with a budgetary

increase for school education have proven to be successful: preliminary data

show that approximately 250 German schools have been selected, which

represents an increase of 38% compared to 2014.”

124

Funding of school mobility projects under Key Action 1

More than 5600 schools have received Staff Mobility funding in 2014 and 2015. Table 11

provides a list of project allocations by country for 2014 and 2015.

Increased interest for job-shadowing in the school sector

There are indications, based on feedback from National Agencies, of an increased

demand for job-shadowing and teaching assignments in the school sector. Job-shadowing

is becoming a popular type of mobility (around a fifth of the total mobilities)

125

that may

offer benefits for the future of the schools as a whole, especially when it ties the partner

schools in a lasting relation and promotes exchanges. As regards development, the

Commission does not have reliable data yet mapping the evolution of job shadowing in

this sector. “In 2014, no distinction was made in the data at application level between structured

courses and job shadowing, and the 2016 data is still incomplete. The 2015 data shows that the

activities in awarded applications consist of 77% structured courses/training events, 21% job

shadowing and 2% teaching assignments.”

126

123

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-

%2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2bWQ%2bE-2015-

011840%2b0%2bDOC%2bXML%2bV0%2f%2fEN&language=EN

124

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2015-

011840&language=EN

125

In a comment forwarded to the authors by a representative of DG EAC following the Panel

Interviews held 4 May 2016, a representative from DG EAC states: ”The Commission does believe it is

an activity which has a lot of potential for impact both on the competence development of the individual and

on the schools involved, and an activity which especially supports the exchange of good practice between

schools in Europe.”

126

Comment forwarded by a representative from DG EAC to the authors following the Panel

Interviews held 4 May 2016.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 164

Table 11: Schools having receiving Erasmus+ mobility funding in 2014 and 2015.

Budget allocation per Programme Country to Staff Mobility in Schools 2014-2015.

Country

2014 TOTAL (EUR)

2015 TOTAL (EUR)

Austria

893 094

792 230

Belgium

715 188

653 131

Bulgaria

789 682

716 910

Croatia

439 684

382 087

Cyprus

172 422

174 175

Czech Republic

1 471 542

1 053 912

Denmark

590 439

530 062

Estonia

318 408

324 135

Finland

1 736 782

1 287 854

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

99 540

91 205

France

2 501 815

4 190 773

Germany

4 670 854

4 202 205

Greece

1 105 605

1 101 902

Hungary

1 039 585

981 907

Iceland

331 875

341 856

Ireland

418 765

440 122

Italy

3 658 496

3 862 063

Latvia

419 604

550 723

Liechtenstein

116 980

23 840

Lithuania

591 967

585 708

Luxembourg

77 211

47 346

Malta

155 140

124 110

Netherlands

1 648 051

1 011 463

Norway

525 470

538 277

Poland

3 483 614

3 097 707

Portugal

1 263 662

1 334 272

Romania

1 659 407

1 757 205

Slovakia

742 315

712 646

Slovenia

407 400

463 859

Spain

3 660 836

3 757 899

Sweden

1 195 926

852 062

Turkey

2 849 894

3 765 380

United Kingdom

3 254 022

2 880 314

43 005 275

42 629 340

Source: EU Commission (Highlighted difference in red stand for decrease and green stand for

increase).

Contribution of eTwinning to fostering school staff mobility

The implementation of staff mobility in Key Action 1 could not be fully appraised

without considering the physical staff mobility in context with the Key Action 2

eTwinning sub-action

127

, launched in 2005, which offers online partnering opportunities

for school teachers complementary to staff mobility in Key Action 1. The eTwinning sub-

action promotes school collaboration in Europe through the use of Information and

Communication Technologies (ICT) by providing support, tools and services for schools.

127

Cassells, Gilleran, Morvan, et al. (2016).

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 165

“eTwinning offers a platform for staff (teachers, head teachers, librarians, etc.), working in a school

in one of the European countries involved, to communicate, collaborate, develop projects, share

and, in short, feel and be part of the most exciting learning community in Europe.”

128

The eTwinning Portal

129

is the main meeting point and workspace for the action. The

Portal provides online tools for teachers to find partners, set up projects, share ideas,

exchange best practice and start working together, immediately using various customised

tools available on the eTwinning platform. The most recent statistics from March 2016

highlights that, “available in twenty-eight languages, the eTwinning Portal now has the

involvement of nearly 371 597 members and over 44 449 projects between two or more schools

across Europe.”

130

Table 12 below shows the evolution of participation in eTwinning from 2005 to 2016:

Table 12: Evolution of eTwinning 2005-2016

131

. Source: eTwinning

2005

2007

2010

2015

2016

Registered users

11 186

38 041

125 455

301 944

378 982

Project participants

2 141

7 524

15 479

24 641

Projects

49 270

Active projects

9 670

Closed projects

39 688

Registered schools

8 031

25 719

67 450

138 566

159 384

In 2015, 6 000 eTwinning teachers took part in a survey

132

investigating how eTwinning is

affecting participating teachers’ professional practice and professional development.

Summarised findings are listed below:

 75% of teachers reported that students are more involved in project work through

eTwinning.

 Three-quarters of teachers surveyed report that their students are more involved than

ever before in project work as a result of taking part in eTwinning.

 Nearly as many teachers (72%) state that they now engage students in small group

work more than they did before, allowing them to work on collaborative problem

solving.

 92% of teachers reported that eTwinning has had a moderate or large impact on

student motivation.

 According to teachers, the greatest impact eTwinning has is on student motivation,

with 9 out of 10 teachers declaring that the project has had a moderate or large

impact on this area.

128

See Dóminguez Miguela (2007).

129

www.etwinning.net

130

https://www.etwinning.net/en/pub/discover/what_is_etwinning.htm

131

2016 figures retrieved from

https://www.etwinning.net/en/pub/news/press_corner/statistics.cfm

132

Kearney and Gras-Velázquez (2015).

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 166

 The project has also impacted the way in which students interact with one another,

with 87% of teachers reporting that eTwinning has had a moderate or large impact on

improving personal relations among students.

133

Chapter 6: Mobility of Higher Education Students and Staff

This chapter provides background knowledge, e.g. about recent trends in global student

mobility and analysis of several aspects addressing the mobility of students and higher

education staff in Key Action 1.

1. General characteristics of Key Action 1

Three of four actions target higher education

Key Action 1 is designed to be the main instrument to promote and implement the

mobility of learners, youth and workers in Erasmus+. Three of the four Actions

supported in Key Action 1 are targeting the higher education sector:

 Mobility projects in the field of education, training and youth,

 Large scale European Voluntary Service events,

 Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees, and

 Erasmus+ Master Loans.

Activities addressing the mobility of student and staff

In Key Action 1 the mobility of students can be one of, or a mix of the two following

activities:

 a study period abroad at a partner higher education institution (HEI);

 a traineeship (work placement) abroad in an enterprise or any other relevant

workplace.

The mobility of staff can be one of, or a mix of the two following activities:

 teachings in any subject area/academic discipline at a partner higher education

institution (HEI);

 training periods at a partner higher education institution (HEI).

Old and new ingredients

Actions targeting higher education in Key Action 1 combine activities and concepts

inherited from the former Programmes (but incorporating important modifications), with

new activities. Two actions, International credit mobility of individuals and Erasmus

Mundus Joint Master Degrees (EMJMD) under Key Action 1 target the mobility of

learners and staff from and to Programme and Partner Countries. Erasmus+ Master

Loans is a new sub-action for students in Programme countries. Online Linguistic

Support (OLS) has been launched in 2014 as a new service and is still under development.

133

Retrieved from

https://www.etwinning.net/en/pub/news/news/impact_of_etwinning_on_student.htm

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 167

2. General trends in student mobility worldwide

The implementation of the mobility of students and staff in in the Higher education

sector inscribes itself in a global dynamic characterised by a constant and substantial

increase in the total volume of student mobility. A concise presentation of the global

trends in the higher education sector will serve to analyse the relevance of the

implementation of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 to address global opportunities and threats in

student and staff mobility.

Global Trends in student mobility

134

 Global mobility of students in higher education has more than doubled in volume from

2001 to 2014 (increase from 2.1 million to 4.5 million students).

 In terms of sheer volume, the USA remain a clear winner in 2001 and in 2014.

 Expected volume of global student mobility will be approximately 6 million by 2020 and

8 million by 2025. The ratio inbound/outbound volume of international students is

clearly in favour of inbound mobility in the USA (Project Atlas & UNESCO 2012).

 In 2014, the proportion of students choosing the USA as a host destination for studies

abroad has decreased by 6%.

 Recent increase in the volume of inbound students from 2013 to 2014, show a steady

increase outside the EU: USA (+10%), Canada (+13,1%), New Zealand (+12.1%, Australia

(+9.2%). EU countries exhibit a more modest evolution, e.g. Norway (+8.1%), Germany

(+6.8%), The Netherlands (+3.8%), United Kingdom (+2.6%), France (+1.3 %). Decrease is

observed, e.g. in Denmark (-2.7%).

 China and Canada emerge has a key destination in 2014 (8%) with potential for further

increase.

 Targeted Erasmus+ higher educational mobility by 2020 (2 million individual) may

represent 1/3 of global mobility.

 The increase in the volume of global student mobility from 2001 to 2014 is accompanied

by a tendency towards a more diversified geographical distribution of host countries.

 The United Kingdom remains a European winner from 2001 to 2014 with regards to

volume and proportion of foreign students (11%).

 In 2014 the USA are a clear winner with regards to the proportion of international

students in the total student population in the country (24%), and are followed by the

United Kingdom (12.5%), China (≈9.5%) and Australia and Canada (≈7%).

 In the EU, France and Germany have a relatively high proportion of international

students, close to 8%. The rest of EU-EEA countries have a low proportion of

international students, e.g. Ireland, Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, all under 4%.

Arab States, Central and Eastern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, South & West Asia, East

Asia, and Central have a much higher ratio of outbound than inbound mobility.

134

Unless stated data sources are IIE (2015). ‘Project Atlas ®’ and OECD (2015). Education at a Glance

2015. OECD indicators.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 168

Evolution of host destinations for mobile students from 2001 to 2014

This section provides incomplete, but exploitable data about the evolution of the global

distribution of student mobility in 2001 and 2014 (see Table 13 below). Measured and

projected volumes of global student mobility student for the period 1975-2025

135

are

added in graphical and in tabular formats in

FIGURE 6 below. The unesco survey of the global flow of tertiary-level students

compares countries of destination and origin for 2013

136

Table 13: Global distribution of mobile students in 2001 and 2014.

Host destinations

Percent distribution of students

2001

n=2.1 million

2014

n=4.5 million

Increase or

decrease

U.S.A.

28%

22%

-6%

United Kingdom

11%

China

n.d.

*+5%.

Germany

-2%

France

Australia

+2%

Canada

n.d.

*+4%.

Japan

Spain

n.d.

n.a.

Belgium

n.d

n.a.

Others

34%

31%

n.a.

Source: Project Atlas 2015 (* estimated percentage)

135

OECD (2015). Education at a Glance 2015. OECD indicators.

136

UNESCO (2015b). ‘Global flow of tertiary-level students’. Unesco Institute of Statistics. Table;

UNESCO (2015a ‘Education: Gross enrolment ratio by level of education’. Unesco Institute of

Statistics. Table. See also, ‘Outbound mobility ratio by host region’ at

http://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=243; ‘Gross Outbound mobility ratio by host

region’ at http://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=243; and ‘Net flow of international

mobile students’ at http://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=243.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 169

FIGURE 6: OBSERVED AND PROJECTED YEARLY VOLUME OF GLOBAL STUDENT

MOBILITY.

Year

Students

abroad

(million)

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2012

2020

2025

0,8

1,1

1,3

1,7

2,1

3.0

4,1

4,5

*6.7

*8.0

Source: OECD, Education at a Glance 2015 (* estimated volume)

As the estimated global student volume in 2020 will reach a realistic volume of 6.7

million students, the Erasmus+ objective to fund the mobility of 2 million mobile

students, if it is achieved, will address approximately 29% of all student mobility

worldwide. By all means, this estimation is imprecise, as the duration of the mobility and

amount of formal recognition is not taken into account. Nevertheless, the EU targets for

2020 compared with global projections bear witness of the global ambitions of Erasmus+

and substantiate the high demands made on Key Action 1.

3. SWOT analysis of student mobility during the period 2012-2015

The Eurostudent IV (2001-2011) and Eurostudent V (2012-2015) data sets were analysed

together with the interpretations given in [EVSI5]

137

. Also data sets cited earlier in this

chapter were used to compare findings. Data analysis of variables addressing

internationalisation (mobility) in Eurostudent V was performed to produce additional

SWOT insights. Some findings were compared with Eurostudent IV to detect evolutions.

A reduced set of statements highlighting Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and

Threats was retained when considered relevant for shedding light on the implementation

of the mobility of students in higher education under Key Action 1. The SWOT analysis

presented below organises these findings. As the SWOT Matrix is quite big, the S, W, O,

and T dimensions will be not presented in tabular format.

Strengths

Enrolment, volume, distribution

 Western Europe has almost to 3 times more inbound than outbound students.

 The rate of enrolment in studies abroad increases globally.

 The UK has the highest percentage of international students in the EU.

137

[EVSI5]: Hausschildt (ed.), Gwosć, Netz et al. (2015). Direct citations from EVSI5 are reproduced

between quotes in the SWOT matrix in this section. Other statements may originate from EVSI or

from the authors’ data analysis.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 170

 Growing number of students in some countries who have not been abroad, but

planned to go in 2012-2015.

Mobility above 30 years of age

 In a few countries, especially in North Europe, the mobility rate remains high in

the subgroup of students 30 years old, ≥ 10%, in the Nordic countries, France,

Estonia.

Foreign language courses

 The share of students whose domestic study programme is mainly taught in a

foreign language is more than 20% in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden.

EU funding

 EU programmes are used by more than half of the students who study abroad

temporarily in Eurostudent V, at least 80% in Lithuania, Slovenia, Poland,

Romania, and the Czech Republic.

Master students

 A high proportion of master students have been enrolling for mobility in some

countries more than 25% in Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, and

Norway have been abroad during their studies.

Recognition

 A high proportion of students (≥ 60%) e.g. in the Netherlands, Lithuania, Finland,

Denmark, France, Ireland report returning with credits fully recognised after

their studies abroad.

 In 19 out of 26 Eurostudent V countries, more than 70% of students who gained

credits during an enrolment abroad had them either fully or partly recognised

upon return.

Few obstacles and burdens

 A high proportion of students do not experience or expect personal obstacles to

their stay abroad.

 Separation from partner, children, friends is not a problem in many EU countries.

 A high proportion of students enrolling for mobility do not experience a lack of

personal drive in most EU countries (>70%).

Mobile disciplines

 There are disciplines which show a stable tendency to recruit high proportions of

students for mobility abroad and in some case an increase: Humanities and Arts;

Engineering in FR, SE, DK, EE, SI, IT.

Financial aspects

 A high proportion of students who enrol for studies abroad are not utilising their

family for funding their mobility in a few countries, i.e. less than 60% in Malta

and Nordic countries.

Internship / Work placement

 A high proportion of students enrolled abroad are engaged in internship or work

placement (≥25%) DE, RO, AT, FR, PL, NL, CZ).”

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 171

Employability

 “Evidence is mounting that international mobility during studies may have

positive impacts on students’ personality development and later employment

prospects. “

Weaknesses

Enrolment, volume, distribution

 There are still EU and EEA countries with a low percentage of international

students in 2012-2015 (< 5%, e.g. IE, NL, DK, NO).

 There is a high proportion of students who have not been enrolled abroad and do

not plan to go in some countries, i.e. ≥70% in AT, LV, IT, SK, IE, NL, PL.

Mobility above 30 years of age

 Except in a few countries, the mobility rate decreases considerably in the

subgroup of students 30 years old or above.

Foreign language courses

 The share of students whose home study programme is mainly taught in a

foreign language is less than 5% in Malta, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic,

Croatia, Slovenia and Ireland. In most Eurostudent V countries, less than 10% of

students are enrolled in a study programme which is taught in a foreign

language.

Foreign language skills

 The share of students having realised a language course is rather low in most

countries.

Master students

 A low percentage (<15%) of master students have been enrolling for mobility in

some countries, i.e. in IE, CZ, CH, LT, LV, PL, HR, SK.

Recognition

 Bologna style recognition of learning outcomes is still a problem in some

countries. In Hungary, less than 35% get recognition after their studies abroad.

Social selectivity

 “Across Europe, there are primarily three groups underrepresented in temporary

enrolment: students from low education background, students with delayed

transition into higher education and older students.”

 “In all countries but Armenia, Serbia, and Ukraine, the share of students who

have studied abroad is higher among students with higher education

background than among students without higher education background.”

Internship Work placement

 “The share of students having realised an internship is rather low in most

countries”.

Mobile disciplines

 Foreign enrolment rates also differ by field of study. They tend to be particularly

low among students of teacher training and education science.

Recognition

 Some countries have high percentages (≥20%) of students returning home with

no credits earned during enrolment abroad (last stay), e.g. in Italy (44%).

 “Partial recognition is rather common in Croatia, Slovakia, and Hungary.󰜩In

Sweden, Croatia, Russia, Hungary, Ukraine, and Armenia, at least 15% of

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 172

students who earned credit during their enrolment abroad did not have their

credits recognised.”

Obstacles and burdens

 A high proportion of students who have been enrolling for mobility in some

countries experience or expect personal obstacles to their study abroad, e.g. in

Hungary.

Financial aspects

 A high proportion (≥60%) of students are utilising their parents as source of

funding for mobility, e.g. in SK, IT, CZ, CH, AT, HR, RO, HU, NL, FR, SI, LT, PL,

EE, LV, IE.

Opportunities

Enrolment, volume, distribution

 The number of students pursuing studies abroad continues to surge.

 The rise in internationally mobile students reflects growing university enrolment

around the world.

 “Judging by the share of students who plan to go abroad, the potential to further

increase the foreign enrolment rate seems to be particularly high in Armenia,

Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Serbia, Slovakia, and Ukraine.”

 Regional hubs not only attract a share of the global population of mobile students

but are becoming favoured destinations for students within regions.

 In some countries there are more studying abroad than at home, e.g. Andorra,

Bermuda, Luxembourg, Montserrat, San Marino, Seychelles).

 The overall context of mobility has changed (mix of host and sending countries).

Internationalisation at home, virtual mobility

 “Internationalisation at home may not only be an alternative to physical mobility,

but it can also be regarded as a preparation for later physical mobility.”

Foreign language skills

 There is an evolution towards decreased expectations of linguistic obstacle and

an increase in self-reported foreign language proficiency from 2008-2011 to 2012-

2015 (more than 5%) is reported in, e.g. MT, RO, CH, LV, EE.

 Most Programme and Partner countries have a high proportion (≥75%) of

students enrolled abroad who are able to speak English or another first foreign

language for English native speakers.

 A high proportion (≥ 50%) of students have been enrolling for mobility who do

not experience or expect linguistic obstacles.

Financial aspects

 A high percentage (≥60%) of students in some countries perceive sufficient

financial security (low percentage of perceived insufficient financial insecurity),

i.e. in all EU-28 countries except FI, LV, DE, HU, IE, PL (data from IT, PT, UK, BE

missing).

Threats

Enrolment, volume, distribution

 “The share of students enrolling abroad temporarily without a programme is

comparatively high (at least 40%) in Italy, Malta, Sweden, Montenegro, Bosnia-

Herzegovina, Russia, and Serbia.”

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 173

 There is a growing competition for students from emerging regional destinations

that may offer more affordable and culturally-relevant programmes of study.

 A high percentage (≥60%) of students in some countries have not been enrolled

abroad and do not plan to go abroad.

 Students from Sub-Saharan Africa, who are the second most mobile, are staying

closer to home.

 “New destination countries and regional hubs are competing for a share of the

revenue and intellectual capital of internationally mobile students.”

 “Despite considerable shares of students still planning to study abroad

temporarily, the potential foreign enrolment rate is lower than 50% in all

countries but Armenia, Georgia, and Montenegro. In Austria, Finland, Italy,

Norway, Slovenia, and Sweden, the share of students still planning to study

abroad is less than twice as high than the share of students who already studied

abroad.”

Obstacles and burdens

 “The most critical obstacles to studying abroad are the additional financial

burden and the separation from partner, children, and friends. [...] Judging by

unweighted cross-country averages of student shares considering aspects (quite)

big obstacles, the most critical of the selected barriers are the associated

additional financial burden (63%) and the separation from partner, children, and

friends (47%). These are followed at a much lower level by insufficient foreign

language skills (29%), expected problems with the recognition of credits gained

abroad, and a lack of information provided by the home institution (each 22%).”

 “The separation from partner, children, and friends is considered a (quite) big

obstacle to enrolment abroad by relatively large shares of students (at least 59%)

in Poland, Estonia, Malta, Finland, and Norway.”

Financial aspects

 “Public sources and means from parents, family, or partner tend to be the

primary sources of funding for enrolments abroad.”

 “In the large majority of countries, the share of students who utilised means from

their parents, family, or partner to fund their enrolment abroad exceeds 60% […]

This share is even higher than 80% in Slovakia, Russia, Italy, the Czech Republic,

and Switzerland.”

Social selectivity

 “As previous research has shown […] access to international student mobility is

socially selective.”

 “The differences regarding planned foreign enrolments tend to be even larger

than those regarding realised foreign enrolment periods.”

 “The social selectivity of international student mobility is also visible regarding

internships and language courses.”

Foreign language skills

 “The share of students regarding insufficient foreign language skills as a (quite)

big obstacle to an enrolment abroad is relatively high (at least 49%) in Ireland,

Poland, Hungary, and Georgia and relatively low (less than 15%) in Malta,

Denmark, Switzerland, and Sweden.”

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 174

Information

 “A lack of information provided by the home institution is a (quite) big obstacle

for comparatively large shares of students (at least 35%) in Ireland, Croatia,

Poland, Hungary, and Georgia.”

4. Novel aspects of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 in higher education

Specific objectives for higher education in Regulation No 1288/2013 applicable to Key

Action 1

The implementation of Key Action 1 in higher education should be analysed in light of

the general objectives for this sector stipulated by Regulation No 1288/2013:

 To “enable at least 40% of 30-34 year-olds to have completed tertiary or equivalent

education” (Preamble, §5 with reference to Europe 2020 Strategy);

 To “make a knowledge-based Europe” (Preamble, §6);

 “to enhance the quality of higher education in pursuit of European objectives and the

attractiveness of the Union as a study destination” (Preamble, §8);

 “to support mobility, equity and study excellence on a pilot basis, a Student Loan

Guarantee Facility to enable students, regardless of their social background, to take their

Master's degree in another country to which participation in the Program is open (the

'Programme country').” (Preamble, §11);

 “The Student Loan Guarantee Facility should be available to financial institutions which

agree to offer loans for Master's studies in other Programme countries on favourable

terms for students.” (Preamble, §11);

 “Member States should endeavour to adopt all appropriate measures to remove legal and

administrative obstacles to the proper functioning of the Programme. This includes

resolving, where possible, administrative issues that create difficulties in obtaining visas

and residency permits” (Preamble, §12)

138

;

 “improved transparency and recognition of qualifications and competences” (Article

Preamble, §25);

 “the grants to support the mobility of individuals should be adjusted to the living and

subsistence costs of the host country.” (Preamble, §40);

 “to enhance the international dimension of education and training, in particular through

cooperation between Union and partner-country institutions in the field of […] higher

education” (Article 5.1.d);

 “to improve the teaching and learning of languages and to promote the Union's broad

linguistic diversity and intercultural awareness” (Article 5.1.e).

138

A new EU directive revises previous legislation and eases attribution of visas and residence

permits for foreign students and researchers. See: European Parliament (2016). ‘New rules to attract

non-EU students, researchers and interns to the EU’, Plenary sessions [11-05-2016 – 12:24]. Press

release. Adopted text is European Parliament (2016). ‘Entry and residence of third-country

nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, volunteering, pupil exchange and au

pairing ***II’, Wednesday, 11 May 2016 – Strasbourg, Resolution and Annex.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 175

5. ET 2020 Benchmarks relevant to Key Action 1

A new EU ET 2020 benchmarking target addressing learning mobility in higher

education has been defined, stipulating that a minimum of 20% of higher education

graduates in the EU should have fulfilled a mobility period abroad, leading to a

minimum 15 ECTS while spending at least 2 months abroad. This benchmark is still

under development and will be released in later in 2016. Together with other benchmarks

in education and training this and other relevant benchmarks

139

may be integrated in

future monitoring and assessment of the implementation of the three Actions relevant for

the higher education sector in Key Action 1. Table 14 below shows relevant benchmarks

adding EU average, as well as highest and lowest percentages in 2015:

Table 14: ET 2020 benchmarks applicable to Key Action 1 with 2015 attainments

140

Source: Eurostat

Eurostat ET 2020 benchmarks

2020

2015

Target

countries

highest

country

lowest

country

Learning mobility in higher education

“An EU average of at least 20% of higher

education graduates should have had a

period of higher education-related study or

training (including work placements)

abroad, representing a minimum of 15

ECTS credits or lasting a minimum of three

months.”

20%

15 ECTS

2 months

To be released in 2016

Tertiary educational attainment

“The share of 30-34 year-olds with tertiary

educational attainment should be at least

40%.”

141

40%

38.7%

Lithuania

(57.6%)

Italy

(25.3%)

Employment rates of recent graduates

“The share of employed graduates (20-34

year-olds) having left education and

training 1-3 years before the reference year

should be at least 82%.”

82%

76.9%

Malta

(95.1%)

Greece

(45,2%)

Waiting for the publication of Eurostat benchmarking data, other surveys, in the

meantime, provide a historical comparative platform about student mobility in

Programme countries. E.g. the Eurostat data set “Student mobility in tertiary education, by

139

EU benchmarks indicators, retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/education-and-

training/eu-benchmarks/indicators

140

Data sources for higher education: joint UNESCO-OECD-Eurostat data collection (UOE). See:

European Commission (2016). ‘UNESCO OECD Eurostat (UOE) joint data collection –

methodology’, Eurostat, online, article. Latest update of text: February 2016.

141

European Commission (2016). ‘Tertiary educational attainment by sex, age group 30-34’,

Eurostat benchmark, Table. See also: European Commission (2016). ‘More and more persons aged

30 to 34 with tertiary educational attainment in the EU…’, Europe Education Indicators 2020,

81/2016, 27/04/2016.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 176

country, 2012”

142

covers inbound and outbound mobility in EU-28 countries, and

Eurostudent V (2012-2015) covers some EU countries with important omissions (e.g.

Belgium, United Kingdom, Spain) while including Partner Countries and Regions (e.g.

Ukraine and Russia).

143

Statistics on student and staff mobility for the final in January 2016 year (2013-2014) has

been released

144

of the former Erasmus programme for higher education, which formed

part of the umbrella Lifelong Learning Programme. The data reveals that a record

number of students (272,000) and staff (57,000) took part compared to any previous year.

Spain, Germany and France remained the three most popular destinations for Erasmus

students to study or training abroad in 2013-2014.

6. Budget allocation for higher education mobility

FIGURE 7: 2014-2020 BUDGET ALLOCATION (€14.7 MILLION) WITH A

BREAKDOWN OF THE EDUCATION AND TRAINING BUDGET BY ACTIONS.

Source: European Commission

142

European Commission (2016). ‘Europe 2020 indicators – education’, Eurostat, Data from

December 2014. Most recent data: Further Eurostat information, Main tables. Planned article

update: August 2016.

143

Eurostudent V survey, Variable group ‘K1-K22’ address international mobility for the period

2011-2015.

144

European Commission (2016). ‘Erasmus+, The First year 26.01.2016’, European Commission -

Fact Sheet, MEMO/16/143. See also: various Erasmus+ statistics at

http://ec.europa.eu/education/tools/statistics_en.htm

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 177

FIGURE 8: 2014-2020: EDUCATION AND TRAINING BUDGET BY SECTOR.

Source: European Commission

Activities addressing the mobility of students and staff in higher education receive the

largest share of budgetary means in Erasmus+ (See Figure 7 above). Regulation (EU) No

1288/2013 allocates (Article 18) 43% to Higher Education, amounting to 33.3% of the total

budget, more than 10 times the budget amount devoted to Adult Education and Training,

almost 3 times the budget devoted to School Education (11.6% of the total budget) and

Youth, and almost twice the budget devoted to Vocational Education and Training (see

Figure 8 above). An additional €1.68 billion is allocated to actions with third countries

through the external action budget.

7. Staff mobility in higher education

Criticism of the new teaching assignment conditions by higher education teachers

In Erasmus+ pre-2014 minimum requirements for teaching stays has been reduced from 5

to 2 days while keeping the minimum 8 hours of teaching.

However, user criticism of the new staff exchange regulation in Erasmus+ has been

voiced since 2014:

 While a minimum “package” combining 8 hours of teaching and 2 days abroad

may seem reasonable, university teaching staff who have been consulted in

several countries state that they, in view of the increased teaching and

administrative load in their home department, can neither consider teaching a

minimum of 8 hours during as part of two or three days’ stay abroad (exclusive

travel time), nor spread these 8 hours within a longer period, e.g. a week.

 Furthermore, regular grievances have been expressed by teaching staff in HEIs

concerning, in their experience, wildly underestimated amounts (carefully

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 178

termed “support” and not “reimbursement”) for plane travels in Europe and

elsewhere between 500 and 3999 km

145

. These flat support amounts, it is argued,

are not reflecting the real ticket prices. Many teachers in HEIs fear they may have

to pay an important part of the expense incurred to carry out quite demanding

teaching assignments abroad from their own pocket. Besides, not all higher

education institutions have additional financial resources to contribute with, or

are willing to cover the remaining costs of travel, stay and subsistence for mobile

staff.

Parliamentary criticism of teaching assignment conditions

Additional parliamentary criticism of the new rules for teaching mobility in HEIs has

been voiced in a Question for written answer to the Commission Rule 130 by MP Tonino

Picula (S&D) 6 January 2015 who criticises the claims from the Commission that the new

Staff Mobility system under Erasmus+ represent a significant simplification and states

that

“Some of the new provisions have exactly the opposite effect and make their

mobility more difficult. One of these provisions is that lecturers in higher

education institutions who apply for staff mobility programmes must teach

a minimum of eight hours a week in the institution into which they are coming as

guest lecturers (Erasmus+ Programme Guide, p. 39). For lecturers coming from

less prestigious universities who wish to use the mobility programme to acquire

new skills and improve their work, this provision often restricts access to the

more prestigious and better quality institutions because of the difficulties

encountered in finding an institution that would be able to give them this

number of teaching hours per week.”

146

This criticism has been rejected in the answer given 4 March 2015 by Mr Navracsics on

behalf of the Commission, stating that

147

“When devising the programme rules, the Commission made use of the

experience of National Agencies and practitioners under the previous Erasmus

programme. They reported that the minimum duration of 5 days for staff

mobility was too long and represented a barrier, especially for smaller

institutions facing problems to replace staff during that period. Therefore,

Erasmus+ reduces the minimum duration from 5 to 2 days in order to make it

more accessible. At the same time the requirement for teaching was adjusted to

a minimum of 8 hours per week, instead of 5 as in the previous programme, to

ensure a higher impact.”

and suggesting that

“Lecturers who would like to focus on acquiring new skills and improving their

work methods may consider the option of staff mobility for training. This activity

supports professional development through training events or job shadowing at

145

Erasmus+ Programme Guide p. 46.

146

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-

%2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2bWQ%2bE-2015-

000048%2b0%2bDOC%2bXML%2bV0%2f%2fEN&language=EN

147

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2015-

000048&language=EN

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 179

higher education institutions or any other relevant organisation abroad.

Furthermore, teaching and training activities can be combined during a period

abroad.”

Position of the Commission regarding teaching assignment conditions

The new rules for teaching exchanges higher education in Key Action 1 was discussed

during the panel interviews with the Commission May 2016

148

. The narrative presented

by several representatives maintained the view that the new rules regulating teaching

assignments abroad offered additional simplicity and flexibility. The arguments

presented during the panel interviews are summarised below:

 It is an additional goal in Erasmus+ to add flexibility to Staff Mobility in higher

education.

 The reduction of the minimum period of stay from 5 to 2 days while keeping a

minimum of 8 hours of teaching assignment is to ensure the impact of the action.

 This change has been the result of wide consultations across HEIs, networks of

HEIs and staff representatives prior to the design of Erasmus+

149

 The Commission will evaluate staff exchange in higher education as part of the

Erasmus+ evaluation

150

and consider these aspects. It maintains, however, the

view that a real flexibility has been introduced by reducing the minimum

duration of stays abroad for staff from 5 to 2 days.

 A similar flexibility has been introduced for higher education student

traineeships, where the minimum duration has been reduced from 3 to 2 months.

The intention

of such a reduction was to address the situation in some disciplines, e.g.

medicine, where students are bound by their local curriculum. Again the

objective has been to increase the accessibility to the programme, and not to

exclude any discipline.

 This new regime may or may not be optimal in all cases. However, such

decisions are guided by the awareness that Erasmus+ has limited resources. Key

Action 1 is financing between 18% and 53% of the number of applicants for

mobility grants in School, Adult, VET, higher education and Youth

151

. So the

recurrent issue is: where is it wise to use resources in order to get more impact on

the users?

 Erasmus+ cannot fund all mobility in higher education and other sectors. The

Commission allocates therefore money where it expects the best impact.

148

Conducted by one of the authors 4/5/2016 with participation of several representatives of DG

EAC.

149

this comment about previous consultations was forwarded to the authors by a representative of

DG EAC after the Panel Interview held 4 May 2016 at DG EAC.

150

The call for tender for the Erasmus+ mid-term evaluation (covering all the fields) has been

launched on 29 January 2016 and closed on 15 March 2016. The study will start end of May 2016 to

finish end of 2017.

151

Success rates are reported the Erasmus+ Annual Report 2014.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 180

Concluding remarks

As commented in a previous chapter, well-intended, virtuous path-dependent processes

in organisations, e.g. the Commission, do not lead necessarily to virtuous progress, but

can instead also lead to inefficient, unintended or even ‘vicious’ outcomes. The case of the

new rules for teaching assignments abroad may reflect such tendencies. While the

simplification and flexibilisation of higher education staff mobility allow e.g. a mix

of teaching and training activities, the new rules for teaching assignments may have only

a partial positive effect on teachers in higher education, as some staff members

experience that these new rules are introducing new practical obstacles.

8. New aspects of Erasmus+ in higher education – the view of the Commission

Following the Panel Interview held 4 May 2016, a compound view of new aspects

of Erasmus+ has been forwarded to the authors by a representative from DG EAC.

The quantitative information, views and the construction of the narrative displayed

in Table 15 below reflect solely the view of the Commission:

Table 15: 2014 preliminary results a new Erasmus+ actions and services in higher education.

Source: DG EAC

Goals

New in Erasmus+ for Higher

Education – KA1

2014 preliminary results from

users

152

Better

Accessibility

Grant amounts are based on a

transparent and coherent system,

taking into account the difference in

living costs between the sending and

receiving country.

They are fixed at national level

(except in 6 countries where HEIs can

adapt the grant level taking into

account their regional funding).

Additional financial support is

awarded to:

students from socio-economic

disadvantaged backgrounds;

students and staff with special

needs;

students from outermost countries

and regions/overseas territories.

153

Participants so far include:

More than 10 000 disadvantaged

students with grants of more than 6

million €;

More than 800 students and staff

with special needs;

More than 2 000 mobile students

from outermost countries and

regions/overseas territories;

More information on page 20 in

Erasmus+ Programme Guide 2016,

v2.

Better

Linguistic

support

New Online Linguistic Support

providing assessment of language

skills before and after mobility and

online tutored courses.

As from this summer, OLS to be

made available to refugees with

More than 365 000 students have

assessed their language skills,

150 000 have followed on-line

courses.

Mobility brings an average user up

152

These results which have been communicated to the authors by DG EAC are based on reports

from National Agencies, beneficiaries and students/staff from the 2014 Erasmus+ call (still on-

going).

153

p. 45 Erasmus+ Programme Guide 2016, v2.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 181

Goals

New in Erasmus+ for Higher

Education – KA1

2014 preliminary results from

users

152

100 000 licenses.

by 1 or 1,5 CEFR levels.

Higher

Quality

Reinforcement of quality framework

with new Erasmus Charter for Higher

Education (ECHE), inter-institutional

agreements, and learning

agreements

154

About 85% of Erasmus+ students

now receive full recognition for

studies abroad (compared to 73% in

2013).

Flexibility

through new

possibilities

Opening of mobility to countries

outside of Europe.

Minimum duration of student

traineeships and staff training

reduced to make the programme

more accessible to a wider range of

participants.

A combination of virtual and short

term physical mobility (called

blended mobility) are promoted

under Higher Education Strategic

Partnerships (KA2 SPs).

Proportion of traineeships has

increased from 22% to 26% in the

first call of Erasmus+ vs last year of

LLP.

About 20% of Strategic Partnerships

include blended mobility, with over

4 000 participants so far.

RECOMMENDATION

 The European Parliament may consider assessing the practical and financial conditions that

would allow staff members in higher education to carry out teaching assignments abroad

without additional personal or local costs.

 The European Parliament may consider stimulating internationalisation at home among

higher education staff, adding internationalisation funds, in order to stimulate teachers in

HEIs to combine virtual mobility with physical mobility, to prepare, carry out and follow-up

physical mobility.

154

European Commission (2016). ‘Studying abroad’, Web page. Last update unknown.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 182

9. Erasmus+ Exchanges and Erasmus+ International Credit Mobility (ICM)

Budgetary sources

Erasmus+ International Credit Mobility is a new element in Erasmus+. It is financed

by the External Relations budget, and by various other financial instruments, e.g. the

Neighbourhood Development Programme

155

and European Development Fund

156

(see

Source: European Commission157

Table 16 below). ICM is amplifying several aspects inherited from the former

programme’s Erasmus mobility. The ICM budget is apportioned region-wise.

FIGURE 9: SPILT OF TOTAL BUDGET BY PROGRAMME COUNTRY.

Source: European Commission

157

155

GLOBSEC (2016). European Neighbourhood Development Programme.

156

European Commission (2016). ‘European Development Fund (EDF)’, Web page last updated

13/06/2016.

157

European Commission (2016). ‘Erasmus+ Key Action 1: Higher education student and staff

mobility between Programme and Partner Countries (International Credit Mobility) Results of the

2015 Call’, Document forwarded to the authors by DG EAC following the Panel Interview held 4

May 2016.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 183

FIGURE 10: ERASMUS+ ICM BUDGET ENVELOPE (2015) .

Source: European Commission

157

Targeted volume of mobile students and staff

2015 was the first selection year for Erasmus+ ICM. The budget for ICM was not allocated

earlier, due to late allocation from External Relations and the European Development

Fund. However, even with this delay, all the funds that are meant to be spent will be

spent.

So instead of spending it in 7 years the Commission will spend ICM appropriations it in 6

years, pursuant to a request from the Parliament. Furthermore, there are precise

projections until the midterm evaluation. On a longer term (towards 2020) the

Commission has produced adjusted projections including some flexibility to address

contingencies.

In an answer given 18 April 2016 to a question for written answer to the Commission

Rule 130 by MP Ilhan Kyuchyuk (ALDE) submitted 23 February 2016, Mr Navracsics

links Erasmus+ ICM to Joint Master Degrees in Key Action 1, and to the Capacity

Building in Higher Education Action in Key Action 2

158

“From 2015-2020, around 30 000 credit mobility participants will be funded each

year. Erasmus+ also funds around 2 000 scholarships per year for joint Masters

degrees, 75% of which are reserved for non-European nationals. The Programme

supports the modernisation of higher education around the world via its

‘Capacity Building in Higher Education’ action, encouraging sustainable links

between institutions located in European and partner countries; around 140

projects are funded each year.”

158

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2016-

001486&language=EN

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 184

FIGURE 11: VOLUME OF MOBILITIES IN ERASMUS+ ICM BY REGION.

Source: European Commission

157

Table 16: Erasmus+ ICM – planned mobilities for projects selected under the 2015 call for

proposals

159

EC funding

instrument

Region

(or budget envelope)

Incoming

(to EU)

Outgoing

(to EU)

Total

participant

DCI

Asia

2707

1348

4055

DCI

Central Asia

815

277

1092

DCI

Latin America

880

448

1328

DCI

South Africa

214

114

328

ENI

Eastern Partnership

3546

829

4375

ENI

South-Mediterranean

4532

1335

5867

IPA

Western Balkan

3404

1950

5354

Industrialised Americas

705

579

1284

Industrialised Asia

732

601

1333

Russia (ENI+ PI)

Russian Federation

1917

1239

3156

Total participants

19452

8720

28172

It is not possible to provide a general interpretation of the imbalance between incoming

and outgoing mobility in the various regions in the table above. However, these

imbalances have a meaning which should be interpreted for each region in order to

detect underlying factors that cause these disparities, in the Eastern Partnership region.

First selection round

The call for the first selection round for 2015 call was launched in October 2014 and the

selection took place round June 2015. Table 17 below displays the results

160

159

European Parliament (2016). ‘Annex to Parliamentary Question E-986/16; E-987/16’.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 185

Table 17: Erasmus+ International Credit Mobility, first selection round 2015.

Source: European Commission

Inbound students and staff to Europe

15,071

Inbound students and staff to Partner countries

6,774

Total mobility

21,845

Distribution student / staff ratio

60%/40%

Planned budget use for Erasmus+ ICM

The planned budget use for Erasmus+ I will operate with roughly equal allocation for

each annual call from 2015 to 2020 (there was no call in 2014). The main budget sources

(IPA2. ENI, DCI, PI, and EDF) are expected to contribute with roughly equal contribution

to all calls from 2015 to 2020.

Table 18 below structures, summarises and displays planned annual ICM call offering

a breakdown by call, budget source and Partner Region.

Table 18: Planned budget use for Erasmus+ ICM. Source: European Commission

161

Budget call

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

TOTAL

1st call

2nd call

3rd call

4th call

5th call

6th call

TOTAL PER YEAR

121 329 835

123 689 628

125 646 171

128 129 704

130 021 420

127 857 983

756 674 741

IPA2

22 354 886

22 787 792

22 573 596

22 326 915

22 440 800

23 219 000

135 702 988

ENI

56 535 399

57 039 624

57 705 628

58 853 186

59 118 872

55 443 310

344 696 020

South

26 439 440

26 675 247

26 986 712

27 523 381

27 647 632

25 928 712

161 201 124

East

19 970 216

20 148 325

20 383 580

20 788 936

20 882 786

19 584 453

121 758 295

Russia

10 125 743

10 216 052

10 335 336

10 540 869

10 588 455

9 930 145

61 736 601

DCI

29 221 730

29 944 481

30 890 847

32 299 118

33 325 193

33 766 040

189 447 409

Asia

17 213 950

17 639 709

18 197 194

19 026 779

19 631 220

19 890 914

111 599 767

Central Asia

4 842 298

4 962 064

5 118 886

5 352 248

5 522 278

5 595 330

31 393 105

Middle East

Latin America

5 598 033

5 736 491

5 917 787

6 187 570

6 384 137

6 468 590

36 292 607

South Africa

1 567 449

1 606 217

1 656 980

1 732 520

1 787 558

1 811 205

10 161 930

13 217 820

13 917 730

14 476 100

14 650 486

15 136 555

15 429 634

86 828 325

USA & Canada

5 318 162

5 599 770

5 824 429

5 894 592

6 090 162

6 208 081

34 935 196

Asia

Industrialised

5 642 612

5 941 400

6 179 765

6 254 210

6 461 710

6 586 823

37 066 521

Gulf countries

Russia

2 257 045

2 376 560

2 471 906

2 501 684

2 584 684

2 634 729

14 826 608

EDF

5 294 118

5 647 059

6 000 000

6 352 941

6 705 882

30 000 000

160

Data source: European Commission (2016).’Erasmus+ Key Action 1: Higher education student

and staff mobility between Programme and Partner Countries: Results 2015 Call, First Round’.

161

Document forwarded by DG EAC to the authors following the Panel Interview held 4 May 2016.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 186

9. Current views and prospects of the Commission regarding mobility in Higher

Education

Regarding Erasmus+ ICM

Panel interviews with the Commission addressed, among other aspects of Key Action 1,

Erasmus+ ICM were conducted in May 2016

162

. A summarised presentation

163

of the

implementation narrative follows:

 The concrete evolution of Erasmus+ ICM (and other activities in Key Action 1)

will depend on the results of the midterm review of Erasmus+.

 The Commission hopes the Parliament will not cut, but will increase the budget

for Erasmus+.

 Even if the experiences collected from ICM selections are fresh, as they are

spanning from June 2015 to May 2016, there are indications that ICM has raised

the interest of universities. Some regions, in particular non-European regions,

have shown more interest than others. The interest from particular regions has

followed known historical and cultural patterns, e.g. France has had no problem

in turning towards North Africa, and Poland has been turning naturally towards

Eastern Europe. Moreover, there are countries with which universities want to

cooperate anyway, so ICM may function as useful complement. There is

generally a lot of interest for outbound mobility to Latin America, North

America, China, industrialised Asian countries, but relatively less interest in

working with the European Neighbourhood regions or Western Balkans.

 The size of the budgets to be absorbed is actually a reflection of the importance of

the regional strategies for these regions applicable to the higher education sector.

I.e., within the Western Balkan regional programme, there is a lot of money

allocated to higher education which is reflected by a relatively large budget for

Erasmus+ ICM for this region.

 Some expectations could not be met among potential applicants, as the

Commission had played down the fact that the first budget as a whole was not

large, allowing merely 150 000 ICM mobilities between Europe and the rest of the

world. To address this situation, the Commission worked very hard with the

National Agencies to promote the regions, which were thought to need

information.

 There is an uneven distribution of inbound versus outbound mobility between

countries and regions is perceived and managed differently in various

institutions and countries. Some institutions may advocate an open attitude

saying “No problem accepting students from these countries, but our students do

not want to go to these countries”. Other institutions may reach for optimal

balance between incoming and outgoing mobility. There is some heavy

imbalance in terms of outbound vs. inbound mobility. DG EAC considers that

162

Conducted by one of the authors 4 May 2016 with participation of several representatives

of DG EAC.

163

Statements listed are not verbatim statements but summative narratives reformulated

by the authors.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 187

universities don’t need a 50/50 ratio between inbound and outbound. With the

exception of certain regions, the Commission is using cooperation money and a

lot of these funds require more inbound than outbound mobility. But in many

regions there is no requirement to have this equity between inbound and

outbound.

 It is a bit difficult at this stage of ICM to address systematically observed

imbalances in inbound / outbound after one year of Erasmus+ ICM. The

Commission is just starting to get the result from the second year. The

Commission has been spending all the allocated funds the first year for

something that was new. It is necessary to allow a latent ICM market to develop.

At this stage the Commission proposing opportunities to universities, which are

offered to develop mobility and cooperation that may not be part of their

traditional landscape. In 2016 monitoring results may give indications if this

approach should be pursued. ICM represents a product that not everybody was

fully aware of. It may take time for operators in higher education to join the ICM

vision, and envisage sending student to places and institutions that were outside

the institutional and cultural horizon.

 During initialisation period of ICM, the first year of Erasmus+, the universities

may have started with staff exchanges, as those travelling staff may have set the

ground for looking how they select the students. For each country the

Commission has a picture of what is going on.

 It is a policy choice that the Commission wants everybody to go everywhere, and

for the first year it has worked. It was not an obvious thing because sending

Spanish students to Latin America would not have been a problem, but sending

the same students to less obvious destination would have been a problem. ICM is

opening opportunities for universities, way beyond what they would have had in

mind.

Regarding the recognition of Learning Outcomes – ECTS Credits

 Recognition of ECTS credits during and after mobility is another obstacle to be

overcome. Erasmus+ has introduced new Erasmus Charter for Higher Education

(ECHE), new inter-institutional agreements with universities, and new Learning

Agreements, among other things. The goal of the Programme is to institute

transparency: students who go abroad and benefit from Erasmus+ grants should

know how many ECTS credits they will be awarded before leaving their home

institution.

 There are indications of improvement of recognition rates. From 73% recognition

in 2013, the rate has increased to about 85% of total credit recognition in 2014-15,

the first call under Erasmus+.

Following these statements, the authors asked DG EAC to substantiate these claims and

provide a description of the method used for calculating the recognition rates (and if

available obtain for the 2014-2016 period tabular data broken down by home / host

country describing rates of recognition). A comment was forwarded to the author stating:

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 188

“The statement has been made public on p. 20 in the Erasmus+ annual report

164

The results come from the analysis of the Erasmus+ reports (EU survey) that

students submit centrally after their mobility. It takes into account the feedback

of the students for whom the recognition process was finalised. Details by

country are not public, but they vary from 70% up to 94%.”

In order to improve further these recognition issues, DG EAC has launched or is

going to launch the following initiatives:

– Publication of the ECHE (Erasmus+ Charter for Higher Education)

monitoring Guide

165

to support Erasmus+ National Agencies in monitoring

the implementation of the Charter by their Higher Education Institutions.

– Launch of the “ECHE: Make it work for you” tool in the second half of 2016

in order to involve key people (e.g. rectors, Erasmus+ coordinators,

international office staff) in active reflection on how to improve their

international strategy by self-evaluating their current practices with respect

to what they have promised in applying for the ECHE. The tool will provide

access to case studies to improve their own practices.

– Development of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) targeted at HEIs

and NAs on how to best implement ECTS and ECHE principles. “

Regarding the improvement of integration between local and international students at

some European universities

THE CASE OF GERMAN TEACHER TRAININGS STUDENTS’ HESITATION TOWARD

MOBILITY

Teacher training students in Germany are among those who are less willing to enrol for

studies abroad. Further analysis of the context of mobility in German Teacher Training

Colleges seems to be a structural issue in teacher training mobility as students feel that

specific recognition of modules studied abroad is considered rather difficult. Students tend

to avoid mobility because they feel that the contents taught abroad do not fit exactly their

local needs. Such attitudes correlate rather well with the rather high orientation of teachers

and authorities toward the local job market for teachers.

Parliamentary criticism has been voiced addressing tendencies observed in some

universities to “run programmes exclusively for Erasmus+ students, thereby isolating them from

local students at the same university”. In his answer given on behalf of the Commission 20

January 2016 Mr Tibor Navracsics “acknowledges the fact that the integration between local

and international students at some European universities should be improved“, and refers to

enhancements brought to the Erasmus Charter for Higher Education (ECHE) and to the

fact that the “monitoring of its implementation have been strengthened in the framework of the

Erasmus+ programme.” He underlines further that

“All higher education institutions commit to comply with the ECHE to be eligible

for funding through the Erasmus+ programme. Two of the principles (1) of the

164

European Commission (2015). Erasmus+ Annual Report 2014.

165

European Commission (2016). ECHE Monitoring Guide for Erasmus+ National Agencies, 2016

edition, 1st edition.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 189

ECHE are to fully integrate incoming students into the institution’s academic and

social activities, as well as to provide appropriate mentoring and support

arrangements for mobile students.

A large number of European universities go even beyond these principles and

have embedded the concept of ‘internationalisation at home’ in their core missions.

By making programmes and courses accessible, both to local and international

students together, the objective is to ensure interactions between them, not only

for the benefit of the international students, but also for the local students who

are not taking part in mobility.

The Commission carefully monitors the implementation of the ECHE principles,

which includes collecting direct feedback from Erasmus students: 94% rate the

degree of their integration with local students as ‘good’ or ‘very good’.”

166

Question for written answer to the Commission Rule 130 submitted 8 November 2015 by MP

Dubravka Šuica (PPE), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-

2015-014829&language=EN-

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 190

Chapter 7: Mobility of VET learners and Staff

The call for the Erasmus+ Vocational Education and Training Mobility Charter has been

published on 22 December 2014. Since then, Vocational Education and Training (VET,

while the term “Technical and Vocational Education and Training” – TVET – is often

used in an overlapping way) institutions from the EU Programme countries could apply

for becoming registered under the Erasmus+ programme. Through it, the European

Commission aims to strengthen strategic approaches and quality in mobility in

vocational education and training. One of the main objectives of the Erasmus+

Programme is to increase quality mobility within VET and support the European

internationalisation of VET organisations in the Erasmus+ Programme countries.

However, the VET Mobility Charter is not exclusive in that sense that there is no

obligatory participation in Erasmus+ VET Mobility. Indeed, VET mobility in the

Erasmus+ Programme is also open to new types of institutions and smaller institutions

and as a matter of fact to such applicant institutions which may not wish to be accredited

with the VET Mobility Charter, but which, nevertheless, would like to participate in

transnational VET mobility. The mobilities will be subsequently handled by the

respective National Agencies, which are differently profiled all over Europe.

1. Approximation of potential mobility patterns in VET from an institutional

perspective

What is the current status of the implementation of the Erasmus+ Vocational Education

and Training Mobilities? First of all, it is necessary to point out that in the area of VET

there are a large variety of stakeholders. In order to address most widely such diversity

of stakeholders, the eligible participants may come from a rather varied combination of

organisations, as displayed in Table 19 below:

Table 19: Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) organisations

TVET organisations

public

private

labour

market

training

sector

TVET school/institute/centre

enterprises (including social enterprises)

social partner or other representative of working life,

including chambers of commerce, craft/professional

associations and trade unions

public body at local, regional or national level

research institutes

foundations

school/institute/educational centre

non-profit organisation, association, NGOs

career guidance, professional counselling and

information services

TVET policy bodies

One may conclude that the TVET training stakeholders from the vocational education

and training sector and TVET labour market stakeholders, including both public TVET

organisations and private TVET organisations. Indeed, there is a large variety and almost

every combination can be found as the table above shows.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 191

However, there are national differences about the systematic integration of different

stakeholders into TVET. E.g. in German speaking countries, it is common to combine

schools with enterprises (following the so-called dual system), whereas in English-

speaking countries the school-based approach predominates. Often enough however

TVET takes place as part of the employment, i.e. vocational learning happens on the job

more or often in a less systematized way.

Learning mobility in initial vocational education and training (IVET)

“An EU average of at least 6% of 18-34 year-olds with an initial vocational education and

training (IVET) qualification should have had an IVET-related study or training period

(including work placements) abroad lasting a minimum of two weeks, or less if

documented by Europass.”

European Commission (2016). ‘Indicators – Eurostat’

167

In order to illustrate the political perception, the following brand new statement is

presented completely. Ms. Thyssen on behalf of the European Commission (E-

016075/2015) gave it on 2 February 2016 as an answer:

“The Commission would like to note that the figure of three million students

who have studied abroad with the help of the Erasmus programme has been

achieved over a period of 26 years (1). This figure should not be compared to the

number of vocational students and apprentices who have participated so far in

the Erasmus+ programme, which started only in 2014. In the vocational mobility

projects of 2014 and 2015 about 235 000 vocational learners, including apprentices

have already taken part or will participate. Compared to the annual average of

the previous Leonardo da Vinci programme (2) this is an increase of about 100%

(3). The available funds for vocational mobility will support work placements

abroad for about 650 000 vocational students by 2020. Current demand is about

twice the number of available grants.

The Commission manages further initiatives to increase the number of

apprenticeships outside Erasmus+. The Youth Guarantee supports Member

States in their efforts to help out-of-work young people progress into education,

employment or training, including apprenticeships (4). The European Alliance

for Apprenticeships (5) strengthens the quality, supply and image of

apprenticeships in Europe. A pilot project initiated by the European Parliament

will test what can be done to increase the number of long-term work placements

abroad for apprentices (6).

These initiatives are complemented by the European Pact for Youth, a business-

led initiative with the support of the Commission, which includes a target to

establish at least 100 000 new good quality apprenticeships, traineeships or entry-

level jobs before the end of 2017.”

167

EU benchmark not yet available, details retrieved from: European Commission (2016). ‘Indicators

– Eurostat’, EU Benchmarks, Indicators, Education and training.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 192

When taking into account the role of mobility in VET it becomes obvious that such

variety may, on one hand, constitute a barrier against organising mobilities. However, in

the other hand, this variety could be a very positive trigger for collecting different

experiences and evolving new insights. So what is the recent perception of typical

stakeholders and their actors about mobility in the VET sector?

Findings on the implementation of TVET in Erasmus+ from the interviews

Several noteworthy findings shedding light on the implementation of TVET in Erasmus+

and beyond were collected from the interviews. The authors found that Erasmus+ is

considered being extremely important for both sectors, Vocational Education and

Training and Youth. The respondents emphasised that Key Action 1 offered such ideal

opportunities that trainees usually could not get otherwise, due to the relatively stronger

local orientation of the TVET sector compared to, e.g. the Higher Education sector.

Besides the educational and the cultural experience that trainees may acquire,

interviewees report a very strong social and linguistic experience within all such

mobility. The European Parliaments effort – policy is first than the programmes follow –

is completed via the five European Parliaments’ policy departments.

As well, it is reported that Erasmus+ crosses the barriers between different sectors of

education, between formal and informal education. Erasmus+ has, in light of the

interviews that have conducted, simplified the process because of the unified approach

chosen in Key Action 1

Another aspect that emerges from the interview material is the linkage with industry, for

which the need for developing skills that address the most recent evolutions are of

paramount importance. The feedback from interviews is that the partnerships with

industry address such need most relevantly. In almost all countries reviewed by the

authors, the collaborating of the VET and business sector links has become reality.

There are still weaknesses reported in the area of virtual mobility. Even though virtual

mobility clearly does not constitute a substitute for physical mobility it might, various

virtual schemes may be adopted for continuing and completing experiences after

completion of stays abroad. The experiences reported by respondents confirm earlier

indications that, in Initial Vocational Education and Training (IVET), virtual mobility

remains marginal because physical mobility is the norm. Therefore, there is still a need to

explore how virtual mobility may function and which specific benefits may be obtained

from combining virtual and physical mobility. There are currently rather early stage

sample cases available for research and evaluation, which may demonstrate innovative

uses of Virtual Mobility in initial VET, so-called IVET, but do not reach a wide audience.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 193

The case of the internship program of a private non-profit TVET school

As a free educational institution, the visited TVET Academy for training offers in three cities

throughout Germany, together with an Adult Education Academy and a University of Applied

Sciences a portfolio of professional and academic and lifelong education offerings in

different sectors with relevance for TVET and adult education:

- Vocational grammar school and technical college,

- General and life-long education,

- Further education,

- Academic Programs.

In addition, in the field of VET, an international component of four weeks is offered with

support of the Erasmus+ Programme. About 120 trainees recruited from several vocational

categories travel either to the UK (London) or to Ireland (Dublin) once each year. To run

these activities the institute has founded its own office in London

168

for supporting both

trainees and trainers in London and Dublin

169

What is the learning experience trainees did collect during the 4 weeks abroad? The

management of the school report that especially the socio-cultural dimension is perceived as

profitable while the specific vocational benefits would remain rather low. The two quotes

from the trainees’ own reports illustrate these issues

170

About the subject: First, the trainee describes several specific tasks he did complete. Then he

says, “I especially enjoyed the entire working atmosphere, the very friendly colleagues and

superiors, the versatile functions and high learning factor this special tasks in the field of

medical courier.”

On the culture: “I would commit myself now not in a special highlight, because everything

had its charms and little uniqueness. The St. Patrick's Day was of course in itself very

interesting to see but also walks and hikes in nature and on the coast were absolutely great,

especially the fact that we really were extremely lucky with the weather.”

Consideration of TVET mobility in the European Parliament

Maragall (2015, p. 9) describes, that the introduction of Erasmus+ meant a “major step

forward for mobility as a concept across the European higher education area”. However,

this author highlights the fact that “mobility is less prevalent in vocational educational

training (VET) while the previous programme, Leonardo, successfully completed a first

phase of establishing a programme of simultaneous work and study exchanges for

participants in countries other than their countries of residence”.

168

http://www.ausbildung-und-studium.de/news/1701-afbb-ausbilderprojekt-in-london

169

cf. internship of industrial clerks in Dublin 2015

http://www.ausbildung‐und‐studium.de/dresden/news/1678‐auslandspraktikum‐der‐industriek

aufleute‐indublin‐2015

170

Quotations translated form original reports published under http://www.ausbildung-und-

studium.de/images/afbb/stories/dresden/News/news_2015-05-07_steckbrief_daniel-galle.pdf

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 194

In order to respond effectively to such challenges, Maragall suggests identifying and

implementing two essential features:

1. the implementation of mobility “must be fully shared between each country's

educational systems and productive sectors”, “offer maximum flexibility so as to adapt to

very different realities”, and be directly interpreted in its meaning for “ensuring

employability and social integration”;

2. the consideration of the highly complex situation of the target groups which are

“objectively the hardest to overcome”.

CEDEFOP presented in its 2014 Analysis and overview of national qualifications framework

developments in European countries

171

the status quo of the National Qualification

Framework’s (NQF) implementation, described as being a “modest start” and could

outline two findings:

“the NQF developments and implementation take time and need to be seen as

a long-term and iterative process, where existing education and training systems

and the frameworks are gradually and progressively aligned with each other;

common understanding of concepts and deeper cultural change are developed;

NQF developments are as much about facilitating participation and commitment

of stakeholders as they are about introducing technical and conceptual

solutions.” (p. 45).

How does such observation correspond with the implementation of mobility in the TVET

sector specifically and educational mobility in general? A first conclusion is that the

observed diversity is causing barriers for a direct linkage of educational institutions

directly as they do not directly fit in expectation, organizational structure and target

audience. Indeed, transfer of staff or mobility of learners is much more complicated when

there is no clear relation between the institutions in collaborating countries. As well, and

this is the second conclusion, this observed structural deficit correlates with the

individual perception learners, who, when interviewed, state that their locally valid

curriculum does not match with the corresponding curriculum at their mobility target

institution. Institutional disparities make such consideration even more challenging. I.e.

the situation in Spain and Germany illustrate institutional incompatibilities: in Spain,

most of the technical colleges are listed and accepted as HEIs, while in Germany, even

transfer within one educational sector is often a challenge due to different regulations in

the 16 local states (Länder).

Overall, the finding described above confirm what has been suggested by “The

Committee on Employment and Social Affairs calls on the Committee on Culture and

Education”, as motion for a resolution in 2016 (statements below selected from Chambon,

pp. 3-9):

 that occupations linked to vocational education and training (VET) have the

necessary flexibility to be carried out anywhere,

 mobility in the context of VET is one of the important tools in the fight against

unemployment,

 expresses concern that Erasmus+ is viewed by young people primarily as

a programme for students in higher education,

171

Cedefop (2015). Analysis and overview of national qualifications framework developments in

European countries: annual report 2014. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Cedefop working paper; No 27.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 195

 increase the visibility of VET programmes in order to remove cultural barriers,

 underlines the key importance of recognition across Member States of learners’

achievements and acquired skills and competences,

 considers that mobility in VET encourages occupational and not just academic

mobility,

 notes that the European resources allocated to Erasmus+ and VET programmes are

not proportional to the numbers or needs of the potential beneficiaries of the mobility

offered by these schemes,

 calls on the European Commission to provide up-to-date statistics and to carry out

assessments and/or studies regarding Erasmus+ and other VET mobility

programmes.

Maragall (2015, p. 10) does clearly confirm that the “relative weakness of vocational training

as a whole is all the more evident in this area when compared with the undisputed strength of the

network of European universities”.

2. Lack of data about IVET and TVET mobility in Europe

After only 2 years of IVET and TVET mobility in Europe under the Erasmus+ framework,

it is still difficult to find precise data about the mobilities. The interview material

collected for this study indicates that it is a concern for stakeholders on a national level as

well as on a level. Considering this shortage of fully exploitable data two approaches are

presented, in the following section that endeavour to overcome such deficit by using

innovative techniques which may serve in the long run as good practice.

INTERNATIONALIZATION AND MOBILITY IN VET:

THE IMOVE EXAMPLE

Quite interesting is the strong German approach of exploring VET-competency worldwide,

which is a direct trigger for mobility in the VET sector. I.e. the iMOVE task force, which deals

with competence for International Cooperation in Vocational Training and Education

Training developed in Germany and is an initiative of the German Federal Ministry of

Education and Research (BMBF), is a successful approach in producing insightful data. As part

of the international division at the Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training

(BIBB) in the previous Federal City of Bonn its objectives are to promote international

collaboration and to initiate cooperation and business relationships in vocational training

and continuing education. Such is covering (a) matchmaking between international and

German partners and (b) support for a variety of cooperation and business relationships and

and expanding their international activities. In order to do so iMOVE works together with

many German continuing education providers.

Erasmus+ Scoreboards by EURIDYCE and CEDEFOP

A recent development is the introduction of Mobility Scoreboards by different sectors,

realised by EURIDYCE and CEDEFOP. In order to follow the 2011 European Councils

recommendations on “Youth on the Move”, the IVET mobility scoreboard will be

designed as a tool for monitoring developments in initial vocational education and

training (IVET) mobility policies and also its implementation. However, whereas the

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 196

Higher Education Mobility Scoreboard by EURIDYCE is already partially available, the

scoreboard for IVET will start with a draft version in June 2016. Both scoreboards provide

analytical tools to monitor mobility activity by using in-depth qualitative analyses

coming as well from representatives of the targets audiences. However, it is worth to

mention that those are separate activities which apparently are fully functional at the

moment, the most important bench for mobility in VET and HE is not yet released.

Nevertheless, it would be interesting for any educational specialist to use available data

(when available) for profiling their own activity. Also these scoreboards could be used to

improve the strategies of national or European level programmes.

Still, there are remaining critical issues:

 The information about the scoreboards is rather limited with only a few more details

offered on the Websites

172

;

 While the starting point was already set in 2011 with the demand that the

scoreboards for Higher Education and IVET should support the shaping and

monitoring of mobility policies by (1) overviewing the state-of-play and progress of

structures and policies, (2) highlighting good practices, and (3) outlining areas for

reform for the main target groups. The target groups are (1) associations of IVET

students, (2) organisers of mobility projects, (3) national and EU level policy-makers

(Youth on the Move, Erasmus+). There is no such an independent usage possible yet,

i.e. the data sets are not open for independent manipulation.

Overall, such more customized practice could be a highly valuable tool that would fit the

needs of the respective targets groups to some extent, as shown in the interviews

presented earlier.

RECOMMENDATION

 The European Parliament may consider improving information, documentation, open and

independent use and usability of the Higher Education and IVET scoreboards.

 The European Parliament may consider closer cooperation with the research community on

developing further the Higher Education and IVET scoreboards.

Youth Guarantee

The Youth Guarantee

173

is a “new approach to tackling youth unemployment which ensures

that all young people under 25”, independently of whether applicants are registered with

employment services or not. The idea is to provide good-quality, concrete offers within

only 4 months before these young people leave formal education or become unemployed.

Such good-quality offer should be for a job, apprenticeship, traineeship, or continued

education and be adapted to each individual need and situation.

172

CEDEFOP (2016). ‘Mobility Scoreboard’, Web site. Accessed 13/06/2016; Erasmus+ Journal;

Vogel, H. (2016). ‘EURYDICE Publication: Towards a Mobility Scoreboard: Conditions for Learning

Abroad in Europe’. Article. 17/2/2016.

173

Cp. http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1079

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 197

Chapter 8: Mobility of Adult Education Staff

The organisation of Key Action 1 activities in the sector of Adult Education is very similar

to the approach chosen for the School sector, in term of the transition from LLP, and

relative to the goals of the Programme. The strategy adopted in the Adult Education

sector is to move towards a more institutional approach. Adult Learning organisations

are expected to function as applicants.

1. Policy priorities in adult education

A starting point for understanding is the “Renewed European Agenda for Adult

Learning” from 2011

174

which explains “the major role which adult learning can play in

achieving the Europe 2020 goals, by enabling adults — in particular the low-skilled and older

workers — to improve their ability to adapt to changes in the labour market and society” (p. 1).

Moreover, Adult Learning provide a means of up-skilling or reskilling those affected by

unemployment, restructuring and career transitions, as well as contributing significantly

to social inclusion, active citizenship and personal development.

Typically, 25% of adults in Europe would be “caught in a low-skills trap” as they have

only limited access to the labour market without enrolling in further education or

training. Indeed, only 4.4 %, i.e. 2.9 of the 66 million European adults with, at best, lower

secondary education participated recently in Adult Learning (cf. 2015 Joint Report cited

below). In order to deal effectively with such a huge challenge, specific priorities of the

European Agenda for Adult Learning 2016-2020 are defined and published in the 2015

Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the strategic

framework for European cooperation in education and training, the so-called “ET

2020”

175

, (Annex, p. 35):

 Governance: ensuring the coherence of Adult Learning with other policy areas,

improving coordination, effectiveness and relevance to the needs of society, the

economy and the environment; increasing, where appropriate, both private and

public investment;

 Supply and take up: significantly increasing the supply of high-quality Adult

Learning provision, especially in literacy, numeracy and digital skills, and increasing

take-up through effective outreach, guidance and motivation strategies which target

the groups most in need;

 Flexibility and access: widening access by increasing the availability of workplace-

based learning and making effective use of ICT; putting in place procedures to

identify and assess the skills of low qualified adults, and providing sufficient second-

chance opportunities leading to a recognised EQF qualification for those without EQF

level 4 qualifications;

174

European Council (2011). ‘Council Resolution on a renewed European agenda for adult learning

2011/C 372/01)’.

175

European Commission (2015). ‘Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the

implementation of the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET

2020) New priorities for European cooperation in education and training (2015/C 417/04)’,

C 417/35 Official Journal of the European Union EN, 15/12/2015.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 198

 Quality: improving quality assurance, including monitoring and impact assessment,

improving initial and continuing education of adult educators, and collecting the

necessary data on needs to effectively target and design provision.

Those four priorities outlined above situate Adult Learning within a very clear thematic

framework. One may explore further how such priorities may match the idea of a

European mobility and may relate to the specific measures provided by Erasmus+.

In order to support the promotion of adult learning, the European Commission is

working with 32 countries toward implementing a European Agenda for Adult Learning.

This Agenda points at the need to increase participation in Adult Learning in all its

variants, (formal, non-formal and informal learning). It also emphasises expectations that

Adult Learning should be used for acquiring four core competencies:

1. new work skills,

2. skills for active citizenship,

3. skills for personal development,

4. skills for personal fulfilment.

Thus, Adult Learning cannot be linked to a specific educational sector solely. E.g.

although it is expected to be separated from school-level general education, it may

nevertheless be linked with higher education or TVET. Subsequently, there is a need for

conducting empirical research, in order to map and understand better such

considerations. To do, the authors analyse the structure of the members’ institutional

provenance in the European Commissions’ network of national coordinators of adult

learning.

176

Indeed, a pattern emerged, and the variety mentioned above can be displayed

in a rather simple way in Table 20 below:

Table 20: European Commissions’ network of national coordinators of adult learning.

Country

Organisation

Educational sector of the organisation

School

TVET

Federal Ministry for Education, the

Arts & Culture

BE-fr

AGERS : Administration générale de

l’enseignement et de la recherche

scientifique

BE-nl

Ministry of Education and Training

Ministry of Education and Science

Ministry of Science, Education &

Sports

Ministry of Education and Culture

Ministry of Education, Youth and

Sports

Ministry of Education

Andras

Ministry of Education and Culture

Agence Europe, Éducation,

Formation, France

Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung

176

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/adult-learning/doc/national-coordinators_en.pdf

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 199

Country

Organisation

Educational sector of the organisation

School

TVET

(BIBB)

Ministerium für

Kultus, Jugend und

Sport, Baden-

Württemberg

Secretary General for Youth

Ministry for National Economy

Ministry of Education

Department of Education and Skills

ISFOL, Istituto per lo

Sviluppo della Formazione

Professionale dei Lavoratori

Ministry of Education and

Science. Department of

Education

Stiftung Erwachenenbildung

Lichtenstein

Ministry of Education and Science

Ministère de l’Education Nationale

Ministry of Education, Employment

and the Family

Ministry of Education

VOX, Norwegian Agency for Lifelong

Learning

Ministry of National Education

ANQEP - National Qualifications

Agency

President, National

Qualifications

Authority Ministry of

National Education

National Lifelong Learning Institute

Slovenian Institute for Adult

Learning

Ministerio de Educación,

Subdirección General de

Aprendizaje a lo Largo de la

Vida

Swedish National Agency for

Education

State Secretariat for Education,

Research and Innovation (SERI)

Ministry of National Education

National Institute of Adult

Continuing Education (NIACE)

Obviously, to judge from the table above, there is evidence of a strong link to

stakeholders dealing with school education. Overall, the respective coordinators are

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 200

responsible, in each country listed above, to “provide policy advice and support, and gather

and disseminate best practices”

177

. As well, the European Commission collaborates with a

range of European associations, networks

178

, and labour organisations to promote adult

learning

179

. Due to the considerable diversity, an integrated approach cannot be expected.

Indeed, the linkage with other sectors may be seen as trigger for building different

pathways into supporting adult learning.

In its in-depth analysis of Adult Learning policies and their effectiveness in Europe the

European Commission (2015)

180

outlines which specific policies are most effective in

order to strengthen and expand Adult Learning:

 Increasing learners’ disposition towards learning;

 Increasing employers’ investment in learning;

 Improving equity of access to learning for all;

 Deliver high quality adult learning;

 Delivering learning that is relevant to employers and learners;

 Co-ordinate an effective lifelong learning policy.

Surprisingly the overall almost 300-pages report does not contain a single remark about

mobility for adult learners. Thus, it is questionable to what extent this target group, adult

learners who may benefit from physical mobility, has indeed be addressed properly. The

only aspect with relevance to mobility seems to be the request for providing progression

pathways for learners across the national qualifications frameworks. Overall, however,

the report does not seem to valorise the comprehensive trans-European labour mobility

for gaining educational progress on individual level.

2. Data on the implementation of mobility in adult education

When searching for up-to-date statistics on adult learner mobility, the learning mobility

statistics from Eurostat may be a valuable source, as it presents a recent report about

tertiary education students with data extracted in December 2015 and February 2016.

However, the respective article presents statistics that covers the mobility of tertiary

education students in the European Union, but starts only from 2013. The link

181

pointing

to the original database gives only access to annual data from 2004-2012 which is not

usable for this report. It is only announced that further Eurostat information will be

published in a planned article update in December 2016. All in all, this confirms the

urgent need for a closer and better monitoring of publically available data.

177

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/adult-learning/doc/national-coordinators_en.pdf

178

http://ec.europa.eu/education/tools/partners_networks_en.htm

179

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/adult-learning/adult_en.htm

180

European Commission (2015). An in-depth analysis of adult learning policies and their effectiveness in

Europe - Final Report, Brussels: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.

181

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00064&

plugin=1

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 201

Findings from the interviews on the implementation of adult education in Erasmus+

Several findings concerning the implementation of Adult Education in Erasmus+ and

beyond were collected from the interviews. The authors found that Erasmus+ is not

considered being extremely important for that sector.

One may observe a special interest for continuous education master programmes in the

field of Adult Education. There is some evidence that labour market needs could be

assessed and integrated better - not by adding regulatory requirements, but only by

addressing needs for adaptation. Overall, user needs are core issues that are always

strongly linked with the work place and the individuals’ professional development.

Consequently, interaction with adult learners may take place in a highly individualised

way.

Another aspect are the cross-sector issues, which are of interest as well. Especially,

respondents would like to collaborate more intensely with the national governments,

with a corporate-sector training institute, or with the NGO training sector. In addition,

sharing (training) competencies to achieve delivery of services with other sectors is

considered an interesting option. Another area of interest is the opportunity to engage in

quality insurance by participating in cross-sector cooperation.

Obviously even enterprises show some concern about the (new) effort on regulations

concerning to the European labour market and explain that they would mainly avoid

short-term mobilities of staff in Europe and rather prefer using a partnering enterprise in

the neighbouring country instead. This observation shows how fragile cross-border

mobility might be. There is obviously a strong need for policies that stimulate and

support the free transfer of adults in the context of the labour market.

Regarding how sustainability issues are addressed (often by EU projects) and

implemented, there is evidence that the training institution usually designs first the

material to be used in Adult Education. Only afterwards, the training institution would

establish links with universities in order to search for approval and sustainability. This

applies to aspects of accreditation, which are supposed to work only in cooperation with

universities, i.e. outside the scope of the industry.

Virtual mobility in adult education

There is as well some awareness of virtual mobility, but even in industry, the potential of

such needs to be explored further. As a matter of fact, virtual mobility is not often found

in industry as well as in any other place of adult education.

The new dimension of digital learning environments in relation of adult learners is

explored carefully in a recent report of the European Commission (2015)

182

. This Final

Report discusses in detail the policy dimensions as well as the didactic aspects of ICT-

enhanced learning and Open Educational Resources (OER), its potential and conditions

for success in a systematic approach.

182

http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=14407&langId=en

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 202

FIGURE 12: TYPES OF ICT IN 2008 VS. TYPES OF ICT IN 2013

Source: Goertz (2013, p.11)

Figure 12 above has been developed first by Goertz (2013, p.11) and is presented in the

2015 report. The blue areas indicate types of ICT that were already available in 2008; the

green ones were new in 2013. This confirms the dynamic development of educational

technologies and by that growing potential for virtual mobility. Indeed, adult learners are

one of the main target audiences of such educational patterns and would be more directly

addressed than those in VET would.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 203

Chapter 9: Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees (EMJMD)

1. General characteristics and transition from LLP

One of the main objectives of EMJMD is to “increase the attractiveness of the European

Higher Educational area (EHEA) and support the EU’s external action in the higher education

field.”

183

Erasmus+ plans to enrol and fund 25,000 students to study for a joint master's

degree

184

. According to the latest Erasmus+ Guide for 2016, “the EMJMD grant for the

preparatory year and the three student intakes will indicatively amount to around 3 million

EUR.”

185

EUA Joint Masters Networks developed during the period 2002-2004 by the European

University Association (EUA)

186

were forerunners of Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses

(EMMCs) under the LLP Programme, and of EMMCs’ successor, the Erasmus Mundus

Joint Master Degrees (EMJMD) programme. Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorates (EMJDs)

have been transferred from 2014 to the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions - Research

Fellowship Programme

187

Brief evolution of EMJMD since 2014

In 2014, “The 2014 budget allowed the continued financing of some 138 Erasmus Mundus

Masters Degrees and 42 Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorates, which had initially been

funded under the LLP programme. In addition, there was sufficient budget in 2014 to

fund 11 new Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters Degrees, representing an additional 46

organisations which received funds to finance around 440 additional Masters

scholarships over the next 5 years.”

188

The selection rate for new EMJMD projects the first

year of Erasmus+ was 18% (66 applications submitted, 11 granted). The 11 projects

involved 46 higher education institutions from 18 different Programme Countries and a

183

European Commission (2016). Erasmus+ Programme Guide for 2016 Version 2. pp. 95-97.

184

European Parliament (2015). ‘Erasmus+: more than just mobility’, March 2015, European

Parliament, EPRS: Brussels.

185

European Commission (2016). Erasmus+ Programme Guide for 2016 version 2, p. 103.

186

European University Association (EUA) (2004). Crosier C. and Geddie, K. (authors). ‘Developing

Joint Masters Programmes for Europe: Results of the EUA Joint Masters Project’, European

University Association (EUA), Brussels: EUA. See also further work under the auspices of EUA, e.g.

European University Association (EUA), (2006). Guidelines or Quality Enhancement in European Joint

Master Programmes, EMNEM – European Masters New Evaluation Methodology.

187

This move has been severely criticised by Haug and Wächter in Erasmus For All (2014-2020),

p. 31: ”Request that joint doctoral programmes not be separated and moved to Marie Curie. This move would

not only mean a real loss of substance and a blow for Erasmus and Erasmus Mundus, but it would also be

self-damaging for European higher education and would deprive the new integrated programme of a recent

and internationally highly visible and successful activity. This would happen precisely at a moment when

Europe is endeavouring to build up the strength and attractiveness of its universities at the doctoral level.

The well-founded intention to avoid duplications with Marie Curie could be solved by keeping joint doctoral

studies together with Erasmus, rather than passing them over to Marie Curie which has a quite different

focus. Separating out the third level of education would also be in full contradiction with a basic principle of

the Bologna Process and would send a negative signal to universities.”

188

European Commission (2015). Erasmus+ Programme Annual Report 2014, p. 15.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 204

“total amount of EUR 48.8 million was allocated to cover the ongoing EMMCs and EUR 32.5

million to cover the ongoing EMJDs.” (ibid, p. 25).

The transition from EMMCs to EMJMD did not go as smoothly as one might have

expected as

“43 courses chose to submit a Quality Review Report in 2014 and were evaluated

with respect to their performance, excellence, sustainability and development

prospects beyond the period of the EU funding. At the end of the Quality Review

process, 19 courses were deemed of sufficiently high quality to be included in the

Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees (EMJMDs) Catalogue and were eligible to

apply for a grant in 2015 based on a specific call for proposals.”

189

In a comment forwarded to the authors about the transition from LLP to Erasmus+ with

regards to Joint Masters DG EAC states:

“We propose a fuller explanation of the transition from the 2009-13 period to

Erasmus+: Joint Masters degrees have continued under Erasmus+. A large

number of contracts, funded under the previous planning period, the so called

"legacy" projects, were still running and being financed at the start of Erasmus.

These legacy projects will start receive funding until the end of 2017, and will

have completed all student matriculation by 2020. “

Plans for 2015 included an increase the volume of selected EMJMD application from 11

(2014) to 18 with an average of 13 grants per intake.

190

The Work Programme for 2016

announces that “Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters Degrees (EMJMD) will in 2016 select more

proposals than in the two previous calls. In the 2016 call, for the first time funding is foreseen for

additional scholarships for the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries.” (p.15). Spring

2016 two calls were issued

191

one for EMJMD and one for EMMCs to allow transition

from LLP to Erasmus+.

192

2. Key Findings

Low interest for JMD in Programme countries

Feedback from HEIs and NAs contacted confirm a lack of interest in HEIs for Joint

Master Degree. Knowledge about EU funded joint degrees is very low among teaching

staff in European universities. The relative lack of HEIs for EMJMD is confirmed by

recent statistics. There has been a decrease in EMJMD from 180 to 92 in 2016 and just a

minor increase compared with 2015. EMJMD has received lower budget appropriation

than expected. There are also feedbacks from stakeholders, acknowledged by the

189

Erasmus Mundus Quality Review - Selection 2014.

190

European Commission (2014). 2015 annual work programme for the implementation of 'Erasmus+':

the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport, C(2014)6856 of 30 September 2014,

p. 47.

191

European Commission (2016). ‘Erasmus Mundus Programme 2009-2013’, EACEA, Web page.

Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus_mundus/index_en.php

192

Neither the Web site for the 2016 Calls under Actions 1A and 1B, nor the Erasmus+ Guide for

2016 (version 2) offer explanations to potential applicants of differences applying to each Action

(1A and 1B).

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 205

Commission that EMJMD needs a stronger institutional embedding. As of today,

awareness of EMJMD has reached only a few HEIs in Programme countries.

In a comment forwarded to the authors

193

about the above mentioned decrease DG EAC

states:

“Towards the end of previous planning period (2006-2013) a large number of

institutions were applying for Joint Masters support. In 2012, 815 universities

applied within 177 consortia. This number decreased significantly under

Erasmus+ and in 2016 for instance, only 460 universities applied in 92 consortia.

We can speculate on a number of reasons for this decrease in interest.

The first is that to encourage less dependence on EU funding, joint masters

funding under Erasmus+ offers funding for 3 cohorts of students, rather than 5

cohorts in the previous programme. Even with this reduced funding, it was only

possible to fund 11 new Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters consortia in first year of

the programme (2014).

In addition, and potentially more off-putting to casual applicants, consortia in

Erasmus+ must already have accreditation for their joint degree at the time of

application. In the previous programme consortia could use the first year of the

contract, if they were funded, to apply for this accreditation. This was

undesirable for two reasons. Firstly, it encouraged casual applicants who, if they

could get EU funding, thought that this would ease their national accreditation

processes. Secondly, even with good intentions, if consortia were not very

advanced with accreditation at the time of their applications, the first year of

contract implementation was not long enough to complete the process – leading

to problems with recruiting students for unaccredited courses.”

The low volume of applications for JMD funding requires action.

The Commission will select 30 JMD in 2016 compared with 11 JMD in the first year. The

low rate of success, especially in Scandinavia, but not everywhere, and a decreasing

number EMJMD proposals should be a strong warning that there is a mismatch between

the offer and the demand. The causes of the problems may not reside exclusively in the

design of EMJMD, but may reside also in unfavourable institutional environments e.g.

universities. A general comment from teachers and administrators in HEIs is that Joint

Masters (and Joint PhDs) are nice, but involve too much bureaucracy to be worth the toil.

On a more positive note, France, Germany, and Spain continue to support EMJMD. There

are also newcomers to JMDs. However, the attractiveness of EMJMD remains to

demonstrate.”

Minority impact

The modest evolution of EMJMD and the not so smooth transition from EMMCs justifies

the criticism expressed in the Coimbra Group position paper:

“While we recognize the value of an “excellence initiative” of the kind it

promoted, the Coimbra Group believes that joint programmes leading to joint or

dual/multiple awards should also be promoted in a more widespread fashion,

without the need for the high levels of funding for individual students which

have characterized the prior version of this programme, which limit the number

of programmes funded to the point of becoming a disincentive for academics and

193

following the Panel Interview held 4 May 2016 at DG EAC.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 206

institutions to participate. The impact is, unfortunately, to be especially

noticeable in the first calls for Joint Master’s Degree proposals under Erasmus+,

which are restricted in their funding and hence in the number of programmes

which will be approved, due to commitments undertaken under [LLP]”

194

3. SWOT analysis of Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees (EMJMD)

The following SWOT analysis (Table 21) systematises findings.

Table 21: SWOT Matrix of Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees (EMJMD)

STRENGTHS

1. The “jointness” of the Master Degree

Programmes is well-defined.

2. Relative flexibility as one can opt

between joint (preferred) or multiple

degrees.

3. Student mobility grants to Masters

students.

4. Teacher mobility grants.

5. Complies with national and

institutional accreditation

regulations.

6. Students from Partner countries may

apply for admission and grants.

7. High level of funding for 3 initial

intakes of student to raise visibility

worldwide.

8. Includes non-academic partners.

9. Realistic grant packages and length of

stay (15 regular + 4 additional

scholarships and 4 guest lecturers

and 8 weeks).

10. Feasible multi-location requirements

for study sessions.

11. Additional scholarships available for

some Partner regions.

WEAKNESSES

1. Lack of clarity about tuition fees in private HEIs.

Lack of clear rule about tuition fees (no limiting

principle).

2. National quality control procedures may not

work legally and practically on widely

distributed Joint Master Study Programmes.

3. Admission and grant selection of students is

performed by the EMJMD consortium. This may

contravene the national legal rights of

applicants to contest rejection of applications.

4. Poor interfacing and partial overlapping with

Master Level Curriculum Development projects

in Capacity Building in Higher Education.

5. Unclear definition of what constitutes a “highly

talented student”.

6. Minority impact (minor programme).

194

Coimbra Group of Universities (2014). ‘Coimbra Group position paper on the Erasmus+

Programme. Its first Work Programme and calls’, 20 May 2014, Brussels, p. 3.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 207

OPPORTUNITIES

1. Offers incentives to engage in

cooperation between Master Study

Programme.

2. Legal integration in national Master

Study policies.

3. Top financing from institutions and

states.

4. Financial contributions from

employers who may need specialised

work-force.

5. Some countries and institutions offer

incentives for having Joint Master

Study Programmes.

6. Virtual learning between mobility

periods.

7. Clear rules for including students

from Least Developed Countries and

Low or Lower Middle Income

Countries.

THREATS

1. Lack of interest in many countries and

institutions (too much paperwork, too

complicated, too few local incentives).

2. Legal and regulatory obstacles to Joint Degrees.

3. Pattern of organisational resistance.

4. Some countries, following a boom in Master

programmes in HEIs, i.e. France are reducing

the number of accredited master study

programmes.

5. Common examination and assessment

procedures may be difficult to enforce in

consortia with widely different regulations and

traditions.

6. HEIs making a business of Master Degrees, i.e.

MBAs, might not find EMJMD attractive.

7. Admission rules in elitist, highly selective HEIs,

e.g. grandes écoles in France may pose

problems.

8. Student grant levels may not be sufficient to

cover basic expenses in some countries.

9. Variability of mandatory costs for students.

RECOMMENDATIONS

 The European Parliament may consider merging all programmes and projects targeting

Master Degrees under Key Action 1 and Key Action 2.

 The European Parliament may consider assessing the usefulness of the overall design of

EMJMD, in light of the evaluation of EMCCs.

 The European Parliament may consider assessing the value for the money of EMJMD

measured against more widespread solutions in Key Action 1.

 The European Parliament may consider assessing EMJMD in light of the low interest for EU

Joint Masters in many European universities.

 The European Parliament may consider engaging in a dialogue with higher education

associations, student unions, and national authorities to make the EMJMD programme more

attractive to stakeholders.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 208

Chapter 10: Erasmus+ Students Loan Guarantee Facility

In this chapter the authors analyse the Erasmus+ Students Loan Guarantee Facility

195

(hereafter called ‘Master Loans’). After a short introductory descriptive section

highlighting budgetary aspects, historical aspects situating the debate about portable

loans and grants for mobile students in Europe in a broader socioeconomic context will

be discussed. The views of the Commission as well as the arguments from critiques of

portable EU-loan-schemes will be discussed. This chapter will close with key findings, a

SWOT classification and final recommendations.

1. Main characteristics

Master Loans are targeting students who want to complete a full study programme at

Master level in another Programme Country. The envisaged Master Loans are thought

more as a contribution to their costs

196

than a full coverage of living expenses and

possible fees. The master loan will be provided by banks in the EU that have passed an

agreement with the EU. Banks granting such loans to students will have a guarantee from

the European Investment Fund

197

. An Erasmus grant and an Erasmus+ Master Loan

cannot be cumulated when mobility participants go to the same host Higher Education

institution (HEI). For 2016 the amount of loan will be 12 000 EUR for 1-year Master

programmes and 18 000 EUR for 2-year Master programmes. Such loans are currently

available in France (through BPCE S.A. representing Banque Populaire and Caisse

d'Épargne

198

) and Spain (through MicroBank La Caixa/ Nuevo Bank S.A.U)

199

, but will

be made available in more Programme countries in 2016-2020. 20 to 25 banks are

expected to join the Erasmus+ Students Loan Guarantee Facility.

Master Loans under Key Action 1 are programmed to release a massive 3.3 billion EUR of

loan amount (≈6.44 x the guarantee) for up to 200 000 students in Programme countries.

The claim that Master Loans represent usually presented as a relatively modest enterprise

or ‘pilot action’ in Key Action 1 may be true with regard to the percentage of budget

means allocated for Master Loans (512 million EUR) relative to the total Erasmus+ budget

for the period 2012-2014 (3.5%). However, further analysis of the Commission’s 2016

Work Programme for the implementation of Erasmus+ suggest that Master Loans budget

allocations are indeed far from being modest when compared with Erasmus+ mobility

grants in higher education. As a matter of fact, while planned budget allocations for the

mobility of students and staff in higher education for 2016 amount to 600 423 252 EUR,

195

European Commission (2016). ‘Erasmus+ Master Degree Loans – European Commission’, Web

page. Last accessed 13/06/2016.

196

European Commission (2016). Erasmus+ Programme Guide for 2016 Version 2, p. 104.

197

European Investment Fund (EIF) (2016). ‘ERASMUS+ Master Loans: EIF and the European

Commission launch new initiative for students’, Web page. 16/02/2016. For the full terms of the

EIF guarantee see: European Investment Fund (EIF) (2016). ‘Annex II to the Open Call for

Expression of Interest to select Financial Intermediaries under Erasmus+ Master Loan Guarantee

facility’.

198

The Web sites for Erasmus+ master loans in these two French banks are still under construction.

199

A current status of banks can be retrieved at Investment Fund (EIF) (2016). ‘Erasmus+ Master

Student Loan Guarantee Facility Signatures as of 30/04/2016’, Document.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 209

the budget for Master Loans amount to 54 319 000 EUR, representing ≈9% of the

aforementioned allocation

200

. Master Loans budget allocations for 2016 represent also

≈28% of Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees (EMJMD) budget (57 160 000 EUR for

2016).

These budgetary observations are important insofar as they relate to other

implementation aspects of Key Action 1. E.g. the following issues may be raised:

 How appropriate is it to establish a EU-financed bank loan guarantee facility

rather than offering mobility grants adapted to joint or international masters?

 What are the possible side-effects of allocating 9% of the budget otherwise

allocated for student and staff mobility in higher education to Master Loans in

case the demand for regular mobility grants increases and, as a consequence, is

followed by a decrease in the funding of mobility grants in higher education and

to a corresponding dissatisfaction of HEIs and students?

 How appropriate are budget allocations to Master Loans with regards to the

relative success and failure of Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees (EMJMD?)

 How realistic are the expectations of the Commission to release 3.2 billion EUR

Master loans to 200 000 students?

The next section presents in a concise way some historical aspects that may help readers

to understand Master Loans in the wider context of the evolution from a higher

education area or ‘space’ to a higher education market in Europe.

2. Earlier initiative in the European Higher Education Area

While inter-war and pre-1914 states attempted to consolidate the territorial, linguistic,

ethnic dimensions of 19

century nation-states, they have evolved into welfare-states

addressing increasingly their citizens’ need for social security, health care, and education.

After World War II, welfare-oriented European states have moved resolutely into new

nation-building projects endeavouring to reconcile the logics of state and with the needs

of their citizens. Kuhnle (2000) has stressed the historical resilience of the welfare-state in

Europe (we include education, training, and inclusion policies in the notion of welfare),

observing that “West European welfare states have been built over a 100 years’ period.

Institutions have survived world wars” (p. 233). For this author, the “format of the welfare state

may look different in coming decades, however, than what it was during the period of the most

intense ‘happy marriage’ (Hagen 1998) between the nation-state and the welfare state in Europe

ca. 1950-1980” (Kuhnle 2000, p. 237)

201

. A redistributive tax system has enabled national

and local authorities to equip new geographical and social territories with unprecedented

health and education infrastructure.

Before the vision of a European Higher Educational Area was realised, the legal

prerogatives and territoriality of European nation-states on public (and even private)

higher education systems was an integral part of the welfare-state model. This dominion

implied among other things that,

200

Source: European Commission (2016). 2016 annual work programme for the implementation of

'Erasmus+': the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport, C(2015)6151 of 14

September 2015,'p. 89.

201

Kuhnle, S. (2000); Hagen, K. (1998).

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 210

 support schemes financed by the taxpayers, e.g. (grants and loans, free or low-fee

tuition, access to health services and insurance) should be granted only to

nationals or permanent residents (although several states have granted partial

social rights to foreign students while studying);

 private institutions should comply with national standards to receive

accreditation and be eligible for state support;

 higher education systems should allow admission of international students as

guests, (e.g. conditions of admission of foreign students has been facilitated or

obstructed by varying legal and social regulations in EU states early after WWII);

 special grants schemes, e.g. for students from developing countries, could be

implemented through bilateral agreements between states or on the basis of

unilateral decisions, but in no case could be apprehended as universal rights

applicable to all foreign students;

 professors should preferably be nationals, unless special provisions were made to

allow or even encourage foreign recruitment.

The Bologna process and later processes which have been integrated in the European

Higher Educational Area policies, as well as in the policies European Union in the area of

Education and Training, have challenged fundamentally the idea of a territoriality of

higher education. The process to evolve an internal EU-EEA market in higher education

has undergone two formative phases since the turn of the millennium:

 The first phase has been to evolve, in a classical state-centric legal manner, a legal

“higher education area” building primarily on intergovernmental agreements

between EHEA states (initiated by the Sorbonne declaration of 1998 and the

Bologna declaration of 1999), and on a common currency (‘credits’) for the

recognition of learning and training outcomes in higher education, ECTS. Within

the Sorbonne and Bologna early system students are mainly defined as citizens

and legal subjects, and only indirectly as customers and production value.

 The second consolidation phase involves exploiting the legal recognition

platform provided by the Bologna processes and the mobility toolbox offered by

the European Union to establish an “internal market” where students

additionally to being “legal subjects” become (still legally bound) “customers”

and higher education institutions evolve from being “dispensers” to “providers”.

The main challenge for European policy makers since the Sorbonne declaration of 1998

has been to match the determination of nation-states to maintain their legal dominion

over higher education with a more diffuse, supranational market demand to remould

higher education into a knowledge market regulated by the law of supply and demand.

In such a knowledge market the student must assume the triple roles of being a legal

subject (whose learning outcome need formal validation), being a customer (choosing

sources of supply) and being a product (of the supplier).

An early initiative was taken in 2004 by the Expert Network on Portability of Grants and

Loans in Europe concluded that

“The portability of student loans and grants is an important instrument in the

promotion of mobility. In the Berlin communiqué

202

, the Ministers responsible for

202

“They reaffirm their intention to make every effort to remove all obstacles to mobility within the European

Higher Education Area. With a view to promoting student mobility, Ministers will take the necessary steps

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 211

higher education declared that with a view to promoting student mobility,

Ministers would take the necessary steps to enable the portability of national

loans and grants. At the Informal Meeting of the EU-Ministers of Education in

Rotterdam on July 12 2004, the presidency concluded that portability of grants

and loans should be possible.”

203

referring clearly to the 2005 Bergen Ministerial Communiqué

204

in which “governments

have been repeating their commitment to full portability of grants and loans”.

As suggested by Hervey (2010), turning the intergovernmental version of the EHEA into

an “internal market in higher education, based simply on free movement and efficient

competitions, would indicate that students should be allowed to take support available in their

home Member State (whatever that might be), and choose where to receive their education”, a

vision that “totally ignores the social solidarity elements of education systems, which are

organised on a national bases” (2010, p. 133f)

205

. In Harvey’s words the question “Who will

pay for the students’ welfare (or study expenses) within the EU?” is the “type of ‘wicked’

problems that results from new social practices” (ibid) that can only be addressed by, partially

illusory, partially operative “new governance’ processes”, as witnessed by the current

extended composition of the Bologna Follow-up Group including not only governments,

but also various international organisation and BUSINESSEUROPE

206

. Which brings back

to the foreground of the discussion not only the theme of multilevel governance and ‘soft

policies’ in in light of Education and Training policies discussed earlier in this study but

also the legal issues that emerge when soft policies actually challenge basics principles

and values defining European welfare states.

to enable the portability of national loans and grants”. AEGEE EUROPE, European Student Forum

(2003). ‘Realising the European Higher Education Area, Communiqué of the Conference of

Ministers responsible for Higher Education in Berlin on 19 September 2003’.

203

EHEA (2004). ‘EU/Bologna Conference, designing policies for mobile students’ Noordwijk, 10-

12 October 2004. See also: EHEA (2006). ‘Expert Network on Portability of Grants and Loans’, A

Presentation of Members of the Expert Network. Presentation.

204

” We recognise that mobility of students and staff among all participating countries remains one of the key

objectives of the Bologna Process. Aware of the many remaining challenges to be overcome, we reconfirm our

commitment to facilitate the portability of grants and loans where appropriate through joint action, with a

view to making mobility within the EHEA a reality.”, p. 4, in EHEA (2005). ‘The European Higher

Education Area - Achieving the Goals Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers

Responsible for Higher Education’, Bergen, 19-20 May 2005”.

205

Hervey (2010).

206

From BUSINESSEUROPE’s mission statement: ”BUSINESSEUROPE is the leading advocate for

growth and competitiveness at European level, standing up for companies across the continent and

campaigning on the issues that most influence their performance. A recognised social partner, we speak for

all-sized enterprises in 34 European countries whose national business federations are our direct members.”

Retrieved from https://www.businesseurope.eu/mission-and-priorities.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 212

3. Position and views of the Commission

Panel interviews with the Commission were conducted in May 2016

207

and subsequent

comments forwarded to the authors addressed among other aspects of Key Action 1,

Erasmus+ Students Loan Guarantee Facility. A summarised presentation

208

of the

implementation narrative follows:

 Master Loans represent a real change in Erasmus+. The implementation of

Master loans is very much linked with the efforts deployed to reach agreement

with banks. It requires changes from the banks. This process takes time.

 The loans would address gaps in the financing of graduate studies.

 The Commission receives every day requests from students to obtain such loans.

 Unlike other action, the Commission controls Master Loans only indirectly, as the

programme's management is entrusted (via a Delegation Agreement) to the

European Investment Fund (EIF) and is supervised by the EIF Board, where the

Commission is represented. The Legal Basis states that “the management of the

Student Loan Guarantee Facility at Union level shall be entrusted to the

European Investment Fund (EIF) on the basis of a delegation agreement with the

Commission, setting out the detailed rules and requirements governing the

implementation of the Student Loan Guarantee Facility and the respective

obligations of the parties.”

 The Commission is represented on the EIF Board, but does not have a majority

vote

209

. However, as the board member in charge of the Erasmus+ programme,

the voice of the Commission in the Board obviously carries special weight.

 Not all countries see the same need for Master Loans. E.g. Spain was the first

country to join the effort and make a proposal. Different countries are in the

process of applying for Master Loans.

 So far, Master Loans are available from banks in Spain and France. Applications

from three more countries are being assessed by the EIF; for commercial and

confidentiality reasons, no further information can be provided on their countries

of origin.

 At the end of 2014 the Delegation Agreement between the Commission and the

EIF was signed. After a call for Expression of Interest to banks (February 2015),

student loans became available through MicroBank in Spain in June 2015, as the

operational start of the initiative. Thus, the Loan Scheme has been operational for

about a year. Within this period 7 banks have applied already with the EIF.

 MicroBank in Spain signed up to the scheme in June 2015 and began disbursing

loans in the 2015-16 academic year. MicroBank already provided nearly 1,5

million EUR in loans to date. The average loan amount is about 13 000 EUR

(10 500 EUR for a Master up to one year and 16 130 EUR for a Master > 1 year).

207

Conducted by one of the authors 4/5/2016 with participation of several representatives of DG

EAC.

208

Statements listed are not verbatim statements but summative narratives reformulated by the

authors.

209

http://www.eif.org/who_we_are/governance/board_of_directors/index.htm

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 213

The 10% margin (below the maximum ceiling) would appear to indicate that the

ceiling amounts present a fairly good fit to the student needs.

 The 2 pillars of the BPCE Group from France, Banques Populaires and Caisse

d'Épargne joined the scheme on 1st December 2015 and 12 April 2016

respectively. Loans will be available from 1 June 2016; a communication

campaign will be launched by BPCE on June 1st, multiplied by EAC. Several

other applications are being handled by the EIF (commercial & confidential info).

 Even with small numbers so far, the scheme demonstrates its European nature,

with outgoing (79%) and incoming (21%) participants coming from nearly 20 E+

countries. A survey of participants is ongoing. For the new academic year 2016-

17, at least 90 million EUR will be available in student loans from these 3 banks.

This substantially broadens study options for students from all over Europe.

The views exposed above are consistent with the narrative about of Master Loans

presented by Mr Tibor Navracsics 4 September 2015 on behalf of the Commission

210

“The Erasmus+ Master Loan Scheme is currently a pilot-activity (representing

3.5% of the Erasmus+ programme) and does not replace the Erasmus+ credit

mobility grants, which continue to receive the majority of the Erasmus+ budget

for student mobility.

Acquiring relevant knowledge and skills through a good education is the best

way for young people to prepare themselves for today's rapidly evolving labour

market. It is precisely to allow young people to invest in their education and

future that the Commission has taken the initiative of setting up the Scheme.

Most Member States have student aid schemes in place to support students

during their studies, with the balance between grants and loans and the level of

support varying considerably. However, few Member States have fully

implemented the commitment made under the Bologna Process to make student

support portable for study in another country.

The Commission's initiative is targeted at transnational degree mobility at

Master's level, where investment not only creates the highest returns (at both

individual and societal level), but where funding is also most needed, as it is less

readily available from existing sources than at Bachelor's level.

When preparing its initiative, the Commission has considered the feasibility of

offering grants. Budgets available at the EU level would be inadequate to make a

substantial impact if grants were offered. Through offering loan guarantees, six

times more budget can be made available to fund up to 200 000 loans for Master

students.”

211

The arguments developed by Mr Navracsics above are quite representative of current

‘soft governance’ practices in the EU and will be commented below:

 The Commission leans on the Bologna Process, described above in this Chapter.

The Bologna Process advocates full portability across Europe for all kind of financial

supports allocated to students on the move, e.g. grants and loans.

210

Answer given by Mr Navracsics on behalf of the Commission, 4 September 2015 to Question for

written answer to the Commission Rule 130, E-011020/2015 submitted by Pablo Iglesias

(GUE/NGL) and Tania González Peñas (GUE/NGL).

211

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2015-

011020&language=EN

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 214

 The failure of European governments to agree full legal portability of support in the

European Higher Education Area, e.g. a European Mobility Fund, is presented as

the reason why the Commission needed to act, otherwise, it is implied in the

speech of Mr Navracsics, nothing would have happened in this domain. The

argument of necessity is particularly illustrative of the justifications used to

enforce ‘soft policies’ to circumvent national jurisdictions. “As we have seen, one

way of getting purchase on this kind of intractable problem … is through ‘new

governance’ processes, involving reflexive participatory discussion and deliberation,

within transparent, impartial processes that are sufficiently open to the relevant

stakeholders.” (Hervey, 2010, p. 133).

 Ideally, the Commission would have opted for grants, but due to insufficient

budget resources, the Commission has opted for loans instead of grants. The

argument presented by Mr. Navracsics is, again, seemingly, about dodging

financial obstacles, not about ideology. However, as pointed by Hervey (2010)

there is a fundamental difference, socially, politically and legally, between being

a grant receiver and being a private borrower. Grant holders are legal subjects as

“Member States make provision for students not simply on the basis of their likely future

economic contribution, but also because they have a socio-cultural duty to their citizens

to provide them with education” (Hervey, 2010, p. 132). By contrast, students who

take Master Loans are de facto customers in a higher education market. Hervey

objects speaking of portable grants and loans that “this approach, essentially of an

internal market in education services, totally ignores the embedded social solidarity

elements of education systems, which are organised on a national basis. In practice, it

would also indicate massive influxes of students to English-speaking higher institutions,

which tend to be concentrated in a few Member States” (op. cit., p. 133).

 The choice of language metaphors used by Mr. Navracsics (e.g. “where investment

not only creates the highest returns (at both individual and societal level), but where

funding is also most needed”) illustrates that the practical arguments put forward

serve a broader purpose to transform higher education into a profitable market.

Transnational degree mobility is not only described as de facto market but as a

market under construction in need of investment. It is not clear, however, who the

investors are, The Commission, the borrowers, or the universities offering Master

Programmes.

4. Various criticisms about portable student support

There were early concerns expressed regarding the legal status and side-effect of

European portable student loans, e.g. the Workshop on portability of loans and grants at

the Noordwijk conference expressed such concerns in October 2004 stating that

212

“a tension arises between portability of student support and the decisions of the

European Court of Justice that stretch the equal treatment principle to broader

groups of students in the host country. This approach may prevent EU member

states to make their own systems of student support portable. Under current

conditions, the home country principle is preferred by the member states. The

problem is not just a problem of some countries, but a threat to mobility as such.

212

See full reference in an earlier footnote in this chapter.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 215

The idea was raised that a European fund for student support could reduce some

obstacles for mobility. A network of student support experts from the member

states should be founded. They should address the issue of portability of student

support in a broader economic, social and cultural perspective.”

Since in May 2003 the former ESIB, the predecessor of European Student Union ESU

213

stressing that “In some European countries and regions, there are no relevant grant/loan-schemes

at all.”, supported the idea establishing a Europe-wide portable grant system while

rejecting plans about loan-schemes (“ESIB calls upon governments, non-governmental and

supranational organisations offering financial support also for mobility to move from loan-schemes

to grants and reject introducing new loan schemes.”)

214

In October 2012, the European Students’ Union’s (ESU) delegates at the BM64-

BUDAPEST meeting confirmed its vehement opposition against the European

Commission’s plans to introduce Master Loans, stressing that these plans “barely

reflect[ed] on the future prospects for young graduates in the EU”

215

ESU reiterated strongly this rejection of the plans to establish a European Master loan-

scheme in a resolution published 3

May 2013

216

, stressing that they “do not consider the

idea of establishing a European loan guarantee scheme as a feasible one, neither reflecting the needs

of students”, and made it clear that they were “appalled, that the proposal ignores the potential

impact, that such a scheme can bring, such as raising the level of debt among young people or

instigating brain drain from less developed regions”, arguing that the “scheme acts as a

guarantee to the banks, so they would not lose their profits, but not as a guarantee for students, so

that they will get a well-paid job to repay their debt after getting a degree.”

Referring to the 2005 Bergen Ministerial Communiqué

217

in which “governments have been

repeating their commitment to full portability of grants and loans” delegates at BM-64

demanded instead to strengthen the Erasmus grants scheme so that “that the money

originally planned to establish the loan scheme, [would] be directed towards supporting student

mobility through grants.” The European Commission, according to BM-64, should rather

213

ESU (http://www.esu-online.org) is also known as "ESIB – The National Unions of Students in

Europe”.

214

” Grants and loans must be fully transferable for studies abroad, for both vertical and horizontal mobility.

Transferability of grants and loans must be guaranteed from the very start of studies in order not to hinder

mobility. Additional grants for mobile students are necessary in order to even out longer study times and

starting problems due to getting familiar with language, culture and academic system of the host country.”,

ESIB (2003). ‘ESIB Policy paper on mobility’, May 2003.

215

” ESU (2012). ‘ESU non-paper on the Erasmus Loan Guarantee Facility for Master Students’, 23

Oct 2012.

216

Retrieved from ESU (2012). “European students oppose the Master’s Degree Loan Guarantee

Scheme”. Resolution October 2012. BM64-BUDAPEST. See also Ufert 2013).

217

” We recognise that mobility of students and staff among all participating countries remains one of the key

objectives of the Bologna Process. Aware of the many remaining challenges to be overcome, we reconfirm our

commitment to facilitate the portability of grants and loans where appropriate through joint action, with a

view to making mobility within the EHEA a reality.”, p. 4; EHEA (2005). ‘The European Higher

Education Area - Achieving the Goals Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers

Responsible for Higher Education, Bergen, 19-20 May 2005’.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 216

“encourage the member states to introduce necessary changes in the legislation to allow full

portability of national support services”.

Adopt the proposed European student loan guarantee facility for full-degree, Master’s-level

studies abroad, provided that the Union is not associated with it in any other way than as a

guarantor on behalf of students. In view of the planned integration of the intra-European and

external dimensions of higher education and the importance of Master’s degrees in cooperation

with other countries, it seems difficult to understand why the proposed loan scheme would not

be available for studies in neighbouring countries and other regions of the world. It would also be

important to emphasise the grant possibilities for a study/internship period abroad as part of a

Master’s programme, in order to avoid sending the signal that Master’s studies will

henceforward be supported only, or mainly, through loans. The new loan scheme should never

be referred to as “Erasmus Master”, as if it were the only option open to Master’s-level students.

“Erasmus For All”, p. 31.

The same kind of criticism is expressed implicitly in the Question for written answer to

the Commission (Mr Navracsics’ answer is cited and commented in the previous section):

“The problem with these loans is that they will leave students indebted in a world

where the labour market it highly fragmented, unstable and precarious. Does the

Commission not think that it would be best to set up a scheme of offering grants

instead of loans? On this issue, would the Commission be able to study the

possibility of setting up a specific European wide grant scheme?”

218

5. Key findings

Questionable integration in Key Action 1 and with Key Action 2

 How Master Loans relate to Student Scholarships in Erasmus Mundus Joint

Masters (EMJMD) and Master Level Curriculum Development projects in

Capacity Building in Higher Education projects (Key Action 2) is at best unclear,

and at worse introduces significant readability issues for stakeholders.

Still few banks in few countries, actually one bank fully operational

 The fact that only one bank is fully operational with regards to Master Loans

(MicroBank La Caixa in Spain) at the beginning of June 2016 may suggest that the

Master Loans-scheme is far from being an incontestable success in Europe. The

Commission’s plans to involve 20-25 banks needs further documentation.

Hard to access decision-making processes

 The decision-making processes leading to the adoption of Master Loan in the EU

regulations remain unsatisfactorily documented by the Commission. It is not

clear how the arguments and suggestions of all stakeholders, banks, lobby

groups, students, consumer authorities have been collected, weighed, and taken

into consideration.

 The position and arguments of the ESIB / ESU have been consequently ignored

or rejected.

218

See full reference to Question E-011020-15 in an earlier note in this chapter.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 217

Neglected scenarios about negative side-effects

 The middle-and long term consequences of introducing the Master Loans are

poorly investigated.

 The allocation of a Master Loans budget representing 9% of 2016’s budget means

for mobility in higher education is not measured against the side-effect of

decreased funding of regular grants in Key Action 1.

 The possible direct or indirect support of the Master Loans to the privatisation or

semi-privatisation of Master Programmes in the EU is not researched

satisfactorily.

 The slogan “No need for collateral from students or parents, ensuring equality of

access”

219

while well-intentioned, may be misleading, as it ignores already known

EU patterns of social selectivity in student recruitment in general, and in student

mobility in particular.

 The possible negative impact of Master Loans on the readiness of governments in

some if not many Programme countries to develop viable financing schemes for

students, needs to be researched.

Poorly documented mapping of the alleged demand

 It is unclear whether the EU Master Loans respond to a real demand from

students. Documentation about such demand should be made public,

particularly in light of the resolute opposition of ESU against this loan-schemes.

Poorly documentation of the comparative advantages of Master Loans

 The realism and social effect of the interest rate publicised as "favourable, better

than market interest rates” or the statement that “the rate of interest charged on the

loan will vary depending on which country the bank lending the money is based.

Nevertheless, the rate of interest will be lower than standard commercial rates” need to

be assessed critically with supporting documentation. E.g. the rates apply that

the 5.15% annual interest offered by MicroBank La Caixa

220

, fixed throughout the

term of the loan appear to be high by other e.g. North-European standards.

Interests run and are being capitalised during the legal deferment period adding

to the total cost of the Master Loans. The annual APR is 5.53% including the 1%

fee for establishing the loan and a deferment period.

221

There is a risk that the EU

Master Loans may lead to speculation and drive up the interest rates for non-EU

private loans. It is not known to the general public how the Commission and the

European Investment Bank intends to prevent or limit this risk.

219

European Commission (2016). “Erasmus+ Master Degree Loans – European Commission”. Web

page. Last accessed 13/06/2016.

220

http://www.microbanklacaixa.com/productos/microcreditos/microcreditopersonalyfamiliar/

prestamoserasmus+_en.html

221

By comparison, the Norwegian Statens Lånekasse’s regular interest rates for study loans is

currently 1.825% and 2.550% depending on repayment scheme, student loans are exempt of interest

during studies, and the first payments start 7 months after final graduation. See

https://www.lanekassen.no/nb-NO/Languages/About-the-Norwegian-State-Educational-Loan-

Fund-

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 218

 Also the repayment period (5 years for 1-year Master course and 6 years for a 2-

year Master course), is unrealistic and socially discriminating in Spain and France

where employability of graduates remains a serious problem, and where average

salaries are rather low compared with Northern Europe, UK and Canada.

 Complete terms of loan contracts with students are not made public as standard

templates published by the banks currently offering such loans (or easily

accessible).

 Compliance with national and consumer regulations for financial services are not

investigated, or if investigated are not made readily accessible the general public.

 What happens in case of the student after completion of the Master degree

abroad remains unemployed, or loses his or her income for whatever reason, is

not made clear.

 It is not clear how the 1% setup fee billed by e.g. MicroBank La Caixa fits within

the definition of a competitive loan, and is ethically defendable, as such fee

actually adds to the effective APR interest of the Master Loans.

 Additional provision for credit-check of foreign students by MicroBank Caixa are

not described in the Erasmus+ Guide for 2016 version 2 not on the Commission’s

official Web sites. The legal and pragmatics reasons for operating with

differential treatment of non-resident and residents, e.g. MicroBank La Caixa’s

requirement that “In the event that the applicant is not resident in Spain, they must

submit a certificate of their credit status in their country of residence.”

222

are poorly

documented by the bank and by the Commission.

 The case of the HEIs with high admission fees, e.g. in the United Kingdom, needs

to be clarified further.

222

http://www.microbanklacaixa.com/productos/microcreditos/microcreditopersonalyfamiliar/

prestamoserasmus+_en.html

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 219

6. SWOT analysis of Master Loans

Table 22: SWOT matrix of Erasmus+ Students Loan Guarantee Facility

STRENGTHS

1. New offer to talented mobile students in

Programme Countries.

2. Involvement of the European Investment

Fund (EIF).

3. Guarantee scheme for banks.

OPPORTUNITIES

1. Plans to involve 20-25 banks.

2. 200 000 students are targeted in Europe.

3. Potential to generate 3.2 billion EUR loan

volume in 2016-2020.

4. Possible positive social effect in some

countries or regions.

WEAKNESSES

1. Few banks have enrolled yet.

2. Few countries have enrolled yet, only

Spain and France.

3. No published priority list of countries to

enrol in Master Loans until 2020.

4. Poor integrated with Key Action 1 and

with Key Action 2, e.g. Capacity –Building

in Higher Education Master Curriculum

Development.

5. Questionable competitively of the Master

Loans: annual APR interest of 5.53% /

Repayment conditions are not indexed

on income after studies / Insurance or

lack of such against unemployment or

invalidity is poorly documented.

6. Student organisations have been ignored.

7. Effects on social selectivity in mobility

enrolment are unsatisfactorily

documented.

8. Loans not grants, nor loans convertible

into grants.

9. Different credit checking conditions for

foreign and national residents in Spain.

10. Not clear on which grounds a bank can

refuse a loan to eligible Master Loans

applicant.

11. Exemption of tuition fee, e.g. in the UK, is

not clearly documented.

THREATS

1. Evolution of the labour market and

financial market in Europe.

2. An unclear, poorly documented decision-

making process threatens the social and

political legitimacy of Master Loans.

3. Possible side-effects. E.g. privatisation of

Higher Education.

4. Negative incentive for national

authorities to design viable national

student financial support in some

countries.

5. Few banks (currently one fully operative)

are offering Master loans.

6. Strong oppositions of ESIB / ESU since

2003.

7. Not interesting enough for banks.

8. Increased financial inability of Key

Action 1 to meet a growing demand for

regular grants in Higher Education.

9. Poorly documented role of private

stakeholders, lobby groups in the

decision-making process.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 220

RECOMMENDATIONS

 The European Parliament may consider assessing the social legitimacy and financial

viability of the Erasmus+ Students Loan Guarantee Facility programme.

 The European Parliament, with regards to the Erasmus+ Students Loan Guarantee

Facility programme, may consider adopting a firm position against transforming Higher

Education into a market and students into customers.

 The European Parliament may, with regards to the Erasmus+ Students Loan Guarantee

Facility programme, consider assessing if it is within the prerogatives of Erasmus+ to

create Master Loans.

 The European Parliament may, with regards to the Erasmus+ Students Loan Guarantee

Facility programme, consider assessing whether Master Loans circumvent efforts in

Programme countries to create decent financial support schemes for students or

improve on existing schemes.

 The European Parliament may consider assessing if the budget means allocated to

Erasmus+ Students Loan Guarantee Facility programme would be better utilised for

funding regular or adapted 1-year or 2-year Master mobility grants for mobile students

in Programme Countries.

 The European Parliament may consider assessing the realism of the targets for the

Erasmus+ Students Loan Guarantee Facility programme (200 000 students and

3.2 billion EUR loan volume, 20-25 banks, many countries).

 The European Parliament may consider integrating better and with more visibility sub-

actions and components in Key Action 1 and 2 that target Master studies.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 221

PART IV

Implementation Erasmus+ Key Action 1 - Mobility of Youth

and Workers

Chapter 11: Mobility of individuals in the Field of Youth

1. Situational Snapshot

Key findings collected from the 2015 EU Youth Report (YR2015) and from the European

Commission's 2015 Education and Training Monitor (ETM2015) provide useful contextual

knowledge to appraise the implementation of Key Action 1 activities targeted at Youth

structures. The 2015 Youth Report offers a comprehensive description of the situation of

young people in Europe, and is complemented by Youth National Reports

223

. The SWOT

matrix displayed in Table 23 below links selected findings from these two reports to

objectives and known characteristics of the Youth sector activities:

Table 23: SWOT matrix summarising external and internal aspects affecting the Youth sector.

Sources: 2015 EU Youth Report and 2015 Education and Training Monitor

STRENGTHS

1. 1/3 European aged 30-34 have a

tertiary degree. Higher education

attainment continues to improve

and now stands at 37.9 %.

2. 82% people aged 20-24% have

upper secondary education.

3. “In the EU-28 in general, the age

group with the highest share of

people who have studied abroad

is the 25-39 age group (12 %)”.

4. Linkage between Youth policy

and Youth research in several EU

countries, i.e., Germany, United

Kingdom, Spain, Austria.

5. Most Programme countries have

National youth strategies.

6. Some EU countries have allocated

important national budgets for

the youth field, e.g. Germany,

France

7. “Almost one in three young

volunteers does not receive any

WEAKNESSES

1. Organisational infrastructure is fragile in the

Youth sector and cannot be compared to other

KA1 sectors.

2. “European countries differ widely in the level

of participation of young people in non-formal

education and training.”

3. “Today’s young people tend to participate in

learning mobility more than older

generations. However, differences across

countries are substantial”.

4. “Only one in four young Europeans report

having used a career guidance service at some

point”.

5. The majority of trainees were not offered an

employment contract when they finished their

most recent traineeship.

6. “Only a quarter of young people who have

participated in voluntary activities have

received a certificate or diploma formally

recognising their experience and the skills they

have demonstrated.”

7. “Between 2011 and 2014, a general decline in

223

EUSURVEY (2015) “Published Results: EUyouthreport2015part1”. Retrieved from

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/publication/EUyouthreport2015part 1 and “Published Results:

EUyouthreport2015part2”retrieved from

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/publication/EUyouthreport2015part2

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 222

contribution towards the living

and travelling costs incurred.”

youth participation in cultural and artistic

activities has taken place”.

8. “A small fraction is actively engaged in

organisations that pursue globally relevant

issues.

OPPORTUNITIES

1. 1 in 4 has volunteered; 50% are active

in a club, organisation or association.

2. The European Disability Strategy

2010-2020

224

and the Erasmus+

Inclusion and Diversity Strategy

(2014) offers methods and techniques

empowering the conventional

applicant to involve excluded groups.

3. Some Programme countries have a

specific Youth law or national

legislation on youth, e.g. Belgium,

Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Ireland,

Greece, Spain, Latvia, Lithuania,

Finland, United Kingdom.

4. Most EU Member States have

established an institutionalised

mechanism to ensure a cross-sectorial

approach to youth policy.

5. A majority of Member States report a

positive impact of the EU Youth

Strategy at national, regional and local

level.

6. Most member states are involved in

implementation of the EU Work Plan

for Youth.

7. 18 member states support active

involvement of youth with a migrant

background.

8. A Joint Action on mental health and

well-being was launched in 2013

under the EU Health programme.

9. “Across the EU, the proportion of

early leavers from education and

training is declining.”

10. “The share of young people staying in

education has increased since 2011”.

THREATS

1. “Many young Europeans are facing serious

threats such as marginalisation in the labour

market, deterioration of living conditions,

and obstacles to social integration and

political participation.”

2. “The EU‑28 unemployment rates among

young people aged 20-24 and 25-29 registered

a further increase during the period 2011-

2014”. 90 million young people 15-29 years in

Europe; 8.7 million unemployed; 13.7 young

people are neither employed or under

education or training.

3. “In 2014, the youth long-term unemployment

rate continued to be higher for young men

(aged 15-24) than for young women in the

same age group”.

4. The proportion of young people between 15

and 29 years decreases in Europe. The most

affected is the 15-19 age group. And more

decline is expected in the next decades.

5. The at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate

continues to rise for young people. 27 million

are at the risk of exclusion or poverty.

6. 48% foreign born at risk vs. 28% native born; 4

member states do not support active

involvement of youth with a migrant

background.

7. In the EU, 22% of 15-year-olds underachieve

in mathematics. Among pupils with low

socioeconomic status, this is a worrying 36.6%.

8. There are more than 4.4 million early school

leavers across Europe, and about 60% of these

are either inactive or unemployed. Early

school leaving still affects 11.1% young people

between 18 and 24 years with only lower

secondary education or less and no longer in

224

European Commission (2010). “European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A Renewed

Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe”.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 223

11. “Young people in northern and

western Europe generally leave the

parental home earlier than their peers

from southern and eastern European

countries.”

12. “Many young people resort to the

Internet and its social media to

interact with public authorities and

exchange opinions on political issues”.

education or training.

9. 1/4 of adults in Europe are caught in a low-

skills trap.

10. Some Programme countries have no specific

Youth law or national legislation on youth, e.g.

Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy, Cyprus,

Hungary, Poland Portugal, Romania, Sweden.

11. Only 10 member states report that public

funding for youth work has increased the last

3 years of the survey.

2. Integration of Youth In Action into the Erasmus+ Programme

Simplification efforts from the perspective of the Commission

The Youth in Action Programme was not part of the educational programmes under LLP,

but functioned as a separate programme, which is not the case anymore under Erasmus+.

In the own statements of the Commission, “[i]t has not been an easy exercise to merge all

earlier programmes into one completely new and simplified structure under the three Key Actions

of Erasmus+.”

225

Separate structures from LLP have been significantly simplified into one

compound structure.

In a written answer given to a question submitted by European MP Ilhan Kyuchiuk

(ALDE) on 27 January 2015, Mr Navracsics 19 March 201 agrees on behalf of the

Commission that further efforts are needed to assess the effects if the structural

simplification applied to The Youth in Action Programme:

“As this is still only the second year of implementation, the Commission does not yet

have enough elements to assess whether our simplification efforts have been

sufficient. A mid-term evaluation of the Erasmus+ Programme is foreseen in 2017

when options to further reduce the administrative burden will be looked into. In the

meantime, all feedback received from National Agencies and stakeholders will be

taken into account in the regular programme implementation.”

226

In a panel held 25 April 2016 during which DG EAC exchanged views with the CULT

Committee in the European Parliament on the implementation of Erasmus+

, further

simplification of procedures where announced:

“The templates for the 2016 agreements between beneficiaries and National

Agencies have been substantially improved, both in terms of length and clarity, in

response to feedback expressed by programme stakeholders over the past months.

As an illustration, while fully respecting our obligations towards the financial

regulation, a Youth Exchange agreement to be signed by organisations has been cut

by half.”

225

Source: Panel Interview with representatives from DG EAC 4th May 2016.

226

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2015-

001075&language=EN

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 224

Possible side-effects of the implementation of the Youth activities

In the light the discussion in Chapter # about ideals and realities of multilevel

governance and less virtuous organisational side-effects, it is appropriate, at this point, to

underscore that structural simplification, or, simplified implementation, may be

considered to be crucial, efficient, goal-rational, and user-friendly by the institutions, but

may not necessarily be perceived accordingly by beneficiaries, who may experience

getting entrapped by specific institutional modes of action. E.g. ‘simplification’ implies

usually standardised treatment of Beneficiaries (individuals). While this may not be

problematic in sectors and activities that target high-resource individuals, e.g. master

students, individuals with special needs may need, by contrast, to be offered a

differential treatment based on individual needs, resources, and achievements.

RECOMMENDATIONS

 The European Parliament may consider assessing the virtuous and less virtuous side–effects

of the integration of the Youth in Action programme in Erasmus+ Education and Training

activities on beneficiaries.

 The European Parliament may consider assessing whether integrating the Youth in Action

programme in Erasmus+ Education and Training activities contributes to achieve the general

objectives for the EU Youth Strategy’s

227

activities in the areas of Education & Training,

Employment & Entrepreneurship, Health & well-being, Participation, Voluntary Activities,

Social inclusion, Youth & the world, and Creativity and Culture.

 The European Parliament may consider reviewing necessary activities, resources and

methods that may consolidate the Youth in Action programme in Erasmus+ Education and

Training activities during the next Erasmus+ phase.

227

European Commission (2016). “EU Youth Strategy”. Web page. Last updated 06/0+6/2016.

Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/youth/policy/youth_strategy/index_en.htm

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 225

National Agencies in Charge of Youth Activities

Among the 60 National Agencies only 1/3 are dealing exclusively with Youth.

228

The rest

are dealing with all sectors. Future evaluations of the implementation of Youth activities

under Key Action 1 should focus on comparing the advantages and disadvantages of

operating with separate National Agencies these agencies with the corresponding

advantages and disadvantages of operating with National Agencies addressing all sectors

in Erasmus+.

Table 24: National Agency system in Belgium and Germany

Country

and

Name

National Authority

BE01

AEF-EUROPE

Gouvernement de la

Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles

BE05

YIA-BEFL - JINT

Flemish Ministry for Culture,

Youth, Sports and Media

BE04

YIA-BEFR - BIJ - Bureau

International Jeunesse (BIJ)

Ministère de la Communauté

française en charge de la

politique de la jeunesse,

BE02

EPOS vzw

Vlaamse Overheid : Ministerie

Onderwijs en Vorming

BE03

YIA-BEDE - Jugendbüro der

Deutschsprachigen

Gemeinschaft V.o.G.

Deutschsprachige

Gemeinschaft Belgiens

DE01

Nationale Agentur für EU-

Hochschulzusammenarbeit

im Deutschen Akademischen

Austauschdienst (NA-DAAD)

Bundesministeriums für

Bildung und Forschung (BMBF)

DE02

Nationale Agentur Bildung

für Europa beim

Bundesinstitut für

Berufsbildung (BiBB)

Bundesministeriums für

Bildung und Forschung (BMBF)

DE03

Pädagogischer

Austauschdienst der

Kultusministerkonferenz,

Nationale Agentur für EU-

Programme im Schulbereich

(PA)

Sekretariat der Ständigen

Konferenz der Kultusminister

der Länder in der

Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

DE0

JUGEND für Europa (YIA-

DE)

Bundesministeriums für

Familie, Senioren, Frauen

und Jugend (BMFSFJ)

228

Further comment communicated to the author by the a representative from DG EAC: ”The NAs

are designated by the National Authorities within each Programme Country (PC), and it is up to the PC to

decide whether there should be separate NAs per field/groups of fields or a single NA for Erasmus+. The

Commission has been promoting the single NA approach for the matters of efficiency and harmonised

programme implementation, but the decision is taken at national level. (A list of NAs with field

responsibilities can be provided).”

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 226

There are countries that are traditionally more directed towards Youth Voluntary Service,

which could offer cases for the evaluation of task sharing among agencies. E.g. in

Belgium, both agencies in Brussels (Bureau International Jeunesse, BIJ for the

Francophone Community and JINT for Flemish Community have developed functions,

e.g. SALTO

229

Cross-national specialisation is also practised, e.g. the agency in the Belgian Flemish

Community is specialising in Inclusion and Diversity, while the German agency in Bonn

is specialising in other Youth activities. Table 24 below illustrates the National Agency

system in Germany and Belgium.

Prioritised Activities in the Key Action 1 Youth Activities

Action: (1) Youth Exchanges, (2) Youth Voluntary Services (EVS), and (3) mobility of

Youth workers. The current emphasis is on (1) Youth Exchange and (2) European

Voluntary Services.

Status Spring 2016

The Youth Programme amounts to 10% of the Erasmus+ budget. In 2014, Youth had

produced 25% of the Erasmus+ participants. One third of all Erasmus+ Key Action 1

applications are coming from the Youth field. In 2015, 20 000 applications were submitted

to the Youth Programme, which is an increase by 5 000. In comparison, in 2014, 14 000-

15 000 applications were submitted.

230

The average funding for projects in Youth is

20 000 EUR, which allows Erasmus+ to fund approximately 7 000 projects out of 20 000

submitted applications.

231

Users with special needs

“Within the Erasmus+ programme (2014-2020), the support to the access of learners with special

needs and their success in education and training is mainstreamed in all the funding opportunities

and activities available in the programme, as stated in the Erasmus+ legal base”

232

Youth has a high proportion of beneficiaries with special needs. The ratio of

disadvantaged participants is estimated to 34%. There are currently 50 000 young people

with ‘fewer opportunities’ participating in Key Action 1 Youth Mobility activities.

233

229

SALTO Resource Centres are support structures. Information about them can be found at

https://www.salto-youth.net/about. There are 8 NAs ensuring the functioning.

230

European Commission. (2015). Erasmus+ Programme Annual Report 2014

231

Source: Panel Interview with representatives from DG EAC 4th May 2016

232

Answer given by Mr Navracsics on behalf of the Commission to a Question for written answer to

the Commission Rule 130 Mairead McGuinness (PPE). The European Disability Strategy 2010-2020

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2010:1324:FIN:EN:PDF) describes

efforts to make education system more inclusive. The Erasmus+ legal base is Article 23 Regulation

(EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11.12.2013 establishing

‘Erasmus+’: the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions

No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 50. Question

and answer retrieved from Retrieved from

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2015-

000427&language=EN

233

Source: Panel Interview with representatives from DG EAC 4th May 2016.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 227

Categorisation of users as ‘disadvantaged’ is done by the applicant, e.g. a NGO or user

association and is quality-checked by the National Agencies. Further evidence is obtained

by DG EAC from participant reports and questionnaires. The Commission monitors

regularly the proportion of users with special needs.

The impression that Youth produces more mobility than other sectors is related to the

calculation of the average cost for Youth mobility. Youth mobility, especially duration of

stays abroad, is not the same as in other sectors addressed by Key Action 1. In

comparison, the average mobility, e.g. in the field of higher education is longer than the

average mobility in Youth, so this difference partially explains the impression that Youth

produces more mobility. This is not the case since the duration of Youth mobility is on

average shorter (e.g. 2 weeks’ stays are current) and relatively portable which makes it

possible with a similar budget to fund more mobility experiences than in other sectors.

Inclusion and Diversity Strategy (IDS)

The 2015 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the

strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020)

234

and

this dimension is further strengthened by the addition to the Youth Programme of an

Inclusion and Diversity Strategy (IDS)

235

. IDS offers methods and techniques empowering

the conventional applicant to involve excluded groups. The definition of exclusion is

rather broad and is based on e.g. economy, religion, gender, or other characteristics (e.g.

the needs of deaf persons are addressed

236

The 2015 Youth report summarises the situation of young people in general in Europe

and describes the Youth Strategy under Erasmus+.

The views of the Commission are summarised below:

 The Youth activities under Key Action 1 are highly inclusive and exhibit

increased flexibility by responding to severe challenges that threaten social

cohesion in Europe.

234

The governing principle of the 2015 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the

implementation of the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET

2020— [OJ C 417, 15.12.2015, pp. 25-35] is emphasised in the reply given by the Commission 21

March 2016 to a Question for written answer to the Council Rule 130 by MPs Dominique Bilde

(ENF), Steeve Briois (ENF), Marie-Christine Boutonnet (ENF), stating that the Report ”identified

inclusive education, equality, equity, non-discrimination and the promotion of civic competences as a priority

area for future cooperation — an area which includes concrete issues such as addressing the diversity of

learners, enhancing access to quality education for all learners, including newly arrived migrants, and

promoting intercultural competences. Other areas of common interest identified include skills development,

promoting work-based learning, improving the quality and supply of adult learning, encouraging open and

innovative education and training including digital learning, and ensuring strong support for teachers and

other educational staff.”

235

As described in European Commission (2014). The Erasmus+ Inclusion and Diversity Strategy,

European Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture. December 2014.

236

See confirmation of the legal base for inclusion of deaf persons in all Erasmus+ activities given in

the Answer given by Mr Navracsics on behalf of the Commission given 19 February 2016 in

response to a Question for written answer to the Commission Rule 130 by Tania González Peñas

(GUE/NGL) 10 December 2015.

Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2015-

015617&language=EN

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 228

 An increased emphasis has been put on projects addressing violent radicalisation

and activities targeting migrants.

 It is also a goal for the Commission to include youth from small NGOs. This

approach applies to the Erasmus+ Programme, in general, and not only to Key

Action 1, but also to Key Action 2 with its focus on social inclusion, and to Key

Action 3 with some calls which aim to respond quickly to current political

challenges.

 Some members of the Parliament were very worried that the Commission would

not be able to accommodate the reality of the small youth NGOs.

 Available statistic indicates no drop, on the contrary, in the number of requests,

and no drop in the inclusion aspects.

Challenges from 2017

The Commission during a recent exchange with the CULT Committee in the European

Parliament has reaffirmed the centrality of social inclusion in plans for 2017:

“Also in 2017, similar to 2016, particular emphasis is put on social inclusion as a

priority in education, training, youth and sport, across all actions of the

programme, also in line with the 'Paris Declaration'.

Social inclusion will be considered "the priority among priorities". Indeed, it

represents a challenge for education and training systems, but also for society as

a whole.

The refugee crisis illustrates well the need to uphold values of tolerance and

intercultural understanding.”

In this respect, the programme will support projects that aim to enhance the access and

the learning performance of disadvantaged learners and also to foster the development of

social, civic and intercultural competences.

3. European Voluntary Service (Youth)

Erasmus+ aims to involve 500 000 participants in transnational volunteering or youth

exchanges from 2014 until 2020. Under Erasmus+, close to 100 000 young people can

participate in EVS until 2020

237

European Commission (2016). EU Youth Report 2015, Luxembourg: Publication Office of the

European Union, p. 145-146

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 229

Table 25:Number of EVS participants per National Agency (granting country) in 2015

238

226

252

263

207

272

277

295

111

448

121

451

123

496

134

555

142

602

151

654

169

1100

179

1625

186

SUM

9415

A further challenge to be met is the need for complementing the European Youth

Voluntary Service (EVS) by achieving not only lasting impact on individuals by means of

Youth mobility, but also by achieving a lasting impact on the local society.

This new orientation of the Youth mobility activities is in line with the reorientation from

the former LLP and Youth in Activity Programmes to Erasmus+, from supporting

directly individual mobility to institutionalising the management of mobility in all sectors

addressed by Key Actions 1.

DG EAC considers the European Voluntary Service (EVS) to be a major instrument with

the capacity to strengthen the social cohesion of young people in Europe and achieve

both types of impact, individual and collective. There are approximately 10 000 Youth

Volunteers grants available every year

239

(see distribution of EVS mobilities in 2015 in

Table 25 above) under the current budget appropriations. The average duration of

mobility for Youth Volunteers is close to one year (236 days)

240

. Also shorter stays are

possible, e.g. for disabled young persons.

However, what has been learnt from volunteering during e.g. one year in a foreign

country should be better described and made more useable for the beneficiaries in the

labour market and society at large.

238

Source: European Commission (2014). Erasmus+ Inclusion and Diversity Strategy in the field of

Youth. Data retrieved from European Parliament (2016).’Annex to Parliamentary Question E-

986/16; E-987/16’.

239

European Commission (2015). Erasmus+ Annual Report 2014.

240

Source: Panel Interview with representatives from DG EAC 4th May 2016.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 230

It has been claimed in October 2015

241

by MPs that there is in the EVS programme

“evidence of the non-compliance with contracts, the use by private firms of volunteers as unpaid

workers, a practice prohibited under the rules, and breaches of the right to lawful, dignified work”

and measure have been requested aiming at “monitoring the programme and the conditions

under which volunteers work and the activities they are required to carry out”.

4. Recognition of non-normal learning outcomes

The recognition of outcomes of non-formal learning needs improvements. Earlier

approaches developed under LLP and earlier programmes, e.g. the Youth Pass, which is

aiming at describing the learning processes in non-formal learning activities and the

subsequent learning outcomes need to be made more useable by achieving to describe

real competencies even better. There are still diverging views among educationalists how

to deal with recognition of non-formal learning, especially when targeting acceptance of

volunteers on the regular labour market. As there is still a long way to go towards

generalised recognition of non-formal learning outcomes, further efforts are needed to

promote Youth activities for public services, employers, etc.

International cooperation in the field of recognition of non-formal learning represents an

opportunity, as several countries experience similar threats against social cohesion and

employability. Already there is an on-going cooperation about Youth Pass, in Baltic

member states, which could serve as a case for further exploration.

Potential for improvement

The Commission has been asked during the Panel Session held on 4 May 2016 to describe

possible improvement to the Youth activities. The narrative is reproduced below in a

simplified form, including later comments communicated by panel attendants:

 The rate of increase of the Erasmus+ budget allocations to the Programme will be

critical for the programme’s capacity to meet the demand from young people.

241

12 October 2015 Question for written answer to the Commission Rule 130 by EU MPs Marina

Albiol Guzmán (GUE/NGL), Javier Couso Permuy (GUE/NGL) retrieved at

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2015-

013722&language=EN. “Firstly, all organisations wishing to take part in European Voluntary Service

(EVS) must adhere to the EVS Charter, which sets out the responsibilities and obligations for all

participating bodies. To adhere to the charter, applicant organisations must undergo a thorough evaluation

procedure and they will only receive accreditation if all of the conditions are met. This accreditation can be

revoked if the organisation is later found to be not complying with the EVS Charter. Any complaints received

are investigated by the relevant Erasmus+ Youth National Agency or the Commission. In addition, National

Agencies pro-actively carry out regular random checks of EVS accredited organisations. The National

Agencies which sign the contracts with the grant beneficiaries, carry out control of Erasmus+ funding

through the verification of the intermediary and final reports and through effective controls and auditing

activities on the spot. In the case where there is no compliance with the terms of the contract and/or

irregularities are detected (fraud, corruption or other illegal activities), the amounts wrongly paid are being

recovered and, where appropriate, corrective measures and dissuasive penalties may be implemented.”

Answer retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-

2015-013722&language=EN

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 231

Ideally, it should be easier for applicants to apply, and the activities should be

more accessible for end-users.

 However, because The Programme, as of today, is able to fund only a small

proportion out of 20 000 Youth applications (in 2016), an increase of the demand

for grants may lead to, e.g. to 30 000 proposals being submitted. The result would

be then that a smaller proportion of the submitted applications would be funded,

as the Programme would be able to fund only the same amount of motilities

given the available budget.

 Such a situation would increase proportionally the incapacity of Erasmus+ to

respond to an increased demand.

 “We have the demand and we will be able to absorb (based on the demand) the expected

budget increase from 2017 onwards. What is predictable as there is a continuous increase

in demand that despite the increase in budget there will not be a significant increase in

"success rate" (comparison between submitted/granted application).”

242

 There are continuous attempts to simplify and adapt the application process to

the needs of young people and youth organisations, but this is not linked to the

number of submitted applications, but rather to the quality of submitted

applications.

 Given current budget limitations more and better results can be obtained by

choosing the right approach to the right groups.

 Future evaluations of the implementation of Youth activities in Key Action 1 will

need to take into consideration specific structural aspects of the Youth

programme.

 E.g. reception centres for youth in need are fragile structures that need specific

support. Applicants can, however, obtain assistance from Erasmus+ to run such

structures. In comparison the Programme does not need to finance universities,

but may need to finance Youth organisations at a European dimension in order

to stimulate the creation youth jobs.

242

Comment added by a DG EAC representative on the panel interview transcripts.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 232

PART V

Interaction between Sectors in Erasmus+ Key Action 1

Chapter 12: Online Linguistic Support (OLS) Services

The framework for EU cooperation in education and training (ET 2020) stresses that, in

order to improve the quality and efficiency of education and training, it will be necessary

to strengthen the linguistic competences

243

of learners, trainees, staff, and youth.

Regulation No 1288/2013 of 11 December 2013 establishing Erasmus+, states plainly

(Article 5) that the Programme, in order to enhance the internationalisation of education,

shall have the specific objective to “to improve the teaching and learning of languages and to

promote the Union's broad linguistic diversity and intercultural awareness”. Furthermore, “the

percentage of participants in long-term mobility declaring that they have increased their language

skills” is listed among the indicators to be included in the evaluation of the Erasmus+

(Annex I).

The political and regulatory basis of Erasmus+ presupposes that linguistic support

should be integrated in Key Action I (as well as in Key Actions 2 and 3), but does not

specify how it should be realised. The European Commission could, ideally, have opted

for:

 improving the decentralised Erasmus intensive language course (EILC) system

practised under LLP. These courses lasted between 2 and 6 weeks and mobility

candidates were offered an additional grant to cover their participation in the

host country. Providers of these courses were selected by the National Agencies

and the list of organising institution was distributed by the Commission. The

participants received a certificate indicating the foreign language proficiency

level attained after the course;

 offering additional grant support to host institutions, e.g. universities, to organise

locally intensive courses for incoming mobility participants, provide support and

assessing their foreign language proficiency using standardised proficiency tests;

 delivering a centralised linguistic support service under the authority of the

European Commission to all mobility participants;

 combining various aspects of the scenarios outlined above.

The Commission decided in 2014 to go for a fully centralised alternative.

244

Under LLP,

Erasmus intensive language courses (EILC) were supported through additional grants to

243

European Council (2009). ‘Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for

European cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’) 2009/C 119/02’.

244

The Erasmus+ Programme Guide 2016 states:

“Linguistic support is available for the language used by participants for studying, carrying out

a traineeship or volunteering abroad in the framework of long-term mobility activities

supported under Key Action 1. Linguistic support will mainly be offered via the Erasmus+

Online Linguistic Support, as e-learning offers advantages for language learning in terms of

access and flexibility. The Erasmus+ Online Linguistic Support includes a mandatory

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 233

improve the foreign language proficiency among mobility participants. The experience

reported by the Commission and some National Agencies was that the EILC course

system was hard to run from an administrative and logistic perspective. In 2014, the

Commission, learning from experiences in LLP, chose to introduce the Online Linguistic

Support (OLS) service

245

, a simplified system purportedly accessible to all, at any time, on

any support, allowing users to measure the improvement of their linguistic skills. As the

Open Call for Tenders was issued in December 2013, it is to assume that systematic

preparations for such a radical move away from the EILC system have been going on

during in 2012-2013. There are OLS is presented as a totally new product that was

introduced in a few weeks or months.

1. Main characteristics of the OLS service

The service provider

OLS is an online service developed and maintained by a Consortium pooling together

three partners, Altissia International S.A. (Belgium) a privately held company founded by

linguists, the CLL Group, a language foundation in Belgium and Luxemburg, founded in

1984 by the Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL), and UCL. This consortium has been

selected by the European Commission

246

to provide online linguistic support for a final

total value of 95 800 000 EUR (excl. VAT) to individuals participating in Erasmus+

mobility, primarily under Key Action 1.

The Executive Agency EACEA is responsible for the implementation of the framework

contracts n°2014-0319 (Lot 1: Online assessment of language competences) and 2014-0321

(Lot 2: Online language courses), which entered into force on 27 May 2014. EACEA

currently managing and monitoring this service

247

in close synergy with the service

provider. The planned budget allocation for OLS according to the Commission’s 2016

Work Programme for the Implementation of Erasmus+ is 16 000 000 EUR (a sum, which

compared with the total value of the tender assumes 6 equal allocations from 2015 to

2020)

248

The UCL-CLL-Altissia Consortium is responsible for the provision of the OLS services

(language assessments, language courses, OLS licence management system) to the

different stakeholders involved (National Agencies, Erasmus+ beneficiaries, mobility

assessment of language competences and voluntary language courses. Language assessment is

a crucial aspect of the initiative in order to provide the right preparation for each participant

and collect evidence on language skills of EU mobility participants. Therefore, a language

assessment will be undertaken by participants before mobility and another assessment will be

carried out at the end of the mobility period to monitor progress in language competences. The

results of the language assessment test carried out by participants before their departure will

not preclude them from taking part in the mobility activity, whatever the result is.“

245

http://erasmusplusols.eu

246

European Commission (2013). ‘Online assessment and linguistic support for mobility of

individuals under the Erasmus+ Programme - EAC/24/2013’, covering 5 languages (English,

French, German, Italian and Spanish). Tender closed 24/02/2014.

247

See presentation by the European Commission (2015). ‘Erasmus+ Online Linguistic Support’,

Video published 17 August. 2015.

248

Source: European Commission (2015). 2016 Annual work programme for the implementation of

'Erasmus+' the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport C (2015)6151 of September

2015, p. 89.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 234

participants, DG EAC and EACEA). DG EAC is responsible for the overall supervision of

OLS.

Target languages

OLS covers from the beginning the six most frequently used mobility languages

(languages in which the teaching abroad is dispensed), German, English, Spanish,

French, Italian, and Dutch, which cover approximately 90% of the needs of the Erasmus+

mobility participants. Six additional languages are to be implemented during the first

half of 2016, Czech, Swedish, Greek, Danish, Polish, and Portuguese. Within 2020 the

OLS service plans to support all EU official languages

249

. OLS builds upon a similar

methodology for all languages.

Use of OLS

The OLS system builds upon an adaptive testing of the user’s language proficiency

following the six Common Reference Levels of attainment defined by Common European

Framework (CEFR)

250

. OLS offers structured pedagogical content, daily activities, as well

as professional modules. OLS presupposes 30 hours of effective usage by mobility

candidates. The mobility candidate can assess his/her language skills before and after

mobility.

Licencing

The core engine of OLS is based on the Altissia system, a private software product. OLS

being partly an external service contracted by the Commission, packages of licences need

to be granted to institutions and individuals on the basis of funded mobilities. The

contractor is paid on the basis of the number of licences for which access has been

provided. Non-used licenses, if not reallocated by the Commission, will not be paid to the

contractor. Unused licences may be repurposed by the Commission, as it has recently

been the case, when 100 000 licences have been reallocated to refugees and migrants

251

who may use the service on a voluntary basis.

A complicated licence attribution system, prone to logistic overhead, regulates the

interaction between the Executive Agency (EACEA) and the service provider, various

stakeholders, and end-users (see Figure 13 below). A number of licenses are released to

beneficiary institutions, e.g. schools and universities, after the National Agencies have

finalised the grant selection process. A contact list of beneficiary institutions is

communicated by the Executive Agency to the service provider who is expected to

release a required number of licences to mobility candidates through the National

Agencies. The licence flow system is complicated furthermore, as the contract between

the Commission and service provider operates with two distinct licensing system, one

type of license for language proficiency assessment and another type of licence for

language courses. The participant’s course and assessment data is to be stored by the

249

European Commission (2015). The language courses User guide for mobility participants. Altissia

2015. Last update 11/09/2015.

250

Council of Europe (2013). Common Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching,

assessment. (Cambridge University Press.

251

European Commission (2016). “Amendment of the 2016 annual work programme for the

implementation of 'Erasmus+': the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport”,

C(2016)1122, 26/02/2016, p. 75.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 235

service provider in the Commission’s data systems

252

. The progress of the foreseen fully

automated integration of OSL data in the IT architecture of DG EAC / EACEA is

insufficiently documented. Overall, the licence attribution system raises issues with

regards to efficiency and long-term pertinence of the private-public contractual

framework chosen by the Commission.

The allocation of OLS licences to mobility participants is done as follows

253

“A first allocation of OLS licences to Erasmus+ National Agencies, for each call

and for each field, is made by DG EAC based on the estimated needs.

Erasmus+ National Agencies are responsible for the allocation of licences to their

beneficiaries. Language assessment and language course licences are made

available to Erasmus+ beneficiary institutions/organisations via the OLS system,

based on contractual information regularly provided by DG EAC.

Erasmus+ beneficiary institution/organisations are then in charge of allocating

the licences to their mobility participants, once these have been selected to take

part in Erasmus+ mobility. Mobility participants must take a compulsory first

language assessment before leaving on mobility (except native speakers and duly

justified cases). If they wish so, they have the opportunity to follow an online

language course before and during their mobility abroad. Finally, they are

invited to take a second language assessment at the end of their mobility to

measure how much their linguistic skills have improved.”

The choice of a licencing system was guided by the following requirements

215

“the OLS platform had to be customised to answer the needs of specific target

groups (Erasmus+ students, VET learners, volunteers), and offer contents that are

highly relevant to them. This resulted in a customised learning offer, with Live

Coaching interactive activities, tutoring and HE/VET/EVS-specific contents.

There were no "ready-to-use" contents available, and the cost of developing new

linguistic contents would be included in the licence fees.

With changing users' needs and new needs appearing over time, the OLS needs

to be highly adaptable. It is constantly evolving so as to offer more relevant and

interactive contents. This means that pedagogical and technical developments are

constantly ongoing, so as to ensure that the platform is catering to new and

future needs of the target groups. The choice of a licencing system allows

continuous maintenance, developments and improvements to be introduced by

the service provider without additional costs (the related costs being covered by

licence fees).”

252

European Commission (2015). “DPO-3691.4 EPlusLink”. Data Protection Officer Access to the

253

This clarification was communicated to the authors by a representative of DG EAC following the

Panel Interview held 4 May 2016 at DG EAC.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 236

FIGURE 13: LICENSE ATTRIBUTION FLOW CHART.

Source: Tender EAC-24-2013

Evidence of improvement in foreign language proficiency

The Executive Agency is monitoring the progression of OLS user and reports results.

The Commission was asked to comment

254

if there was evidence of improvement in

foreign language skills following the use of OLS by mobility candidates. According to the

Commission

“there are early indications that OLS is a useful tool to check the language skills

of mobility candidates before and after a stay abroad. With an active use

amounting to 30 hours it is reported that many users manage to improve their

skills from a CEFR level A1 to A2, and even higher. “

This claim may raise criticism as a publicly available documentation of these claims

accessible for independent research is still lacking. Asked if there was evidence, e.g.

survey data, indicating such a significant progression rate, the Commission forwarded

the following comment to the authors:

“The analysis about linguistic progress before and after mobility is progressively

being refined, as more data becomes available with the new waves of Erasmus+

participants taking the first and the second language assessments. The following

findings are therefore to be considered preliminary, and will be reviewed once a

sufficiently substantial set of data has been collected.

This preliminary analysis, conducted on 110 000 Erasmus+ participants who

completed their mobility abroad and took both language assessments, shows that

more than 35% of all participants with an initial A1, A2 or B1 level reach a

progression of 1 CEFR level at the second language assessment (regardless of

their participation in an OLS course). More than 25% of all participants with an

254

During Panel Interview held 4 May 2016 at DG EAC.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 237

initial A1, A2 or B1 level show a progress of 2 CEFR levels at the second language

assessment (again, regardless of their participation in an OLS course). The

progress is notably higher for Erasmus+ mobility participants who spend more

than 30 hours on the OLS course platform.

It is important to note that many variables and factors have to be taken into

account, whose respective weighting in terms of linguistic progress still has to be

fully analysed and determined. Participants' progress is namely influenced by

the initial language level and the selected language. The duration of the mobility

abroad further increases the participants' progress and should not be

underestimated.

Other variables such as the linguistic distance between the participant's mother

tongue and the studied language, the motivation to improve one's language

skills, the OLS language course usage and the effort put into the second language

assessment are also being considered.”

Compliance with ALTE standards

While the system based on the Altissia software is owned and maintained by a private

consortium, the service provider claims to comply with the methodology of the European

Association of Language Testers (ALTE)

255

, but actually offers only limited insights into

the language testing and didactic methodologies used. E.g. the various languages

proficiency tests offered by OLS are not listed in the annual ALTE Framework audit

report for 2016

256

. It is not clear in 2016 if the OLS test methodology is or will be subject to

regular external and independent audits based on the ALTE Q-MARK system, which

operates with 17 quality standards. Furthermore, there is no publicly available

documentation showing that the OLS system complies with ALTE’s four minimum

standards for language testing and examinations: administration and logistics, marking

and grading, test analysis, and communication with stakeholders

257

. Noticeably, CLL the

central member in the OLS consortium has joined ALTE only very recently. Anonymised

language test data collections are not currently made available for the general public or

for the language testing research community.

The integration of OLS into Key Action 1

The Commission’s level of ambition for OLS has been very high from the start: “As an

indication, the European Commission assumes that the targeted proportion of learners using the

online assessment of language competences in the five main languages (among overall long-term

mobilities) may comprise: 92% of mobile individuals in higher education; 80% in VET and 64%

in the youth sector.

258

”.

255

See promotional video, ΙΚΥ - Hellenic NA Erasmus Plus (2016). ‘Erasmus+ OLS methodology of

the language assessment’.

256

Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) (2016). ALTE Framework 2016.

257

Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) (2007). Minimum standards for establishing

quality profiles in ALTE examinations, ALTE 11/4/2007.

258

European Commission (2013). ‘Specifications of Tender EAC/24/2013’. p. 24.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 238

The original tender targeted 593 488 mobility participants to complete the language

assessment test and 272 618 participants to complete the OLS language courses totalling

866 106 participants within two years from start defined in the tender as April/May 2014

(see Table 26 below). According to the tender, the online system should be able to handle

200 000 concurrent users according to the tender specifications.

While the participation reported by the Executive Agency for 2014-2015 is by itself

impressive, it remains far from reaching the original target numbers displayed in Table

27. The 2014 and 2015 reports summarised in Table 28, Table 29, and Table 30 below

states (after summing up the two first years) that 361 230 participants completed the 1

assessment, significantly less than the targeted 593 488 participants for the first year. It is

also reported that merely 114 803 participants used language courses in 2014-2015, much

less than the targeted 272 618 participants for the same period. One may therefore

question the realism of the target numbers specified in the tables below.

Table 26: Targeted number of users for the OLS service.

Source: Tender EAC-24-2013

259

Estimated number of expected

mobility participants to take

Year 1

(12 months)

Year 2

(12 months)

Total

Assessment tests

289 688

303 800

593 488

Language courses

131 850

140 768

272 618

Total estimated number of participants

421 538

444 568

866 106

Table 27: Targeted number of courses per year.

Source: European Commission. Tender EAC/24/2013

260

Learning mobility of individuals

OLS Language courses

Sectors

2014

2015

2016

2017

Higher Education (HE)

94 576

98 256

106 720

Vocational Education and Training (VET)

33 600

36 960

40 320

45 360

Youth (17 - 30 years)

3 674

4 032

4 480

4 928

Secondary school pupils

n.a.

1 600

1 880

Staff (all sectors)

n.a.

3 600

4 000

4 400

Total pr. year

131 850

140 768

148 936

163 288

Total 2014-2017

584 842

259

European Commission (2013). ‘Tender EAC-24-2013 Annex 3.a. Price and budget breakdown for

Lot 1 (annex 3.a) and Lot 2 (Annex 3.b)’.

260

Same source p. 26

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 239

Table 28: Online linguistic support (OLS).

Participation first year 2014

Source: Erasmus+ Programme Annual Report 2014

261

Participants who

completed

1st assessment

Completed

2nd assessment

Used

courses

Sector:

number

Higher Education

129 039

103 214

80%

57 830

45%

VET

Youth

536

235

44%

384

71%

Total

129 575

103 449

69%

58 214

45%

Table 29: Online linguistic support (OLS).

Participation 2nd year 2015

Source: EACEA Dashboard 82

of OLS use

262

Participants who

completed

1st assessment

Completed

2nd assessment

Used

courses

Sector:

number

Higher Education

218 056

84 981

39%

84 198

39%

VET

11 806

4 385

37%

5 469

46%

Youth

1 793

121

13%

1 321

74%

Total

231 655

86 947

39%

56 589

39%

Table 30: Online linguistic support (OLS).

Cumulated participation 2014-4/5/2016

Source: EACEA Dashboard 82nd of OLS use

263

Participants who

completed

1st assessment

Used

courses

Sector:

number

Higher Education

347 876

142 101

VET

11 808

5 469

Youth

2 330

1705

Total 2014-4/5/2016

362 014

149 275

OLS testing is mandatory for some, but not all participants

OLS is not only marketed by the Commission as a service offered to all individuals

enrolled in Erasmus+ mobility under Key Action 1. It is also imposed as a compulsory

activity for all individuals enrolling in Erasmus+ mobility under Key Action 1

264

However, non-completion of the proficiency tests will not have practical or financial

261

European Commission (2015). Erasmus+ Programme Annual Report 2014. §4.4 pp. 23- 24.

262

Communicated to the authors by EACEA 4/05/2016.

263

Communicated to the authors by EACEA 4/05/2016.

264

“The OLS language assessment is compulsory for Erasmus+ mobility participants with German, English,

Spanish, French, Italian or Dutch as their main language of instruction, work or volunteering.” Retrieved

from http://erasmusplusols.eu/assessment-test/

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 240

consequences for the completion of the stay abroad

265

. There are provisions for excepting

individuals targeting host languages that are not yet implemented in OLS, or native

speakers of the main language of instruction in host institution. The results should be

possible to include in the European Skills Passport or referred to in the Youth Pass

266

Early user criticism

There has been critical feedback from users relative to the timing of the release of user

licences. E.g. “OLS tests do not function optimally. The test licence functions only after the

student has left his / her home country”. Interviews with students, National Agencies, and

DG EAC confirm that there have been initial timing issues after launching OLS.

It is not known how efficiently and meaningfully language learners interact with the OLS

interface. Measures have been taken to alleviate what is considered as start problems. E.g.

access to licences have been decoupled from budget allocations, so that the National

Agencies have been able in most cases to give access to OLS tests even before having

been able to sign the mobility contracts with the universities. Currently, 45 of 60 National

Agencies are reportedly given access to OLS licences to higher education institutions

since the beginning of May or end of April 2016.

The Commission was asked

267

by the authors if there was any evidence that OLS licences

have been released in time in 2016 or 2015. An answer was communicated to the authors

stating:

“In 2016, the allocation of OLS licences from DG EAC to Erasmus+ National

Agencies was officially notified to all National Agencies with the Note to

Erasmus+ NA Directors E+/NA/DIR/2016/019, published on 30 March 2016.

National Agencies were encouraged to start allocating licences to their

beneficiaries already mid-March, and the first licences were transferred to the

OLS system on 15 March 2016, well ahead the planned start of mobility activities

on 1 June 2016. On 31 March, 9 National Agencies had already allocated licences

to their beneficiaries; 43 had done so on 28 April; 52 had done so on 30 May.

Some of the still missing National Agencies are experiencing delays for the

signature of the Delegation Agreement with the Commission (the master contract

for the participation in the programme, and without which they cannot proceed

to allocate OLS licences).”

265

Ibid, “Only the participants and the institutions/organisations in charge of their selection receive the

results of the assessments. For EVS volunteers, the results will not be communicated to the other

organisation(s) in the project. For higher education students, the results will not be communicated to the

receiving institution/organisation.”

266

Ibid, p. 27. See also CEDEFOF (2016). ‘Europass - European Skills Passport’, Web page;

European Commission (2016). ‘Youthpass – Welcome to Youthpass’, Web page.

267

following the Panel Interview session held 4 May 2016 at DG EAC.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 241

SWOT analysis of OLS

Table 31: SWOT Matrix of Online Linguistic Support (OLS)

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

1. OLS offers potentially fewer

organisational burdens than the

Erasmus Intensive Language Course

system under LLP (only 1 service

provider).

2. Standardised assessment system uses

the CEFR system to measure language

proficiency.

3. Constant feedback to the user is made

possible.

4. Self-paced adaptive system.

5. Massive processing capacity (200 000

concurrent users).

6. 12 languages implemented in 2016.

7. 24/7 Help desk in all target languages.

1. The licencing system involves a potential logistic

overhead and bean-counting rather that an open

system available for all, mobile individuals.

2. Completed number of 1

assessments are much lower

than original targets.

3. Completed number of language courses are much

lower than targeted.

4. Licences were granted after departures of individuals to

host institutions in 2014.

5. In-site needs of learners before and after not

addressed.

6. Context of use not taken into consideration.

7. Duties of HEIs to support are not well specified.

8. Compliance with ALTE Q-MARK audit system not

available.

9. Completed number of assessment tests and course in

VET and Youth sector are very low.

OPPORTUNITIES

THREATS

1. A massive number of mobility

participants may use OLS.

2. Easy access once the licence is granted.

3. All EU languages covered within 2020.

4. May encourage mobility to countries

with less frequently spoken languages.

5. Reallocation of 100 000 unused licences

to refugees and migrants.

6. Compliance with ALTE Q-MARK.

1. OLS is a privately owned service with software closed to

contributions and verification from the foreign

language teaching community in Europe and elsewhere.

2. The assessment and course methodology is not publicly

available.

3. Anonymised course and assessment data are not made

available for research and independent evaluation.

4. OSL is a fully centralised system.

5. Compulsory test, but without consequences if

proficiency is low.

6. Pricing system not public.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 242

RECOMMENDATIONS

 The European Parliament may consider making an enquiry into the decisions that have

led to enforce a full centralisation of linguistic support in Erasmus+. More flexible

solutions may be provided for the VET and Youth sector.

 The double licencing system needs to be evaluated and simpler alternatives

reconsidered. The logistics of the licence release procedures needs to be revised and

possibly replaced with a generalised access to all mobile learners and youth in Europe.

 The financial terms of the contract between the Commission and the service provider

needs to be reappraised with regards to the needs of end-users and of home and host

institutions. The pricing of licences needs also to be evaluated.

 The OLS service may be made available for public use and research, e.g. for

contributions from the foreign language learning and testing research community.

 The European Parliament may consider making the continuation of the OLS service

dependent on a full independent and external audit of OLS complying with the ALTE Q-

MARK quality indicators.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 243

Chapter 13: Concluding remarks

1. Recent developments that call for further attention

The 2015 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the

strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020)

268

states unambiguously that

“Europe is facing a number of urgent tasks: restoring job creation and economic

recovery; achieving sustainable growth; bridging the investment gap; enhancing

social cohesion; coordinating a response to the migration flow; giving priority

attention to preventing radicalisation and violence. At the same time, Europe

must address long-term challenges such as ageing, adjusting to the digital era

and competing in the global, knowledge-based economy.”

New challenges and possible threats have emerged or persisted since the launch of

Erasmus+: the financial crisis, the refugee crisis, political tensions in some member states,

a tenacious labour market crisis in several member states, evolving and challenging

patterns of learning and professional global mobility, possible Brexit, new cultural

tensions, terrorism, and armed conflict in close vicinity of the EU. All this threats and

challenges place new demands on European societies in general, and more specifically on

the various mobility programmes under Erasmus+ Key Action 1. These new threats to

social cohesion that are calling for new priorities in education and training.

There are many recent developments that call for further attention. A few of these will be

listed below but not be discussed in detail:

 Mobility as private versus societal experience: the evolution of the practices of

individuals and groups, online and in physical mobility, e.g. tourism, social media

has both short-term and long-term influence on learning, training, and ultimately,

mobility for learning and training.

 Some industrial actors may be less enthusiastic about physical mobility for learning

and training, but be more supportive of virtual mobility.

 Various evolving practices, representations, ideals and values affect the way learners

and trainees are assessed.

 Some educational sectors tend to be rather locally focused and do not privilege

national or even international dimensions.

 There is a trend towards renationalisation of international collaboration. There is a

need to explore more systematically how the mobility of individuals in Key Action 1

could be optimally interfaced to non-EU international collaboration in Programme

countries.

 More efforts are needed to understand the multiple factors linked with the low

performance, or even exclusion, of stakeholders in Programme or Partner countries

from mobility measures.

268

European Commission (2015). 2015 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the

implementation of the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020),

New priorities for European cooperation in education and training (2015/C 417/04).

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 244

With respect to overall socio-economic and political contingencies, the most challenging

development throughout Europe, now, is of course the huge mobility steam caused by

war and economic migration.

2. Refugees and migrants

Although Erasmus+ and LLP, at the onset of the before economic crisis, already had an

inclusion dimension, persistent threats against social cohesion have impacted the recent

implementation process of Erasmus+. A series of measures have been adopted, targeting

inclusion of people from all backgrounds. This applies specially to field of Youth, where

an additional focus has been set on less privileged people. Refugees and migrants were

already a matter of attention before 2014 and in 2014-2016

269

. However, more attention is

given in Spring 2016. In order to reach the right target groups with the advantages of

mobility, new measures are have been added, completing existing ones .

Measures envisaged in Key Action 1

In a comment forwarded to one the authors

270

the Commission states:

“In 2016, the Commission has reinforced the support that Erasmus+ provides to

projects which either involve refugees, asylum seekers and migrants or address

the theme of refugees.

• Under Mobility Actions in KA1, we have emphasised the opportunity for

mobility projects to focus on better equipping teachers, trainers and youth

workers with competences to deal with learners and young people with

disadvantaged backgrounds and newly arrived migrants.

• in 2016, we have made social inclusion the first thematic priority ("the priority

of the priorities") when selecting the strategic and collaborative partnerships in

the field of education, training, youth and sport, which amount to 400 million

EUR in the 2016 Erasmus+ budget. In light of the critical context, particular

attention will be given to support projects involving refugees, asylum seekers

and migrants and/or focussing on the topic of the refugees' crisis in Europe”

Furthermore, a

“13 million EUR call for proposal on inclusion, to scale up and disseminate

successful actions developed at grass root level to prevent violent radicalisation

and foster the inclusion of disadvantaged learners, including people with

migrant background. The call for proposals supports three project strands:

Strand 1: Transnational cooperation projects in the fields Education & Training

and Youth.

Strand 2: Large-scale volunteering projects in the field of Youth

Strand 3: Networking of Erasmus+ National Agencies in the field of Youth”

To circumvent the possible criticism that Erasmus+ may be diverted from its core

purpose, improving educational system, the Commission has put an emphasis on

supporting inclusion and on migrants insofar as it does not affect the efficiency of the

269

In a further comment forwarded to one of the authors following the Panel Interview held 4 May

2016, a representative from DG EAC states that “already during 2014 and 2015, Erasmus+ and its

predecessor Programmes (Lifelong-learning and Youth in Action) provided financial support to more than

260 projects which dealt with the integration of migrants in education.”

270

Comment from DG EAC forwarded to one of the authors following the Panel Interview held 4

May 2016.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 245

education systems in Programme countries. Erasmus+ is not primarily a fund dedicated

to caring for migrants. However, Erasmus+ can fund activities that deal with migrant

issues when it affects the efficiency and relevance of education and training. Schools, e.g.

need to absorb migrants.

271

Inclusion of refugee and migrant relates more to Key Action

2, which addresses cooperation and exchange of practices. Key Action 2 is targeted as the

priority action for such purposes.

However, in Key Action 1, Youth European Voluntary Service (EVS) may address needs

of refugees and migrants. Furthermore, other Key Action 1 tools

“in both School, VET and Adult Education may support professional

development for staff on very relevant topics like teaching multilingual

classrooms, inclusion, cultural diversity, etc. Through job shadowing and

teaching assignments, the action may support transfer of experiences and good

practice between institutions that have long experience with integrating

migrants, and those for whom this is a new situation. From 2016, Key Action 1

gives particular attention to support projects in these areas, cf. the Erasmus+

Programme Guide.”

272

As a consequence, “A further €13 million has also been committed for 2016 to fund projects

tackling issues like social inclusion of minorities and migrants and other disadvantaged social

groups.”

273

Allocation of OLS licences to refugees

To support Member States' efforts to integrate migrants in Europe's education and

training systems, the Commission has indeed decided to extend the Erasmus+ Online

Linguistic Support provided to Erasmus+ participants to the benefit of 100 000 refugees

over 3 years, free of charge for them.

The 100 000 OLS licences correspond to a budget of 4 180 000 EUR which was previously

committed under Erasmus+ for the 2014 Call for Proposals, but was not consumed

during this start-up period. There is therefore no consequent reduction in the funds that

are available to support those participants who go to work, study or volunteer abroad

with the Erasmus+ programme

274

271

In a subsequent communication from DG EAC commenting specifically the statements in this

paragraph, forwarded to one of the authors and following the Panel Interview held 4 May 2016 at

DG EAC, a representative from DG EAC states: “This is not entirely correct, as KA1 in both School,

VET and Adult Education may support professional development for staff on very relevant topics like

teaching multilingual classrooms, inclusion, cultural diversity, etc. Through job shadowing and teaching

assignments, the action may support transfer of experiences and good practice between institutions that have

long experience with integrating migrants, and those for whom this is a new situation. From 2016, KA1

gives particular attention to support projects in these areas, cf. the Erasmus+ Programme Guide.”

272

Additional comment forwarded to the authors by a representative of DG EAC following the

Panel Interview held 4 May 2016 at DG EAC.

273

European Commission (2016). ‘Erasmus+: Providing more and better opportunities to support

Europe's future generations’, Press release, Brussels, 26 January 2016.

274

Information communicated by DG EAC to the authors following the Panel Interview held 4 May

2016.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 246

Also, the Commission has taken some actions, e.g. allocating some Online Language

Service (OLS) licences for migrants. 100 000 licences for 3 years have been reallocated for

the benefit of migrants, as highlighted in answer given by Mr Navracsics on behalf of the

Commission:

“To support Member States' efforts to integrate migrants in Europe's education

and training systems, the Commission has indeed decided to extend the existing

Erasmus+ Online Linguistic Support (OLS)(1) for Erasmus+ participants to the

benefit of 100 000 refugees. This offer is free of charge to them and covers 3 years.

The 100 000 OLS licences correspond to a budget of EUR 4 180 000. This amount

was originally committed in 2014, the first year of Erasmus+, but not consumed

during that start-up year. There is therefore no reduction in funds available for

‘regular’ Erasmus+ participants who go abroad to work, study or volunteer.

The Erasmus+ OLS currently offers online language assessments and courses in

English, French, Italian, Spanish, German and Dutch. Six new languages (Czech,

Danish, Greek, Polish, Portuguese and Swedish) are being introduced in May

2016. The OLS can be used at any time from a PC, tablet or smartphone with an

Internet connection.”

275

Answer given by Mr Navracsics on behalf of the Commission, 5 April 2016, E-001506/2016,

retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2016-

001506&language=EN

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 247

Chapter 14: Key findings and recommendations

Key finding

Main Recommendation

Regarding barrier to cross-sector mobility

in Key Action 1:

 In the VET sector, there is already a

strong cross-sector networking

involving a diversity of stakeholders.

 Improving opportunities for

employability will require far more

flexible and generalised strategies for

cross-sector mobility.

 Key action 1 offers valuable but still

insufficiently radical and flexible

opportunities for cross-sector

mobility.

 The current institutionalised

implementation model for the

mobility of individuals in Key

Action 1 is an obstacle to introducing

a generalised cross-sector mobility in

Erasmus+.

 The European Parliament may consider

amending Regulation No 1288/2013 and remove

barriers to cross-sector mobility of individuals in

Key Action 1, so that learners, teachers,

educators, trainers, apprentices, workers, and

youth may engage fully in cross-sector mobility.

E.g. apprentices interested in assistive

technologies should be able to have an

internship in a kindergarten or in a specialised

institution; students may be able to have a stay

abroad in a NGO to carry out a project with

young people and win recognition of learning

outcomes; VET trainers should able to follow a

course in a HEI abroad, etc. This is not realisable

without removing institutional constraints in

Erasmus+ and introducing a universal mobility

concept in education and training, and youth

work.

Key finding

Recommendation 1

Regarding the status of mobility

participants:

• The pure institutional governance

model of Erasmus+ represents a

significant move towards a rigid

variant of multilevel governance

• The ‘simplifications’ performed by

the Commission, as currently

practised in KA1, may ease the work

of the Commission and National

Authorities, but at the price of

keeping end-users in institutional

moulds that may inhibit sociocultural

and professional change.

• The “No Support Given To

Individual Participants” ideology and

“all support given through

institutions” regime may increase the

distance between citizens and

European Institutions

•The institutionalised implementa-

tion of KA1 may entail a shrinkage of

the perimeter of action for mobility

candidates in their interaction with

European institutions.



With regards to Key Action 1 targeting the

mobility of individuals in education, training and

youth,



Given the policies and principles laid down in EU

regulations,



Given the Implementation Model enforced in

Erasmus+ involving tiers of administration within a

hierarchy,



Given that the new Implementation Model of Key

Action 1 can accommodate private companies as

partners or subcontracted service providers,



Given that the new Implementation Model of Key

Action 1 can accommodate legal entities, institutions

or associations as applicants,



Given that Key Action 1 targets the mobility of

individuals but does not accommodate these

individuals or informal groups of such individuals as

applicants, partners, or more generally as ipso jure

actors of the system,



Given a resulting de facto reduction of mobility

applicants, who are citizens, end-users and

customers, to Beneficiaries submitted to

Implementation Bodies,

 The European Parliament may consider (1)

assessing the appropriateness of the roles, rights

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 248

Key finding

Recommendation 1

• Individual mobility participants are

not any more ipso jure interlocutors

of European institution, but

beneficiaries.

• Programme countries with

autocratic tendencies may be tempted

to implement mobility arrangements

selectively, giving priority to students

with certain ideological orientations

or in ideological networks

and status of mobility participants in the current

implementation of Key Action 1, and (2) finding

ways to reinstate individual mobility

participants or their representatives as real

interlocutors.

 The European Parliament might want to

“facilitate a debate about the foreseeable

consequences of implementing a strategy based

on large contracts run through intermediary

bodies.” (identical to Recommendation No 9,

Erasmus For All, p. 32)

 The European Parliament may consider

regularly monitoring in Programme countries

the practices of autocratic governments relative

to the selection of individuals for mobility stay in

Key Action 1.

Key finding

Recommendation 2

Regarding the fully institutionalised

implementation model in Key Action 1:

 The impact of the fully

institutionalised implementation

model enforced in Key Action 1 on

“Free Movers” in European HEIs

may be detrimental.

 The European Parliament may consider

assessing the consequences of enforcing a fully

institutionalised organisation of the mobility of

individuals in Key Action 1 on Free Movers.

 The European Parliament may consider

initiating a policy dialogue with the European

Commission and the National Authorities in

Programme Countries to revitalise the Free

Mover dimension in the mobility of individuals

in higher education.

Key finding

Recommendation 3

Regarding the implementation of the

central vs. decentral implementation of

Erasmus+:

• Should the Parliament and the

Council amend the original

regulations and instruct the

Commission to recentralise activities

and responsibilities in KA1 that are

currently delegated to National

Authorities and their National

Agencies, or conversely decentralise

centralised functions, still, logistic

and organisational constraints would

limit the Commission’s capacity to

deliver the Programme with the

required level of quality and

responsiveness.

• System actors (DG EAC, NAU,



Given the Commission's view that it is not

possible nor realistic to modify thoroughly the

Implementation Model of Erasmus+ in 2017.

 The European Parliament may consider

exploring legal and practical needs and

opportunities for changing the centralised and

decentralised Erasmus+ Implementation Model.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 249

Key finding

Recommendation 3

NAs, etc.) may tend to remain locked-

in in a particular institutionalised

vision and influence, more than

democratically appropriate, the

interactions between various actors

and stakeholders.

Key finding

Recommendation 4

Regarding the implementation model of

Key Action 1:

•While the general implementation

model for Key Actions is readable,

the detailed implementation of KA1

adds a significant amount of

interwoven processes for

stakeholders and beneficiaries.

Interaction mechanisms between

Implementation Bodies (Key

Actions), Levels and stakeholders can

pose readability issues for

stakeholders and beneficiaries

• A maze of external mechanisms

and bureaucratic particularisms

proprietary to each call may

discourage applicants from

participating.

 The European Parliament may consider

assessing the appropriateness of external and

internal interactions between (1) Implementation

Levels, (1) Implementation Bodies, and (2) Key

Actions, as well as, possible side-effects on

Applicants and Beneficiaries.

 The European Parliament may consider

assessing to which degree the enforcement of

multilevel governance in the Erasmus+

Programme in general, and in Key Action 1 in

particular, contributes to increasing the distance

between the targeted beneficiaries of the

Programme, e.g. mobility participants, and the

decision-makers.

 In view of alternative, more networked, less

hierarchical types of multilevel governance, the

European Parliament may consider alternative

more flexible implementation mechanisms for

Key Action 1.

 In view of the systematic choices made by the

Commission to institutionalise the mobility of

individuals in Key Action 1, and end supporting

individual mobility participants, the European

Parliament may consider reinstating individual

access to mobility in Key Action 1.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 250

Key finding

Recommendation 5

Regarding expected budget evolution for

Erasmus+:

 The public communication of the

Commission about increases in

budget and mobility volume has

fuelled unfulfilled expectations

among stakeholders, including

National Agencies and applicants.

This affects particularly actions

targeting the mobility of individuals

in Key Action 1.

 The Commission has communicated

frequently with the European

Parliament to explain the

implications of the Erasmus+

budgetary policy for implementing

activities, as well as implications for

short-term planning and long-term

projections

 The European Parliament may consider

assessing not only the effects of the decision to

spread the Erasmus+ 40% budget increase over

the duration of Erasmus+ Programmes (7 years

from 2014 to 2020), but also the effects of the

public communication of the Commission about

expected budget increase on stakeholders.

Key finding

Recommendation 6

Regarding social selectivity in the

enrolment of individuals to mobility in

Key Action 1:

 The Eurostudent V (2012-2015)

surveys support earlier findings

regarding the persistence of social

selectivity in enrolment to mobility.

• Programme countries with low

GDP (e.g. under 80% of EU average)

have a high proportion of student

mobility funded by EU grants.

• High upward educational mobility

is only attested a few countries, e.g.

Latvia, Sweden, and Germany.

• With the exception of Nordic

countries, there is a high percentage

(higher or equal to 50%) of countries

in which students are dependent on

support from their parents, family, or

partner for their mobility.

• Earlier conclusions (Souto et al.)

that “barriers to take-up of the

programme are not only economic

but truly socio-economic” still apply.

• Erasmus is not yet truly ‘for

everyone’.

 The European Parliament may consider

restructuring the budget for Key Action 1 to

enable the mobility of people who now cannot

take part in it due to financial reasons.

 The European Parliament may consider

measuring this against the administrative costs

of setting up schemes that take into account the

economic background of students.

 The European Parliament may consider

initiating a more nuanced allocation of funds by

home and host country that would also

encourage the participation of a wider socio-

economic spectrum of students in the

programme since these aspects still have an

impact on the financial situation of students due

to differences in the cost of living that is not fully

offset by the current distribution of grants.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 251

Key finding

Recommendation 7

Regarding grant amounts:

 The interview material gathered for

this study confirms that while, some

mobility

participants declare to be satisfied

with the grant levels, other students

and local

Erasmus+ staff members report

criticism about perceived grant

discrepancies between countries.

There are indications that National

Agencies enforce grant allocation

decisions quite differently from

country to country and from sector to

sector in Key Action 1.

 Germany has cut all grants to

apprentices by 80% leaving only 20%

to mobility participants. In Norway,

by contrast, such cuts do not happen,

and these candidates receive the

whole grant.

Perceived or real, differences in grant

amounts, is still a hot issue.

 The Commission agrees about the

need to assess the level of these unit

costs for grants.

 There are 6 countries, among them

France and Germany, have granted

universities the liberty to decide the

grant level.

 The European Parliament may consider

assessing in greater depth and width the

implications of the policies of Commissions and

the practices of National Agencies with regards

to grant amounts with special regards to

reproduction of socio-economic disparities in

Europe.

Key finding

Recommendation 8

Regarding school staff mobility in Key

Action 1:

 Erasmus+ has brought to an end

significant efforts deployed earlier in

Comenius to encourage school class

exchanges., including pupils.

 The ideology and rationale

underlying such an abrupt policy

change from LLP to Erasmus+ has

not been submitted systematically to

the appreciation of stakeholders,

neither it has debated in depth and

width in the media nor in national

professional arenas, prior to the

adoption of Regulation No 1288/2013

of 11 December 2013 establishing

Erasmus+ and Article restricting

 The European Parliament may consider

assessing to which degree the Commission’s

policies allowing almost exclusively school staff

mobility LLP in Key Action 1, and not any more

school class exchanges, as it was the case in

Comenius, faithfully addresses all aspects of the

Comenius dimension expressed in Regulation

No 1288/2013.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 252

Key finding

Recommendation 8

implicitly mobility in school sector to

staff.

 A close reading of the Comenius

related portions of Regulation No

1288/2013 reveals some ambiguities

about the systematic exclusion of

Comenius-type mobility for learners

from 13 years of age.

Key finding

Recommendation 9

Regarding the right of school staff to

apply for mobility grants:

• The most important change from

the previous programme is the

introduction of an institutional model

which accepts only application from

the institutions, e.g. from the schools

provided they are legal entities, or

from the ‘school owners’.

• In some countries the

institutionalisation of mobility

proposals for school staff has been

systematised to the point that not

even schools can apply for teacher

mobility grants, since schools are not

legal entities.

• Teachers may encounter institu–

tional obstacles, that were not as

present under Comenius, when

trying to obtain grants for staff

mobility from Erasmus+.

•The institutional model that is

enforced operates on the two implicit

beliefs that the innovation potential

of Erasmus+ staff mobility is

appropriately recognised by the

school leadership or owners. It is

essentially a top-down model.

•There is interest among teachers for

job-shadowing in the school sector.

•eTwinning is a success, as 9 out of

10 teachers declaring that it has a

moderate or large impact on learner

motivation.

 The European Parliament may consider

granting in schools staff members (and staff in

other sectors) the right to apply individually or

collectively for mobility grants under Key

Action 1.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 253

Key finding

Recommendation 10

Regarding teaching assignments abroad

in higher education in Key Action 1:

 User criticism of the new staff

exchange regulation in Erasmus+ has

been voiced

since 2014.

 Regular grievances have been

voiced by teaching staff in HEIs

concerning, in their experience,

wildly underestimated amounts

(carefully termed “support” and not

“reimbursement”) for plane travels in

Europe and elsewhere between 500

and 3999 km. These flat support

amounts, it is argued, are not

reflecting real ticket prices.

 Many teachers in HEIs fear they

may have to pay from their own

pocket an important part of the

expense incurred to carry out quite

demanding teaching assignments

abroad.

 Not all higher education institutions

have additional financial resources to

contribute with, or are willing to

cover the remaining costs of travel,

stay and subsistence for mobile staff.

• The new rules for teaching

assignments may have only a partial

positive effect on teachers in higher

education, as some staff members

experience that these new rules are

introducing new practical obstacles.

 The European Parliament may consider

assessing the practical and financial conditions

that would allow staff members in higher

education to carry out teaching assignments

abroad without additional personal or local

costs.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 254

Key finding

Recommendation 11

Regarding virtual mobility in relation to

physical mobility:

 The experiences reported by

respondents confirm earlier

indications that, in Initial Vocational

Education and Training (IVET),

virtual mobility remains marginal

because physical mobility is the

norm.

 There are currently rather early

stage sample cases available for

research and evaluation, which may

demonstrate innovative uses of

Virtual Mobility in initial VET, so-

called IVET, but do not reach a wide

audience

 Digital Learning in the form of web-

based training and eLearning are

increasingly important in the

industrial sector.

 The European Parliament may consider

stimulating internationalisation at home among

higher education staff, adding

internationalisation funds, in order to stimulate

teachers in HEIs to combine virtual mobility

with physical mobility, to prepare, carry out and

follow-up physical mobility.

• The European Parliament may consider

stimulating further the use of virtual mobility in

Initial Vocational Education and Training, Adult

Education, and Youth programmes.

Key finding

Recommendation 12

Regarding the Higher Education

Mobility and IVET scoreboards:

• The information about the

scoreboards

is rather limited with only a few

details offered on EU Websites.

•Scoreboards build upon a rather

simplified set of “key factors”.

• Scoreboards function primarily as

planning tools for the European

Union and National Authorities, and

more peripherally as source material

for media and societal actors.

• As such scoreboards rely

extensively on official statistical

sources, they do not

provide compound socioeconomic

problem analysis (e.g. they do not

explain

how unemployment and housing

crisis for young people in Spain may

be related

to outbound student mobility in this

country).

 The European Parliament may consider

improving information, documentation, open

and independent use and usability of the Higher

Education and IVET scoreboards.

 The European Parliament may consider closer

cooperation with the research community, and

“open up” the scoreboard efforts to a wider

network of contributors.

 The European Parliament may consider

intensifying the collaboration with the ongoing

Eurostudent Survey VI and interface it more

evidently with mobility scoreboards.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 255

Key finding

Recommendation 13

Regarding Joint Master Degrees

(EMJMD) in Key Action 1:

• There is generally a low interest for

Joint Masters in many Programme

Countries and HEIs.

• There is a large amount of partly

justified institutional resistance

against Joint Master Degrees in many

HEIs.

• For many HE teachers, Joint Master

are too complicated to agree and add

unnecessary administrative and

human

resource workload on understaffed

teams.

• Legal and administrative

differences between partner and

programme countries constitute

major obstacles to implementing

EMJMDs, which appear more as part

of a EU political wish list, than as a

clear need and demand from HEIs.

• The lack of attractiveness of e.g.

EMJMDs is perceived in HEI as a

weakness of Erasmus+ KA1.

• There has been a decrease in

EMJMDs from 180 to 92 in 2016 and

just a minor increase compared with

2015.

• EMJMD has received lower budget

appropriation than expected.

• The low volume of applications for

JMD funding requires action.

 The European Parliament may consider

merging all programmes and projects targeting

Master Degrees under Key Action 1 and Key

Action 2.

 The European Parliament may consider

assessing the usefulness of the overall design of

EMJMD, in light of the evaluation of EMCCs.

 The European Parliament may consider

assessing the value for the money of EMJMD

measured against more widespread solutions in

Key Action 1.

 The European Parliament may consider

assessing EMJMD. the low interest for EU Joint

Masters in many European universities.

 The European Parliament may consider

engaging in a dialogue with higher education

associations, student unions, and national

authorities to make the EMJMD programme

more attractive to stakeholders.

Key finding

Recommendation 14

Regarding Master loans:

 Master Loans establish an “internal

market” where students additionally

being “legal subjects” become (still

legally bound) “customers” and

higher

education institutions evolve from

being “dispensers” to “providers”.

 The 2005 Bergen Ministerial

Communiqué in which “governments

have been repeating their

commitment to full portability of

grants and loans” has not been

 The European Parliament may consider

assessing the social legitimacy and financial

viability of the Erasmus+ Students Loan

Guarantee Facility programme.

 The European Parliament, with regards to the

Erasmus+ Students Loan Guarantee Facility

programme, may consider adopting a firm

position against transforming Higher Education

into a market and students into customers.

 The European Parliament may, with regards to

the Erasmus+ Students Loan Guarantee Facility

programme, consider assessing if it is within the

prerogatives of Erasmus+ to create Master

Loans.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 256

Key finding

Recommendation 14

enforced.

 Only one bank is fully operational

(Spain).

 The decision-making processes

leading to the adoption of Master

Loans in the EU

regulation remain unsatisfactorily

documented by the Commission.

 It is not documented how the

arguments and suggestions of all

stakeholders, banks, lobby groups,

students, consumer authorities have

been collected, weighed, and taken

into consideration.

 The allocation of a Master Loans

budget representing 9% of 2016’s

budget means

for mobility in higher education is not

measured against the side-effect of

decreased funding of regular grants

in Key Action 1.

 The possible negative impact of

Master Loans on the readiness of

governments in

some Programme countries to

develop viable financing schemes for

students has not been assessed

satisfactorily.

 The European Parliament may, with regards to

the Erasmus+ Students Loan Guarantee Facility

programme, consider assessing whether Master

Loans circumvent efforts in Programme

countries to create decent financial support

schemes for students or improve on existing

schemes.

 The European Parliament may consider

assessing if the budget means allocated to

Erasmus+ Students Loan Guarantee Facility

programme would be better utilised for funding

regular or adapted 1-year or 2-year Master

mobility grants for mobile students in

Programme Countries.

 The European Parliament may consider

assessing the realism of the targets for the

Erasmus+ Students Loan Guarantee Facility

programme (200 000 students and 3.2 billion

EUR loan volume, 20-25 banks, many countries).

 The European Parliament may consider

integrating better and with more visibility sub-

actions and components in Key Action 1 and 2

that target Master studies.

Key finding

Recommendation 15

Regarding Youth In Action in Key

Action 1:

• There is a productive linkage

between Youth policy and Youth

research in several EU countries, i.e.,

Germany, United Kingdom, Spain,

Austria.

• Most Programme countries have

National Youth strategies.

• The majority of trainees were not

offered an employment contract after

their most recent traineeship.

• Only 1/4 have received a certificate

or diploma formally recognising their

experience and skills. There is still a

long way to go towards generalised

recognition of non-formal learning

outcomes.

• Separate structures from LLP have

• The European Parliament may consider

assessing the virtuous and less virtuous side

effects of the integration of the Youth In Action

programme in Erasmus+ Education and

Training activities on beneficiaries.

• The European Parliament may consider

assessing whether integrating the Youth In

Action programme in Erasmus+ Education and

Training activities contributes to achieve the

general objectives for the EU Youth Strategy’s

activities in the areas of Education & Training,

Employment & Entrepreneurship, Health &

well-being, Participation, Voluntary Activities,

Social inclusion, Youth & the world, and

Creativity and Culture.

• The European Parliament may consider

reviewing necessary activities, resources and

methods that may consolidate the Youth In

Action programme in Erasmus+ Education and

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 257

Key finding

Recommendation 15

been significantly simplified into one

compound structure. The positive or

negative effect needs to be explored.

• It has been a demanding task to

merge all earlier Youth programmes

into one completely new and

simplified structure under the three

Key Actions of Erasmus+.

• The proliferation of many National

Agencies, e.g. in Belgium and

Germany may hamper cross-sector

transfers.

Training activities during the next Erasmus+

phase.

Key finding

Recommendation 16

Regarding Online Linguistic Support

(OLS):

• OLS poses potentially fewer logistic

problems than the Erasmus Intensive

Language Course system under LLP

(only 1 service provider now).

• OLS offers a standardised

assessment system which uses the

CEFR system to measure language

proficiency, and a massive processing

capacity (200 000 concurrent users).

Services in 12 languages are planned

for 2016.

• The licencing system involves a

potential logistic overhead and bean-

counting rather that an open system

available for all, mobile individuals.

• The number of completed 1st

assessments and of completed

language courses is much lower than

the original target numbers.

• On-site needs of learners before and

after mobility not addressed.

• Compliance with ALTE Q-MARK

audit system for language testing is

not documented.

• The number of completed

assessment tests and courses in the

VET and Youth sector are very low.

• The licence attribution system

raises issues with regards to

efficiency and long-term pertinence

of the private-public contractual

framework chosen by the

• The European Parliament may consider

making an enquiry into the decisions that have

led to enforce a full centralisation of linguistic

support in Erasmus+. More flexible solutions

should be provided for the VET and Youth

sector.

• The double licencing system needs to be

evaluated and simpler alternatives reconsidered.

The logistics of the licence release procedures

needs to be revised and possibly replaced with a

generalised access for all mobile learners and

youth in Europe.

• The financial terms of the contract between the

Commission and the service provider needs to

be reappraised with regards to the needs of end-

users and of home and host institutions. The

pricing of licences needs also to be evaluated.

• The OLS service may be made available for

public use and research, e.g. for contributions

from the foreign language learning and testing

research community.

• The European Parliament may consider

making the continuation of the OLS service

dependent on a full independent and external

audit of OLS complying with the ALTE Q-

MARK quality indicators.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 258

Key finding

Recommendation 16

Commission.

Key finding

Recommendation 17

Regarding lack of knowledge about

mobility among applicants and

participants:

 Interviewees emphasise that there is

little knowledge among individual

applicants and participants about

mobility in education, training and

youth work.

 There is a need for integrating

modules and events to foster

knowledge about learning and

training mobility and comparative

competences about culture, systems,

enterprises, laws etc. in existing

educational and vocational curricula.

 Identifying and exploiting

opportunities for mobility are

reported to be positive skills for

individual professionalisation and

career development among target

groups in Key Action 1.

 The European Parliament may consider asking

the Commission to introduce and support a

structured learning component on educational

mobility that should or could become part of any

higher or vocational education programmes in

order to ease and strengthen awareness of

mobility competency in all targeted sectors. Not

only physical mobility of individuals, but also

virtual mobility components may be integrated

in this new initiative.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 259

Annexes

1. Bibliography

1. Ackers, L. (2005): ‘Moving People and Knowledge: Scientific Mobility in the

European Union’, International Migration, Volume 43, pp. 99-129.

2. Ágha, A. (2016). ‘The Decline of Democracy in East-Central Europe. Hungary as the

Worst-Case Scenario’, Problems of Post-Communism. Published online: 14 Jan 2016.

Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10758216.2015.1113383.

3. Altbach, P. G. and Engberg, D. (2014). ‘Global Student Mobility: The Changing

Landscape’, International Higher Education, Volume 77, Fall 2014, pp. 11-13. Retrieved

from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ihe/article/download/5676/5058

4. Bauer Thomas, Kreuz A. (2015). « Erasmus and EHEA student mobility in times of

the European economic crisis. The situation of international teacher training students

in Austria. », Journal of international Mobility 1/2015 (N° 3), pp. 99-114. URL :

www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-international-mobility-2015-1-page-99.htm.

5. Beerkens, M., Huisman, J., Souto-Otero, M. and de Wit, H. (2016). ‘Differences in

ERASMUS participation: Exploring the role of barriers and motivations in six

countries.’ Journal of Studies in International Education, forthcoming.

6. Bonnet, A. (2012a). La mobilité étudiante Erasmus. Apports et limites des études existantes,

Agence Europe Education Formation France. MAPA n°12-2011/ERA.COM, CENTRE

INTERNATIONAL D’ÉTUDES PÉDAGOGIQUES, Mars 2012. Sèvres: Centre

international d´études Retrieved from www.agence-erasmus.fr/docs/mobilite-

Erasmus-CIEP.pdf

7. Cassells, D., Gilleran, A., Morvan, C. et al., Eds., (2016). TWINNING GENERATION.

Celebrating Ten Years of eTwinning, Brussels: European Schoolnet (EUN Partnership

AISBL). Retrieved from https://www.etwinning.net/eun-files/generation/en.pdf

8. Bonnet, A. (2012b). La mobilité individuelle des élèves, un chaînon manquant dans l’analyse

d’impact de la mobilité des jeunes, Agence Europe Éducation Formation France. MAPA

n°12-2011/ERA.COM, Mars 2012. Sèvres : Centre international d´études

pédagogiques. Retrieved http://www.agence-erasmus.fr/docs/20120604_etude-

mob-eleves-ciep.pdf

9. Bouras, A., Chakpitak, N., and Foufou, S. (2014), ‘Higher education

internationalization: The Erasmus-Mundus network added value’, 2014 International

Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL), pp. 849-854.

10. Byram, M., Dervin, F. (2008). Students, Staff and Academic Mobility in Higher Education,

Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 260

11. Brandenburg, U., Taboadela, O., and Vancea, M. (2015). ‘Mobility Matters: the

ERASMUS Impact Study’, International Higher Education, Volume 82, Fall 2015,

pp. 5–7. Retrieved from

http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ihe/article/download/8863/7934

12. Brouillette, A. (2014). ‘The Autocrat Inside the EU’, Foreign Affairs, Dispatch August

21,2014. Retrieved from: http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/21/the-autocrat-inside-

the-eu

13. Cairns, D. (2014). Youth Transitions, International Student Mobility and Spatial

Reflexivity. Being Mobile?, Palgrave Macmillan: London.

14. Caruso, R. and de Wit, H. (2015). ‘Determinants of Mobility of Students in Europe: a

preliminary quantitative study’, Journal of Studies in International Education, Volume

19, Number 03, July 2015, pp. 265-282.

15. CEDEFOP (2015). Analysis and overview of national qualifications framework

developments in European countries: annual report 2014. Luxembourg: Publications

Office of the European Union. Cedefop working paper; No 27.

16. Chambon, E. C. (2016). OPINION of the Committee on Employment and Social

Affairs for the Committee on Culture and Education on Erasmus+ and other tools to

foster mobility in VET - a lifelong learning approach (2015/2257(INI)) Committee on

Culture and Education. Online via

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-

//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-

569.480+02+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

17. Conzelmann, T. (2008). ‘Towards a new concept of multi-level governance? Remarks

by Dr. Thomas Conzelmann’, University of Maastricht, MLG Atelier, 10 September

2008, (Revised version: 25 September 2008), pp. 1-5. Retrieved from

http://cor.europa.eu/en/activities/governance/Documents/Conzelmann.pdf

18. Crozier, M. (1977). ‘Organizations as Means and Constraints of Collective Action,’ in:

Warner, M. (Ed.), Organizational Choice and Constraint, London: Publishers of Grower

Press, Saxon House.

19. Crozier, M. & Friedberg, E. (2014 [1st edition 1977]). L'Acteur et le système. Les

Contraintes de l'action collective, Paris : Point Essais.

20. de Wit, H., Ferencz, I. & Rumbley, L.E. (2013). ‘International student mobility.

European and US perspective’, Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education,

Volume 17, Issue 1, 2013, pp. 17-23. Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13603108.2012.679752

21. Delors, J., Enderlein, H., Lamy, P., Letta, E. et al. (2015). ‘ERASMUS PRO: FOR A

MILLION ‘YOUNG EUROPEAN APPRENTICES’ BY 2020’, Tribune 12 May 2015 by

Jacques Delors Institute on youth employment. Retrieved from

http://www.institutdelors.eu/media/youthemployment-jdi-may15.pdf?pdf=ok

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 261

22. Dóminguez Miguela, A. (2007). ‘Models of Telecollaboration: eTwinning’, in

O’Dowd, R. (ed.), Online intercultural exchange: an introduction for foreign language

teachers, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd., pp. 85-106.

23. Dyson, R. G. (2003). ‘Strategic development and SWOT analysis at the University of

Warwick’, European Journal of Operational Research, 2003, pp. 631-640. [In Press version

paginated pp.1-10 retrieved from

http://www.di.ufpe.br/hermano/cursos/si/artigos/strategic-development-and-

SWOT-analysis-at-the-university-of-warwick.pdf]

24. Encinas, A. P. (2015). ‘Consolidating Erasmus Mobility in Spain during the Economic

Crisis’, International Higher Education, Volume 78: Special Issue 2014, pp. 21-22.

Retrieved from

http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ihe/article/download/5807/5177

25. Faludi, A. (2012). ‘Multi-Level (Territorial) Governance: Three Criticisms’, Planning

Theory & Practice, 13:2, pp. 197-211. Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14649357.2012.677578

26. Girotti, F. and Filippini, G. (2015). ‘Towards the creation of a new space for inter-

institutional structural cooperation: From ERASMUS to ERASMUS+’, Journal of the

European Higher Education Area, 03/2015. Retrieved from http://www.ehea-

journal.eu/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&gid=405

27. Goertz, L. (2013). Wann was für wen? Wirtschaft + Weiterbildung, MMB-Institut.

http://www.mmb-

institut.de/download/fachbeitraege/wirtschaft+weiterbildung_5-

2013_Lernorganisation_Skillsoft_Sonderveroeffentlichung.pdf

28. Gou, S. (2015). ‘Changing Nature of Adult Education in the Age of Transnational

Migration: Toward a Model of Recognitive Adult Education’, New Directions for Adult

and Continuing Education, Volume 2015, Issue 146, pp. 7–17. Retrieved from

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ace.20127/epdf

29. Grabher , A., Wejwar, P., Unger, M. et al. (2014).Student mobility in the EHEA.

Underrepresentation in student credit mobility and imbalances in degree mobility, Study

commissioned by the Austrian Ministry of Science (BMWF), January 2014, Institut für

Höhere Studien (IHS), Wien. Retrieved from

http://www.equi.at/dateien/Student_mobility_in_EHEA.pdf

30. Granovetter, M. (1973). ‘The Strength of Weak Ties’, American Journal of Sociology, 78,

pp. 1360–1380.

31. Hagen, K. (1998). ‘Toward a Europeanisation of Social Policies? A Scandinavian

Perspective’, Paper presented at MIRE Conference, Gilleleje, Denmark, 4-6 September

1998.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 262

32. Helms, R.M. and Rumbley, L.E. (2016). ‘National Policies for Internationalization—

Do They Work?’, International Higher Education, Volume 85/2016, pp. 10-12. Retrieved

from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ihe/article/download/9236/8292

33. Hervey, T. (2010). ‘Adjudicating in the Shadow of the Informal Settlement?’: The

Court of Justice of the European Union, ‘New Governance’ and Social Welfare’’,

Current Legal Problems, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp. 92-152. Retrieved from

http://clp.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/1/92.full.pdf+html

34. Hill, Dan (2013). ‘Essay: On the smart city; Or, a ‘manifesto’ for smart citizens

instead’, City Of Sound, Blog. Accessed at

http://www.cityofsound.com/blog/2013/02/on-the-smart-city-a-call-for-smart-

citizens-instead.html

35. Holmes, B. (2013). ‘School Teachers' Continuous Professional Development in an

Online Learning Community: lessons from a case study of an eTwinning Learning

Event’, European Journal of Education, 48(1), pp. 97-112. Retrieved from

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.12015/pdf

36. Holmes, P., Bavieri, L. and Ganassin, S. (2015). ‘Developing intercultural

understanding for study abroad: students’ and teachers’ perspectives on

predeparture intercultural learning’, Intercultural Education, 26:1, pp. 16-30. Retrieved

from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2015.993250

37. Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level Governance and European Integration,

Governance in Europe, Series, Better World Books Ltd: Dunfermline, United Kingdom.

38. Ifediora, C. O., Idoko, O. R., and Nzekwe, J. (2014). ‘Organization’s stability and

productivity: the role of SWOT analysis an acronym for strength, weakness,

opportunities and threat ‘, International Journal of Innovative and Applied Research,

Volume No 2, Issue 9, pp. 23-32. Retrieved from

http://journalijiar.com/uploads/2014-10-02_231409_710.pdf

39. Jacobone, V., Moro G. (2015). ‘Evaluating the impact of the Erasmus programme:

skills and European identity’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Volume 40,

Issue 2, pp. 309-328.

40. Kearney, C. and Gras-Velázquez, À. (2015). eTwinning Ten Years On: Impact on

teachers’ practice, skills, and professional development opportunities, as reported by

eTwinners, Central Support Service of eTwinning - European Schoolnet, Brussels.

Retrieved from

https://www.etwinning.net/en/pub/news/news/impact_of_etwinning_on_studen

t.htm

41. Kelemen, R. and Orenstein, M. (2016). ‘Europe’s Autocracy Problem. Polish

Democracy’s Final Days?’, Foreign Affairs, SNAPSHOT, January 7, 2016. Retrieved

from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/poland/2016-01-07/europes-

autocracy-problem

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 263

42. Kelo, M., Teichler, U., Wächter, B. (2006). ‘Toward Improved Data on Student

Mobility in Europe: Findings and Concepts of the Eurodata Study’, Journal of Studies

in International Education, Volume: 10, Issue: 3, pp. 194-223.

43. Kelo, M., Teichler, U., Wächter, B. (eds.) (2006) EURODATA – Student mobility in

European higher education, Bonn: Lemmens.

44. Kinginger, C. (2015). ‘Student mobility and identity-related language learning’,

Intercultural Education, Volume 26:1, pp. 6-15. Retrieved from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2015.992199

45. Kristensen, S. (ed.) (2008). Rapport consolidé EAC/44/06. ‘Soutien et encouragement à la

mobilité, Copenhagen: Danish Institute for the Educational Training of Vocational

Teachers (DEL). Retrieved from http://wikindx.ens-

lyon.fr/biblio_vst/index.php?action=resource_RESOURCEVIEW_CORE&id=5392

46. Kuhnle, S. (2000). ‘European welfare lessons from the 1990s’, in S. Kuhnle (ed.) (2000).

Survival of the European Welfare State, London/New York: Routledge;

47. Lattemann, C. & Köhler, T. (2005). ‘Trust or Control - Governance concepts for virtual

organizations’, Frontiers of e-Business Research, Vol. 3, pp. 720-734.

48. Lesjak, M., Juvan, E., Ineson, E.M. et al. (2015). ‘Erasmus student motivation: Why

and where to go?’, Higher Education, Volume 70, Issue 5, pp. 845-865.

49. Linstone, A. and Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications,

Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

50. Maragall, E. (2015). DRAFT REPORT on Erasmus+ and other tools to foster mobility in

VET – a lifelong learning approach (2015/2257(INI). Committee on Culture and

Education. Online via http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-

//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-

569.848+02+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

51. Mitchell. K. (2015). ‘Rethinking the 'Erasmus Effect' on European Identity’, JCMS,

Volume 53, Issue 2, pp. 330-348.

52. Oliver Ch. (1991). ‘Strategic responses to institutional processes’, Academy of

Management Review, 16 (1), pp. 145-179.

53. Powell, W. and DiMaggio, P.J. eds. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational

analysis, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press;

54. Rodrigues, M. (2013). Does student mobility during higher education pay? Evidence from

16 European countries. Luxemburg: European Commission.

55. Samolejová, A. and Toman, Z. (2002). ‘SWOT Analysis on International Student

Mobility at VSB - Technical University at Ostrava’, International Conference on

Engineering Education, August 18–21, 2002, Manchester, U.K. Retrieved from

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 264

http://www.ineer.org/Events/ICEE2002/Proceedings/Papers/Index/O146-

O149/O148.pdf

56. Scott, P. (2015). ‘Dynamics of Academic Mobility: Hegemonic Internationalisation or

Fluid Globalisation’, European Review, 23, pp. S55 - S69.

57. Snow, C., Lipnack, J. & Stamps, J. (1999). ‘The virtual organization: promises and

payoffs, large and small’, in: Cooper, C. L. & Rousseau, D. M. (Eds.). The virtual

organization. Chichester: Wiley.

58. Souto-Otero, M., Huisman, J., Beerkens, M. et al. (2013). ‘Barriers to International

Student Mobility: Evidence From the Erasmus Program’, Educational Researcher,

Volume 42, Issue 2, pp. 70-77.

59. Souto Otero, M. and McCoshan, A. (2006). ‘Survey of the Socio-Economic

Background of ERASMUS Students’, Final Report, DG EAC 01/05, August 2006.

Retrieved from

http://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/EU_EC/E060800O.p

60. Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (2011). ‘Mixed Method Research’, pp. 285-300, in The

SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln Y. S., (eds.) Sage

Publications Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA.

61. Teichler, U. (2012). ‘Ideas of Student Mobility in Germany’, International Higher

Education, Volume 67: Special Issue 2014, pp. 14-16. Retrieved from

http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ihe/article/download/8602/7734

62. Teichler, U., Ferencz, I. and Wächter, B. (2011). ‘Mapping mobility in European

higher education. Volume I: Overview and trends’, A study produced for the

Directorate General for Education and Culture (DG EAC), Brussels, June 2011.

Retrieved from

http://www.acup.cat/sites/default/files/teichlerferenczwaechtermappingmobilityi

neuropeanhighereducation.pdf

63. Ufert, K. (2013). ‘Degree mobility + loans doesn’t work’, University World, Issue No:

273, 25 May 2013, retrieved from

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20130522074555837

64. Vijge, M. (2012). ‘The promise of new institutionalism: Explaining the absence of a

World or United Nations Environment Organisation’, International Environmental

Agreements, 13(2), July 2012, pp. 153-176, retrieved from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257573180_The_promise_of_new_institu

tionalism_Explaining_the_absence_of_a_World_or_United_Nations_Environment_O

rganisation

65. Vossensteyn, H., Soo, M., Cremonini, L. et al. (2008). The impact of ERASMUS on

European Higher Education: quality, openness and internationalisation, December 2008.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 265

European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture. Retrieved

from http://doc.utwente.nl/85191/1/Vossensteyn08impact.pdf

66. Weihrich, H. (1982). ‘The TOWS Matrix – a tool for situational analysis’, Long Range

Planning, 15(2), pp. 54-66, April 1982. Retrieved from Retrieved from

www.rillo.ee/docs/2008/Weichrich_LRP_1982.pdf

67. Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2011). ‘Background and employability of mobile vs. non-mobile

students’, Tertiary Education and Management, 17, pp. 79 – 100.

68. Zevgitis, T. and Emvalotis, A. (2015). ‘The impact of European programmes dealing

with mobility in secondary education’ Journal of international Mobility, 2015/1 (N° 3,

pp. 61-80. Retrieved from https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-international-

mobility-2015-1-page-61.htm

2. References

69. AEGEE EUROPE, European Student Forum (2003). ‘Realising the European Higher

Education Area, Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher

Education in Berlin on 19 September 2003’. Retrieved from

http://www.wg.aegee.org/ewg/berlincommunique.htm

70. Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) (2016). ALTE Framework 2016.

Retrieved from

http://www.alte.org/attachments/pdfs/files/2016_02_19_alte_framework_v13_7oy

o9.pdf

71. Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) (2007). ‘Minimum standards for

establishing quality profiles in ALTE examinations’, ALTE 11/4/2007, retrieved from

http://www.alte.org/attachments/files/minimum_standards.pdf

72. Archimedes (2016). The effects of international mobility on Estonian educational staff. A

survey on the effects of the short-term mobility within the European Lifelong Learning

Programme. Retrieved from

http://www2.archimedes.ee/hkk/File/LLP%20opirande%20moju%20hindamine/L

LP-opirande-moju-luhiversioon-ENGLISH.pdf

73. BIBB (2015). iMOVE: Training - Made in Germany. Annual Report 2014, Federal Institute

for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB). Retrieved from https://www.imove-

germany.de/cps/rde/xbcr/imove_projekt_international/p_iMOVE-Annual-Report-

2014.pdf

74. BIBB (2014). iMOVE: Training - Made in Germany. Annual Report 2013, Federal Institute

for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB). Retrieved from https://www.imove-

germany.de/cps/rde/xbcr/imove_projekt_international/p_iMOVE_Annual_Report

_2013.pdf

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 266

75. BIBB (2013) iMOVE: Training - Made in Germany. Annual Report 2012, Federal Institute

for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB). Retrieved from https://www.imove-

germany.de/cps/rde/xbcr/imove_projekt_international/p_iMOVE_Annual-Report-

2012.pdf

76. BIBB (2012). iMOVE: Training - Made in Germany. Annual Report 2011, Federal Institute

for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB). Retrieved from https://www.imove-

germany.de/cps/rde/xbcr/imove_projekt_international/p_iMOVE_Annual-Report-

2011.pdf

77. BIBB (2011). iMOVE: Training - Made in Germany. Annual Report 2010, Federal Institute

for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB). Retrieved from https://www.imove-

germany.de/cps/rde/xbcr/imove_projekt_international/p_iMOVE_Annual-Report-

2010.pdf

78. CEDEFOF (2016). ‘Europass - European Skills Passport’, Last accessed 10/06/2016 at

http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/en/documents/european-skills-passport

79. CEDEFOP (2016). ‘Mobility Scoreboard’, Web site. Accessed 13/06/2016 at

http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/de/events-and-projects/projects/mobility-

scoreboard

80. CEDEFOP (2015). ‘Stronger VET for better lives. Cedefop’s monitoring report on

vocational education and training policies 2010-14’, Cedefop Reference Series 98.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. DOI: 10.2801/8213.

Retrieved from http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-

resources/publications/3067

81. CEDEFOP (2015). National qualifications framework developments in Europe – Anniversary

edition, Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/education/documents/et-2020-swd-161-2015_en.pdf

82. CEDEFOP (2010). The skill matching challenge. Analysing skill mismatch and policy

implications, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from

http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-andresources/publications/3056

83. CEDEFOP (2010). ‘Analysis and overview of national qualifications framework

developments in European countries’, Working Paper No. 27, Annual Report 2014,

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from

http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/6127_en.pdf

84. CEDEFOP (2009). Wilson, R. A. (author). Future skill supply in Europe. Medium-term

forecast up to 2020: synthesis report, Thessaloniki: Cedefop publication, Luxembourg:

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2009. Retrieved from

www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/4086_en.pdf

85. Coimbra Group of Universities (2014). ‘Coimbra Group position paper on the

Erasmus+ Programme . its first Work Programme and calls’, 20 May 2014, Brussels.

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 267

Retrieved from http://www.coimbra-

group.eu/uploads/2014/Erasmus+%20Position%20Paper%20May%202014.pdf

86. Council of Europe (2013). Common Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,

teaching, assessment, Cambridge University Press. Electronic version retrieved from

https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?d

ocumentId=0900001680459f97

87. Council of the European Union (2011). ‘Council Conclusions on Language

Competences to Enhance Mobility’, OJ C 372, 20.12.2011. Retrieved from

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/126

373.pdf

88. DAAD (2014). Reis, J. & Brandenburg, U. (2014). ‘Effekte der Credit Mobility

Ökonomische, unternehmensrelevante und hochschulbezogene Effekte der Credit

Mobility ausländischer Studierender für Deutschland’, In Abstimmung mit

Dr. Jürgen Janger, Dr. Gerhard Streicher. Nationale Agentur für EU-

Hochschulzusammenarbeit; Online-Publikation Dezember 2014. DAAD: Bonn.

89. DAAD (2013). Orr, D. & Haaristo, H-S. (2013). ‘Seismic – Student and staff mobility in

times of crisis, Praxis Center for Policies Studies, DAAD: Bonn. Retrieved from

https://eu.daad.de/medien/eu/veranstaltungen/bologna/student_and_staff_mobil

ity_in_times_of_crisis_study.pdf

90. EHEA (2012). Mobility for Better Learning. Mobility strategy 2020 for the European Higher

Education Area, EHEA, Bucharest Conference 2012. Retrieved from

http://www.ehea.info/uploads/(1)/2012%20ehea%20mobility%20strategy.pdf

91. EHEA (2004). ‘EU/Bologna Conference ‘designing policies for mobile students’,

Noordwijk, 10-12 October 2004. Document retrieved from

http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Seminars/041011_conclusions.pdf

92. EHEA (2006). ‘Expert Network on Portability of Grants and Loans’, A Presentation of

Members of the Expert Network, Presentation. Retrieved from

http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Seminars/portability_network.ppt

93. EHEA (2005). ‘The European Higher Education Area - Achieving the Goals

Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher

Education, Bergen, 19-20 May 2005’, Communiqué. Retrieved from

http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/Bergen_Communique1.pdf

94. European Association of Erasmus Coordinators (EAEC). ERASMUS+ BAROMETER.

2014 Survey Final Results, Retrieved from http://www.erasmusbarometer.net/

95. European Commission (2016). ‘UNESCO OECD Eurostat (UOE) joint data collection

– methodology’, Eurostat, online, article, latest update of text: February 2016.

Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php/UNESCO_OECD_Eurostat_(UOE)_joint_data_collection_%E2

%80%93_methodology

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 268

96. European Commission (2016). Staff mobility in higher education. National policies and

programmes, Retrieved from http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/staff-mobility-in-higher-

education-pbEC0213329/

97. Erasmus+ Journal (2016). Vogel, H. (author). ‘EURYDICE Publication: Towards a

Mobility Scoreboard: Conditions for Learning Abroad in Europe’, Article, 17/2/2016.

Retrieved from http://www.erasmus-journal.eu/eurydice-publikation-towards-a-

mobility-scoreboard-conditions-for-learning-abroad-in-europe

98. ESIB (2003). ‘ESIB Policy paper on mobility’, May 2003. Retrieved from

http://www.aip.pt/irj/go/km/docs/aip/documentos/estudos%20publicacoes/cen

tro%20documentacao/Capital%20Humano/I.Livre_Circulacao_Trabalhadores/A2.iv

.Programas_de_Apoio/Policy_paper_on_mobility.doc.

99. ESU (2012). ‘ESU non-paper on the Erasmus Loan Guarantee Facility for Master

Students’, published Published: 23 Oct 2012 at http://www.esu-

online.org/news/article/6065/ESU-non-paper-on-the-Erasmus-Loan-Guarantee-

Facility-for-Master-Students/

100.ESU (2012). ‘European students oppose the Master’s Degree Loan Guarantee

Scheme’, Resolution October 2012, BM64-BUDAPEST. Retrieved from

http://www.esu-online.org/news/article/6066/BM-64-European-students-oppose-

the-Masters-Degree-Loan-Guarantee-Scheme/

101.Agence Erasmus + (2015). Erasmus+ 2014-2015, Appel à propositions 2015, Report,

@ErasmusplusFR, April 2016. Retrieved from http://www.agence-

erasmus.fr/docs/2430_ap-2015.pdf

102.European University Association (EUA) (2004). Crosier C. and Geddie, K. (authors).

‘Developing Joint Masters Programmes for Europe: Results of the EUA Joint Masters

Project’, European University Association (EUA), Brussels: EUA. Retrieved from

http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Joint_Masters_report.1087219975578.pdf

103.European University Association (EUA) (2006). Guidelines or Quality Enhancement in

European Joint Master Programmes, EMNEM – European Masters New Evaluation

Methodology. Retrieved from

http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/EMNEM_report.1147364824803.pdf

104.European Commission (2016). ‘European Innovation Scoreboards’. Retrieved

07/06/2016 from http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-

figures/scoreboards/index_en.htm

105.European Commission. (2016). The Erasmus Impact Study Regional Analysis. A

Comparative Analysis of the Effects of Erasmus on the Personality, Skills and Career of

students of European Regions and Selected Countries, CHE Consult, Luxembourg:

Publications Office of the European Union, 2016. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/study/2014/erasmus-impact_en.pdf

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 269

106.European Commission (2016). ‘Erasmus+ Master Degree Loans – European

Commission’, Web page. Last accessed 13/06/2016 from

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/opportunities-for-

individuals/students/erasmus-plus-master-degree-loans_en

107.European Commission (2016). ‘Indicators – Eurostat’, EU Benchmarks, Indicators,

Education and training’. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/education-and-training/eu-

benchmarks/indicators

108.European Commission (2016). ‘Youthpass – Welcome to Youthpass’, Web page. Last

accessed 10/06/2016 at https://www.youthpass.eu/en/youthpass/

109.European Commission (2016). ‘Studying abroad’, Web page. Last update unknown.

Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/opportunities/higher-

education/study-mobility_en.htm

110.European Commission (2016). ‘CULT Committee, EP Exchange of views on Annual

work programmes’ Brussels, 25 April 2016. Speech of Chiara GARIAZZO, DG EAC.

Unpublished document communicated by DG EAC to the authors.

111.European Commission (2016). ‘Amendment of the 2016 annual work programme for

the implementation of 'Erasmus+': the Union Programme for Education, Training,

Youth and Sport’, C(2016)1122, 26/02/2016. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/awp/docs/c_2016_1122.pd

112.European Commission (2016). ECHE Monitoring Guide for Erasmus+ National Agencies,

2016 edition, 1st edition. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-

plus/sites/erasmusplus/files/library//eche-monitoring-guide_en.pdf

113.European Commission (2016). ‘Promoting adult learning’, Web page. Last updated

10/6/2016. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/adult-

learning/adult_en.htm

114.European Commission (2016). ‘Erasmus+ Key Action 1: Higher education student

and staff mobility between Programme and Partner Countries (International Credit

Mobility) Results of the 2015 Call’, Document forwarded to the authors by DG EAC

following the Panel Interview held 4 May 2016.

115.European Commission (2016). ‘European Development Fund (EDF)’, Retrieved from

https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/funding-instruments-

programming/funding-instruments/european-development-fund_en

116.European Commission (2016). Erasmus+ Programme Guide for 2016 Version 2.

Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-

plus/sites/erasmusplus/files/files/resources/erasmus-plus-programme-

guide_en.pdf

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 270

117.European Commission (2016). ‘European Development Fund (EDF)’, Web page last

updated 13/06/2016. from https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/funding-

instruments-programming/funding-instruments/european-development-fund_en

118.European Commission (2016). ‘Erasmus+: Providing more and better opportunities

to support Europe's future generations’, Press release, Brussels, 26 January 2016.

Retrieved from: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-141_en.htm

119.European Commission (2016). ‘Lifelong Learning Programme’, Last update

10/06/2016. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/tools/llp_en.htm

120.European Commission (2016). ‘Tertiary educational attainment by sex, age group 30-

34’, Eurostat benchmark, Table. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode

=t2020_41&plugin=1

121.European Commission (2016). ‘More and more persons aged 30 to 34 with tertiary

educational attainment in the EU…’, Europe Education Indicators 2020, 81/2016,

27/04/2016. Retrieved from See also:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7242558/3-27042016-AP-

EN.pdf/83c2d88c-9ba8-47d7-8caf-8d765585967a.

122.European Commission (2016). ‘Europe 2020 indicators – education’, Eurostat, Data

from December 2014. Most recent data: Further Eurostat information, Main tables,

planned article update: August 2016. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php/Europe_2020_indicators_-_education

123.European Commission (2016). ‘Erasmus+, The First year 26.01.2016’, European

Commission - Fact Sheet, MEMO/16/143 26 January 2016. Retrieved

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-143_fr.htm

124.European Commission (2016). ‘LIST OF PLANNED COMMISSION INITIATIVES’,

7/3/2016. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/pdf/planned_commission_initiatives_2016.pdf

125.European Commission (2016). ‘Erasmus Mundus Programme 2009-2013’, EACEA,

Web page. Retrieved from

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus_mundus/index_en.php

126.European Commission (2016). EU Youth Report 2015, Luxembourg: Publication Office

of the European Union. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/youth/library/reports/youth-report-2015_en.pdf

127.European Commission (2016). ‘EU Youth Strategy’, Web page. Last updated

06/0+6/2016. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/youth/policy/youth_strategy/index_en.htm

128.European Commission (2016).’Erasmus+ Key Action 1: Higher education student and

staff mobility between Programme and Partner Countries: Results 2015 Call, First

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 271

Round’, retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/documents/e-plus-

news/ka107-2015-first-round-results_en.pdf

129.European Commission (2015). ‘EVALUATION ROADMAP, Mid-term evaluation of

Erasmus+’, Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/smart-

regulation/roadmaps/docs/2015_eac_014_evaluation_erasmus_en.pdf

130.European Commission. (2015). ‘EU and the Bologna Process – working together for

change. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union’, Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/publications/2015/bologna-process-

brochure_en.pdf

131.European Commission (2015). On the way to Erasmus+. A statistical overview of the

Erasmus Programme in 2012-13, Publications Office of the European Union, 2015.

Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/publications/–erasmus-stat-

2012-13_en.pdf

132.European Commission (2015). ‘DPO-3691.4 EPlusLink’, Data Protection Officer

Access to the register. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/dpo-

133.European Commission. (2015). ‘Education and Training Monitor 2015’, Luxembourg:

Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/publications/monitor15_en.pdf and

http://ec.europa.eu/education/monitor

134.European Commission (2015). An in-depth analysis of adult learning policies and their

effectiveness in Europe - Final Report, Brussels: Directorate-General for Employment,

Social Affairs and Inclusion. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=7851&type=2&f

urtherPubs=yes

135.European Commission (2015). The language courses User guide for mobility participants,

Altissia 2015. Last update 11/09/2015. Retrieved from

http://www.erasmusplus.nl/stream.aspx?file=/_images/user/OLS/Language%20c

ourses%20user%20guide%20participants.pdf

136.European Commission (2015). Adult Learners in Digital Learning Environments - Final

Report, Brussels: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.

Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=&pubId=7820&type=2&furt

herPubs=yes

137.European Commission (2015). Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015, European Union,

2015. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-

figures/scoreboards/files/ius-2015_en.pdf

138.European Commission (2015). ‘Communication from the Commission to the

European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and social Committee

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 272

and the Committee of the Regions’, Draft 2015 Joint Report of the Council and the

Commission on the implementation of the Strategic framework for European

cooperation in education and training (ET2020). New priorities for European

cooperation in education and training. {SWD(2015) 161 final}. Retrieved from

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0408

139.European Commission (2015). Erasmus Facts, Figures and Trends, The European Union

support for student and staff exchanges and university cooperation in 2013-2014,

Unit B1 ‘Higher education’, Directorate-General for Education and Culture,

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/statistics/erasmus-plus-facts-figures_en.pdf

140.European Commission (2015). 2015 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the

implementation of the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and

training (ET 2020), New priorities for European cooperation in education and training

(2015/C 417/04), retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52015XG1215(02)&from=EN

141.European Commission (2015). Erasmus+ Programme Annual Report 2014, Directorate

General for Education and Culture, Brussels. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/statistics/erasmus-plus-annual-

report_en.pdf

142.European Commission (2015). 2016 Annual work programme for the implementation of

'Erasmus+' the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport C (2015)6151

of September 2015. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/awp/docs/c-2015-6151.pdf

143.European Commission (2015). ‘Situation of young people in the EU.’ COMMISSION

STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Status of the situation of young people in the

European Union Chapters 1-4 Accompanying the document COMMISSION

COMMUNICATION Draft 2012 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on

the implementation of the renewed framework for European cooperation in the

youth field (EU Youth Strategy 2010-2018). Retrieved from http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012SC0257:EN:NOT

144.European Commission (2016). Education and Training 2020. Highlights from the Working

Groups 2014-2015. February 2016. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-framework/expert-groups/2014-

2015/group-highlights_en.pdf

145.European Commission (2015). ‘Erasmus+ Online Linguistic Support’, Video

published 17 August. 2015. Accessed 10/06/2016 at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8okpisQwH3A&list=PLJmEREKFYU8U_GYsj

0c-nR56iVp4q1ud4&index=1

146.European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2015). Adult Education and Training in

Europe: Widening Access to Learning Opportunities, Eurydice Report, Luxembourg:

Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 273

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/179en

.pdf

147.European Commission (2014). ‘Erasmus+ 2014-2016 What’s in it for education,

training, youth and sport?’, Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/sites/erasmusplus/files/erasmus-

plus-at-a-glance_en.pdf.

148.European Commission (2014). Tyson A. (author). Higher Education in Erasmus+, PDF

Brochure. Retrieved from www.aca-

secretariat.be/fileadmin/aca_docs/images/members/Adam_Tyson.pdf

149.European Commission (2014). The Erasmus impact study. Effects of mobility on the skills

and employability of students and the internationalisation of higher education institutions,

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/study/2014/erasmus-impact_en.pdf

150.European Commission (2014). The Erasmus+ Inclusion and Diversity Strategy, European

Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture, December 2014.

Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/youth/library/reports/inclusion-diversity-

strategy_en.pdf

151.European Commission (2014). Erasmus+ Inclusion and Diversity Strategy in the field of

Youth. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/statistics/ar-

statistical-annex_en.pdf

152.European Commission (2014). 2015 annual work programme for the implementation of

'Erasmus+': the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport, C(2014)6856

of 30 September 2014. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/awp/docs/c_2014_6856_en

.pdf

153.European Commission (2013). ‘Online assessment and linguistic support for mobility

of individuals under the Erasmus+ Programme - EAC/24/2013’ covering

5 languages (English, French, German, Italian and Spanish).Tender closed

24/02/2014. Retrieved from https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/about-eacea/calls-for-

tenders/online-assessment-and-linguistic-support-for-mobility-individuals-under-

erasmus-plus-programme-eac242013_en

154.European Commission (2013). ‘Specifications of Tender EAC/24/2013’. Retrieved

from: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/sites/eacea-site/files/documents/cft-eac242013-

specific_en.pdf

155.European Commission (2013). ‘Tender EAC-24-2013 Annex 3.a. Price and budget

breakdown for Lot 1 (annex 3.a) and Lot 2 (Annex 3.b)’. Retrieved from

https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/about-eacea/calls-for-tenders/online-assessment-and-

linguistic-support-for-mobility-individuals-under-erasmus-plus-programme-

eac242013_en

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 274

156.European Commission (2013). Androulla Vassiliou. ‘Erasmus+ : 40% budget boost for

the world's biggest and best mobility programme’, Press release 19 November 2013,

last updated 22/10/2015. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-

release_SPEECH-13-942_fr.htm

157.European Commission (2013). 2014 annual work programme for the implementation of

‘Erasmus+, the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport, C(2013)8193 of

27 November 2013. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/awp/docs/c_2013_8193.pd

158.European Commission (2013). ‘Work Package Descriptions, WP 2014’, Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/awp/docs/c_2013_8193.pd

159.European Commission (2013). ‘The use of lump sums, the reimbursement on the

basis of unit costs and the flat-rate financing under the ‘Erasmus+’ Programme

C(2013)8550 of 4 December 2013’, Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/awp/docs/c_2013_8550.pd

160.European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2013). Towards a Mobility Scoreboard:

Conditions for Learning Abroad in Europe, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the

European Union. Retrieved from

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/162en

_learner_mobility.pdf

161.European Commission. (2012). Study on Mobility Developments in School Education,

Vocational Education and Training, Adult Education and Youth Exchanges, June 2012.

Retrieved from

http://www.europemobility.eu/download/TC/funding_schemes/Mobility_Study_

Final_Report.pdf

162.European Commission (2011). ‘Interim Evaluation of the Lifelong Learning

Programme (2007-2013)’, Service Contract No. 2009-5173-PPMI. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/evaluations/docs/educatio

n/llp2011-summary_en.pdf

163.European Commission (n.d.). ‘Erasmus+: Requirements for Establishing a National

Agency’ (case of Serbia), presentation. Retrieved from

http://www.seio.gov.rs/upload/documents/skrining/eksplanatorni/prezentacije/

pg26/26_8.pdf

164.European Commission (2010). ‘European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A Renewed

Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe’, Initial plan to implement the European

Disability Strategy 2010-2020, List of Actions 2010-2015 {COM(2010) 636 final}

{SEC(2010) 1323 final}, 11/15/2010, COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT.

Retrieved from http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/’LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2010:1324:FIN:EN:PDF

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 275

165.European Council (2011). ‘Council Resolution on a renewed European agenda for

adult learning 2011/C 372/01). Retrieved from

http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:372:0001:0006:EN:PDF

166.European Council (2009). ‘Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic

framework for European cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’) 2009/C

119/02’. Retrieved from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52009XG0528%2801%29

167.European Parliament (2016). ‘New rules to attract non-EU students, researchers and

interns to the EU’, Plenary sessions [11-05-2016 – 12:24], Press release. Retrieved from

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdfs/news/expert/infopress/20160504IPR25749/

20160504IPR25749_en.pdf

168.European Parliament (2016). ‘Entry and residence of third-country nationals for the

purposes of research, studies, training, volunteering, pupil exchange and au pairing

***II’, Wednesday 11 May 2016 – Strasbourg, Resolution and Annex. Retrieved from

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-

TA-2016-0216+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN

169.European Parliament (2012). Haug, G. & Wächter, B. , Erasmus For All (2014-2020).

Retrieved from

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2012/474543/IPOL-

CULT_NT(2012)474543_EN.pdf. Executive Summary, 16-04-2012. Retrieved from

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=IPOL-

CULT_NT(2012)474543.

170.[EVSI5] Hausschildt, C. (ed.), Gwosć, C., Netz N. Et al. (2015). Social and Economic

Conditions of Student Life in Europe, Synopsis of Indicators | EUROSTUDENT V 2012–

2015, DZWH- eurostudent.eu, W. Bertelsmann Verlag GmbH & Co, Bielefeld.

Retrieved from

http://www.eurostudent.eu/download_files/documents/EVSynopsisofIndicators.p

171.European Investment Fund (EIF) (2016). ‘ERASMUS+ Master Loans: EIF and the

European Commission launch new initiative for students’, Web page. 16/02/2016.

Retrieved from

http://www.eif.org/what_we_do/guarantees/news/2015/erasmus+master-loan-

guarantee-facility.htm

172.European Investment Fund (EIF) (2016). ‘Annex II to the Open Call for Expression of

Interest to select Financial Intermediaries under Erasmus+ Master Loan Guarantee

facility. Retrieved from

http://www.eif.org/what_we_do/guarantees/erasmus+master-loan-guarantee-

facility/guarantee-term-sheet-annex-II.pdf

173.European Investment Fund (EIF) (2016). ‘Erasmus+ Master Student Loan Guarantee

Facility Signatures as of 30/04/2016’, document. Retrieved from

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 276

http://www.eif.org/what_we_do/guarantees/erasmus+master-loan-guarantee-

facility/erasmus+signatures.pdf

174.European Parliament (2016). ‘Annex to Parliamentary Question E-986/16; E-987/16’.

Retrieved from

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/questions/reponses_qe/2016/000986/P8

_RE(2016)000986(ANN)_XL.pdf

175.European Parliament (2015). ‘Annex to Parliamentary Annex E-1486/16’. Retrieved

from

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegistreWeb/search/getDocument.htm?reference

=P8_RE(2016)001486&fragment=ANN&language=XL

176.European Parliament (2015). ‘Erasmus+: more than just mobility’, March 2015,

European Parliament, EPRS: Brussels. Retrieved from

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/EPRS-AaG-551317-Erasmus-plus-

FINAL.pdf

177.European Parliament (2012). ‘Proposal of 23/01/2011, for a REGULATION OF THE

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing ‘ERASMUS FOR

ALL’ The Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport /*

COM/2011/0788 final - 2011/0371 (COD) */. Retrieved from http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52011PC0788

178.European Parliament (2013). ‘REGULATION (EU) No 1288/2013 OF THE

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 December 2013

establishing 'Erasmus+': The Union programme for education, training, youth and

sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No

1298/2008/EC’. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013R1288

179.European Union, Committee of Regions (2012). ‘Building a European Culture of

Multilevel Governance: Follow-up to the Committee of the Regions’ White Paper’,

CIVEX-V-020, 15 and 16 February 2012, Opinion of the Committee of the Regions.

Retrieved from http://cor.europa.eu/en/activities/governance/Documents/vdb-

opinion-mlg/cdr273-2011_fin_ac_en.pdf.

180.EUSURVEY (2015) ‘Published Results: EUyouthreport2015part1’, Retrieved from

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/publication/EUyouthreport2015part1 and

‘Published Results: EUyouthreport2015part2’. Retrieved from

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/publication/EUyouthreport2015part2

181.GLOBSEC (2016). ‘European Neighbourhood Development Programme’, Retrieved

from http://www.ata-sac.org/programs/european-neighbourhood-development-

programme

182. ICEF (2016). ‘Erasmus+ participation doubles in 2014; boosts youth employment’,

ICEF Monitor report 12 February 2016.Retrieved from

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 277

http://monitor.icef.com/2016/02/erasmus-participation-doubles-in-2014-boosts-

youth-employment

183.ICEF (2015). ‘The state of international student mobility in 2015’, ICEF Monitor. Web

Page. 5 Nov 2015. Retrieved from http://monitor.icef.com/2015/11/the-state-of-

international-student-mobility-in-2015/

184.ICEF (2013). ‘EU ministers conclude €93 billion funding arrangement for Erasmus+

and Horizon 2020’, ICEF Monitor. Online article. Retrieved from

http://monitor.icef.com/2013/12/eu-ministers-conclude-e93-billion-funding-

arrangement-for-erasmus-and-horizon-2020/

185.ΙΚΥ - Hellenic NA Erasmus Plus (2016). ‘Erasmus+ OLS methodology of the

language assessment’, Video published 02/02/2016. Accessed 10/06/2016 at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FftM5nghWuc

186.OECD (2015). Education at a Glance 2015, OECD indicators. Retrieved from

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/fr/education/education-at-a-glance-2015_eag-2015-

187.OECD (2015). ‘Student mobility in tertiary education (2013). International or foreign

student enrolments as a percentage of total tertiary education’, In OECD (2015),

Education at a Glance 2015. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-

ilibrary.org/fr/education/education-at-a-glance-2015/student-mobility-in-tertiary-

education-2013_eag-2015-graph205-en

188.OECD (2015). Vincent-Lancrin, S., Fisher, D., and Pfotenhauer, S. ‘Ensuring Quality

in Cross-Border Higher Education. Implementing the UNESCO/OECD Guidelines’,

19 nov 2015. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/fr/education/ensuring-

quality-in-cross-border-higher-education_9789264243538-en

189.OECD (2015). ‘International mobility of highly skilled individuals’, 19 Oct 2015.

Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/fr/science-and-technology/oecd-

science-technology-and-industry-scoreboard-2015/international-mobility-of-highly-

skilled-individuals_sti_scoreboard-2015-17-en

190.OECD (2014).‘OECD Economic Surveys: European Union 2014, Report 03 April 2014.

Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/fr/economics/oecd-economic-

surveys-european-union-2014_eco_surveys-eur-2014-en

191.Statistisk Sentralbyrå/Statistics Norway. (2016). ‘Facts about education in Norway.

2016’, Published:21/01/2016. Retrieved from

http://www.ssb.no/en/utdanning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/facts-about-

education-in-norway-2016

192.Times Higher Education (2013). ‘Horizon 2020 and Erasmus budgets approved.

21/11/2013’, article. Retrieved from

(https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/horizon-2020-and-erasmus-

budgets-approved/2009234.article

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 278

193.UK Higher Education International Unit (IU) (2015). Experiences of the Implementation

of the Erasmus+ Programme in the UK, Report on responses to the IU survey on

Experiences of the Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme in the UK. Retrieved

from http://www.international.ac.uk/newsletters/european-funding-

bulletin/european-funding-bulletin-march/experiences-of-the-implementation-of-

the-erasmusplus-programme-in-the-uk.aspx

194.UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (2015). Global Inventory of Regional and

National Qualifications Frameworks. Volume II: National and Regional Cases, Hamburg.

Retrieved from http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/2213_en_vol2.pdf

195.UNESCO (2015a). ‘Education: Gross enrolment ratio by level of education’, Unesco

Institute of Statistics. Table. Retrieved from

http://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=142&lang=en

196.UNESCO (2015b ‘Global flow of tertiary-level students’, Unesco Institute of Statistics.

Table. Retrieved from http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Pages/international-

student-flow-viz.aspx

197.UNESCO (2014). UNESCO International Standard Classification of Education, retrieved

from http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Pages/international-standard-

classification-of-education.aspx and

http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/isced-fields-of-education-

training-2013.pdf

3. Web sites

1. European Commission (2016). ‘Erasmus+ Online Linguistic Support’, last updated

11/05/2016. http://erasmusplusols.eu/

2. European Students’ Union (ESU) (2016). ‘European Students’ Union’, Web site, last

accessed 13/06/2016. http://www.esu-online.org

3. Eurostudent.eu (2016). ‘Eurostudent’, http://www.eurostudent.eu

4. IIE (2015). ‘ Project Atlas ®’, http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Project-

Atlas#.V17Nro7d22N

5. SALTO (2016). https://www.salto-youth.net

Implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 279

4. The Interview Grid

Research paper about the implementation of Erasmus+ Programme Key Action 1

Interview GRID

This research project is contracted by The European Parliament, DG EPRS | European

Parliamentary Research Service, Post Impact Assessment Unit. The purpose of the

research is to acquire knowledge about the implementation of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 –

Mobility of individuals in education and training, and Youth. A more detailed

description of the research project is available in a separate document. The general

methodology of project is also available in a separate document.

This document compiles the necessary activities, methods and expected outcomes as

quick notes.

1. Framing conditions to be introduced in the implementation report on the

Erasmus+ Programmes’ Key Action 1

The interview shall be completed in a rather private atmosphere in 1:1 (expert to

informant) situation. In case respondents prefer a group meeting this shall be explained

briefly.

The preferred approach is to take brief notes by using the GRID as presented below.

However, whereas needed and desirable, the researchers may ask to record the

conversations for further information processing. The signature of a release form by the

respondent(s) will be necessary; otherwise no recording will take place. Only researchers

will be privy to the recordings. The interview transcripts will be kept in an anonymised

and encrypted file format with separate encrypted keys to identify the respondent. At

project completion, latest 31.12.2016 the key file and recordings will be destroyed. No

respondents will be cited by name in the final paper.

In addition, the informants must sign a form devised to meet our ethical requirements,

stating that: (1) all information will be held confidential by the experts, (2) participation is

voluntary and may stop at any time without explanation given, and (3) that the experts

do not intend to inflict any harm.

It is expected that each interview session will last between 30 and 60 minutes.

Respondents shall be briefly oriented about the purpose of the implementation report,

and, following this introduction, will report about their experiences with ERASMUS +

Key Action 1 in a rather open narrative way.

Respondents may use their native language whereas applicable. Otherwise, the interview

shall be conducted in English or any common language.

The processing of the interview material will follow a qualitative approach, and may not

necessarily use all aspects of the narrative produced by the respondents, i.e. researchers

will select only those sequences they consider meaningful for the assessment to be done.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414 280

During this process selected interview sequences shall be translated into English

language when necessary.

The interview situation itself may be used to pinpoint important aspects of the research

in a Delphi-like manner, i.e. respondents may be invited to comment on the notes taken

by the researcher.

All information originating from the interviews shall be presented in the final report in

an anonymised way. In cases where full anonymity is not achievable due to the direct

linkage of a statement to its respective institution or the respondents, the researchers will

not use such material without obtaining a written permission from the respondents

(email may be used in such cases).

2. Socio demographic data and release form

Name

Affiliation

Position

Recording of

interview accepted

O Yes O No

Ethical statement

read

I have been informed that (1) all information will be held

confidential by the experts, (2) my/our participation is

voluntary and may stop at any time without explanation

given, and (3) that the experts do not intend to inflict any

harm.

Date and signature:

Special aspects of

anonymity

Abbreviations used in this document

S: Strengths

W: Weaknesses

O: Opportunities

T: Threats

DG EAT: European Commission, Directorate General Education and Training

ECTS: European Credit Transfer System

KA1: Erasmus+ Key Action 1

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 281

NA: National Agency

3. Main questions to be addressed:

Introduction: Erasmus+ Key Action 1 supports mobility in the education, training and youth sectors and aims to bring long lasting benefits

to the participants and the organisations involved.

Which are your experiences with mobility in the education, training and youth sectors?

Suitable sample case?

Practical knowledge?

How has the implementation of Erasmus+ KA1 been initiated during the start phase 2014-2016?

Formal structure and actual practice of the interaction between NAs, DG EAT, Linkage to NA?

Relevant aspects of interaction between sectors?

Which aspects of the allocation of financial means may contribute to or inhibit the implementation of KA1? How has your institution in organisational

and financial aspects contributed positively or negatively to the implementation of Erasmus+ KA1?

eLearning and distance learning?

Budget issues?

Which new aspects, internal or external, will call for new initiatives, awareness, or political intervention?

Demands and suggestions for improvement?

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414

282

Which early knowledge about the realism of the official target figures (individual, institutional beneficiaries; regions; sectors) can be learned from that

experience?

4. Sectoral specific questions in Higher Education (to discussed where applicable – and answered with 1-3 words only)

International Credit Mobility (ECTS)?

Strategic potential?

Role of the Erasmus+ handbook?

Obstacles to mobilising professional and students?

How realistic are grant sizes and grant allocation mechanisms?

Immediate innovative effects?

Which knowledge do students have of the ideas of the Erasmus+ program and which aspects are perceived as most and less attractive?

Virtual mobility?

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414

283

How are Joint degrees programmes (Joint Masters, Joint PhDs) implemented?

Knowledge about EU loans to master students?

5. Sector-specific questions in the field of Education and Training (to discussed where applicable – and answered with 1-3 words only)

What is the role of the programme in the field of Education and Training?

How are the new and “old” aspects of Erasmus and Erasmus+ combined in the various EAT layers of KA1?

How are labour market needs assessed and integrated?

Virtual mobility?

How are educational and cross-sector issues integrated?

Which specific knowledge can be gathered about mobility of school staff?

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414

284

How are Sustainability Issues identified and addressed by projects and implemented?

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581.414

285

6. Sector-specific questions in the field of Youth (to discussed where applicable – and answered with 1-3 words only)

What is the role of the programme in the field of Youth?

How are the new and “old” aspects of Erasmus and Erasmus+ combined in the various EAT layers of KA1?

How are labour market needs assessed and integrated?

Virtual mobility?

How are educational and cross-sector issues integrated?

Which specific knowledge can be gathered about mobility of Youth staff?

How are Sustainability Issues identified and addressed by projects and implemented?

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414

286

7. Sector specific questions in the field of Adult Education (to discussed where applicable – and answered with 1-3 words only)

What is the role of the programme in the field of Adult Education?

How are the new and “old” aspects of Erasmus and Erasmus+ combined in the various EAT layers of KA1?

How are labour market needs assessed and integrated?

Virtual mobility?

How are educational and cross-sector issues integrated?

Which specific knowledge can be gathered about mobility of staff in adult education?

How are Sustainability Issues identified and addressed by projects and implemented?

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414 287

5. Panel interview WITH DG EAC: guiding questions

Research on The Implementation of The Erasmus+ Programme

(Regulation EU n

1288/2013)

Key Action 1 -

Learning mobility of individuals in the field of education, training and youth

DG EAC and EACEA Interview panel

Wednesday 4 may 2016, 10h00-13h00

Independent experts:

Daniel Apollon, University of Bergen, email: daniel.ap[email protected]

Thomas Köhler, Technical University Dresden, email: thomas.koehler@tu-dresden.de

Purpose of the research

The research will endeavour to assess the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and

threats that may shed light on the implementation of learning mobility of individuals in

the field of education, training and youth (Key Action 1).

Uses of the research

The independent experts appointed by the Directorate General for European Parliament

Research Services (D.G. EPRS) will formulate recommendations to the Culture and

Education parliamentary committee (CULT). These recommendations may be used by

the European Parliament as an input to a future larger evaluation of the Erasmus+

Programme.

Interview themes

A general interview grid is used in the project with other actors. This grid is provided

together as a separate document to provide information about field interviews to panel

participants. The present document presents a specific list of topics for this meeting. The

participants should however feel free to contribute with additional topics and

perspectives reflecting their current knowledge and understanding of the

implementation of Erasmus+.

Supporting documents

Supporting publicly available documents can be sent to Daniel.Apo[email protected], before,

under, and after the panel meeting. Confidential or restricted document should not be

sent.

Recommendations and ideas are welcome!

Participants are strongly encouraged to formulate recommendations for improving the

Erasmus+ Programme - Key Action 1

Key action 1 sub-actions to be covered during the panel

It is of paramount importance that, if possible, all sub-actions under Key Action 1 are

covered during the panel:

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581414

288

A. In the field of education and training:

1. Mobility of higher education students and staff (programme countries

and partner countries);

2. Mobility of VET learners and staff;

3. Mobility of school staff;

4. Mobility of adult education staff;

5. Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree;

6. Erasmus + Master Loans.

B. In the field of youth:

1. Mobility of young people and youth workers

C. Interaction between different sectors will also be examined.

Suggested questions for the panel exchanges

The panel will seek to provide insights, visions, recommendations, and where possible

supporting documents (to be provided later) covering the following non-exhaustive list

of questions:

1. Which objectives and targets of the programme are met or not met by 2016?

2. Which foreseen and unforeseen events, developments in Europe and elsewhere

call for changes in Key Action 1?

3. Does the delegation model of responsibilities to Implementing bodies (article 26 -

the Commission, National Authorities, and National Agencies) respond

optimally to the challenges met during implementation?

4. How does Key Action 1 enhance the mobility of individuals in the field of

education, training and youth?

5. How do the various mobility initiatives and tools under Key Action 1 contribute

to raise the knowledge and skills of beneficiaries of mobility grants?

6. How does the Key Action 1 help to promote multilingualism? How are various

challenges posed by the foreign language proficiency of mobility candidates met?

7. How does Key Action 1 help to develop e-skills? How is virtual mobility

integrated with physical mobility?

8. How satisfied with the Erasmus+ mobility programme and its implementation

are users? What would they change?

9. How do budget allocations and grant sizes influence of the quality of projects

and the volume of enrolment abroad?

10. How do different sectors of education and training and youth function interact

under Erasmus+?

11. How are labour market needs coordinated with mobility of individuals?

12. What evidence can be displayed suggesting that the programme foster

innovativeness?

13. How does the global dimension of the programme work?

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414

289

14. How satisfied with the Erasmus+ programme structure, delegation of

responsibilities, and its current functioning are national agencies, EACEA, and

DG EAC? What would they change?

15. Which groups are better or worse represented in the Erasmus+ rather than in

previous edition(s) of the programme, e.g. LLP?

16. Which advantages and disadvantages of novel aspects of the Erasmus+

Programme can be highlighted?

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414

291

Annex II

The Implementation of the Erasmus+

Programme – Cooperation for innovation

and the exchange of good practices in the field

of education, training and youth (Key Action 2)

Research paper

by Juha Kettunen

Abstract

This study assesses the implementation of the Key Action 2 of the Erasmus+ Programme.

A novel assessment tool is developed that extends the strategy map of the balanced

scorecard to the assessment of networked strategies and programmes. The assessment

map is used to assess Strategic Partnerships, Knowledge Alliances, Sector Skills Alliances

and Capacity Building. The results of this study emphasise the importance of clearly

describing the desired impact, using the right tools of financial control, defining efficient

processes and structures and applying high-quality skills and qualifications in the projects.

The results of this study are useful for those who want to improve the implementation

of the Erasmus+ Programme.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581414

292

AUTHOR

This study was written by Chancellor, Adjunct Professor Juha Kettunen of the Turku

University of Applied Sciences, at the request of the Ex-Post Impact Assessment Unit

of the Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value, within the

Directorate General for Parliamentary Research Services (DG EPRS) of the General

Secretariat of the European Parliament.

LINGUISTIC VERSIONS

Original: EN

DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and

do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.

Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided

the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.

Manuscript completed in June 2016

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414

293

Contents

Executive summary ........................................................................................................... 294

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 297

2. Assessment framework ................................................................................................... 299

3. Assessment of Key Action 2 ............................................................................................ 301

I – The assessment of the Erasmus+ Programme at the policy level ........................................ 301

II – The assessment of the Key Action 2 of the Erasmus+ Programme .................................... 304

III – The assessment of Strategic Partnerships...................................................................... 306

IV – The assessment of Knowledge Alliances........................................................................ 307

V – The assessment of Sector Skills Alliances ....................................................................... 309

V – The assessment of Capacity Building in the field of higher education................................ 311

VI – The assessment of Capacity Building in the field of youth .............................................. 313

4. Assessment of Erasmus+ projects .................................................................................... 315

I – Erasmus+ projects ........................................................................................................ 315

II – The CARPE-ESSENCE project of Strategic Partnerships ............................................... 315

III – The FINCODA project of Knowledge Alliances ............................................................ 318

IV – The INDOPED project of Capacity Building in the field of higher education................... 319

V – The SIVIM project of Capacity Building in the field of youth .......................................... 320

5. Discussion and results.................................................................................................... 321

6. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 326

References ......................................................................................................................... 330

Appendix 1. The questions about the Erasmus+ Programme ................................................. 333

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581414

294

Executive summary

This study develops a novel assessment tool, the assessment map, to analyse the

implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme. The assessment map is applied in this

study for networked strategies and programmes, because no single organisation is

responsible for implementing the Erasmus+ Programme. Another novel feature of the

tool is that it can be used not only for the communication and implementation of

strategies but also for the assessment of strategies and programmes to improve them in

the framework of quality assurance.

The assessment map is applied to the Erasmus+ Programme which aims to achieve the

smart, sustainable and inclusive growth of the Europe 2020 strategy. The assessment map

is also used to describe the objectives of the framework for European cooperation in the

youth field (2010-2018), the European dimension in sport, in particular grassroots sport,

in line with the EU Work Plan for Sport, European values in accordance with Article 2 of

the Treaty on European Union and the strategic framework for European cooperation in

education and training (ET2020), including the corresponding benchmarks.

At the level of the Erasmus+ Programme, the assessment map is applied to the Key

Action 2 “Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices” of the

Erasmus+ Programme. A detailed assessment is done for the actions a) Strategic

Partnerships in the field of education, training and youth, b) Knowledge Alliances, c)

Sector Skills Alliances and d) Capacity Building. The assessment supports the conclusion

that the Erasmus+ Programme has a balanced mix of objectives but many details can be

improved.

Strategic Partnerships of the Erasmus+ Programme focus on intermediate organisations

and do not necessarily define the external organisations where the impact could be

targeted. Knowledge Alliances action is the only one which has direct external impact

because at least two enterprises must participate in the projects. Sector Skills Alliances

can be specified so that the action emphasises the systematic and sophisticated procedure

to ensure the congruence of educational provision and the needs of a given economic

sector. Capacity Building in the field of higher education has external impact, because

projects should have multiplier effect not only in higher education institutions, but also

outside them. Capacity Building in the field of youth involves mobility activities which

have positive impact on employability and personal development.

The external impact of the activities can be increased by requiring educational

institutions and other intermediate organisations to collaborate with enterprises or other

customer organisations. Innovativeness can be improved by defining in the Erasmus+

Programme Guide that the innovations are improved or new processes, services and

products that are the desired outcomes from the impact perspective.

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414

295

Financial control can be used to promote specific political activities such as

multilingualism. Funding can be allocated to encourage innovations and good practices

to promote language teaching and learning. Unnecessary paperwork should be

eliminated to allocate more funding for the most important objectives of the projects. The

regulations about the equal amount of grant per day for each person should be

abandoned because they decrease the incentives of the participating organisations to use

high-quality and better paid workers.

The activities perspective could include processes and structures that help projects

achieve their desired impact. The activities should have evidence-based or otherwise

obvious impacts on the processes, services and products of enterprises or other customer

organisations. The activities should be based on a novel idea and its implementation

applied in a customer organisation. The dissemination and sustainability of the projects

can be ensured by existing and new permanent structures after the project lifetime.

The skills and qualifications needed in the activities should include a clear reference to

the European transparency and recognition tools and especially to the European

Qualifications Framework. The award criteria could also include relevant work

experience. In addition, a record of publications, pedagogical capacity and international

experience can be required in the award criteria.

An important advantage of the Erasmus+ Programme is that project proposals are

assessed by independent experts using the common eligibility and award criteria and

valid procedure. That is a valuable contribution compared to the many other funding

sources which allocate funding to specified target sectors or organisations using

traditional funding relationships. The award criteria of the Erasmus+ Programme can

improve applied research and development to promote innovations and export the novel

European knowledge and skills to Partner Countries.

The principle of continuous improvement that is already well-known in quality

assurance can be applied in the Erasmus+ Programme. The desired outcome of projects

can better be achieved by allocating more resources to the core substance of the projects

in order to achieve the strategic and programme objectives. Unnecessary paperwork

should be eliminated by the improved processes and distribution of work between the

National Agencies and the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

(EACEA). National funding control, greater autonomy and simpler rules such as the flat

rate and lump sum principles could help participating organisations focus on the desired

outputs of their projects.

The quality of projects can be strengthened by improving and re-engineering the

application process. More time can be allocated for the project preparation, adjusting the

usability of application forms, making necessary changes in the Erasmus+ Programme

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581414

296

Guide and improving the quality assurance of the projects. A web-based platform is

suggested in order to simplify the application, management, accounting and audit of

projects.

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414

297

1. Introduction

The European Union (EU) has developed networked cooperation between member

countries and independent participating organisations. The cooperation has led to the

planning of networked strategic plans and programmes to guide the future cooperation

of the network. The networked plan is different from the plan of a single organisation,

because there is no single body which owns the plan or is responsible for implementing,

assessing and improving it. The networked strategies and programmes aim to achieve

objectives that cannot be achieved by any single participating organisation.

A high degree of autonomy and professional discretion are characteristics of the

participating organisations implementing the Erasmus+ Programme. The autonomy of

universities is especially prominent and self-management has become more important

than ever. These characteristics, at the same time, emphasise the assessment and

accountability of the participating organisations. These organisations are accountable for

results and face expectations, which underline the need for a rational framework to assess

institutional strategic plans and performance.

This study on the implementation of the Key Action 2 of the Erasmus+ Programme is

based on Article 6.1 (b) and Article 12 (b) of the Regulation EU No 1288/2013. The study

is based on existing variety of documents and data, case studies, surveys and interviews.

Background information can be found in the annual work programmes for the

implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme.

276277278

Important Information can also be

found in the Erasmus+ Annual Report 2014

279

with the Annexes

280281

and the Erasmus+

Programme Guide

282

which is necessary for the project personnel.

Each project of the Erasmus+ Programme has particular merits that are related to its

impact, financial resources, activities and human capabilities. The assessment of the

Erasmus+ Programme is used to judge these merits and the implementation of the

programme. The assessment of the programme requires a framework and sensible

276

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/awp/docs/c_2013_8193.pdf

277

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/awp/docs/c_2014_6856_en.pdf

278

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/more_info/awp/docs/c-2015-6151.pdf

279

http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/statistics/erasmus-plus-annual-report_en.pdf

280

http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/statistics/ar-statistical-annex_en.pdf

281

http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/statistics/ar-projects-annex_en.pdf

282

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-

plus/sites/erasmusplus/files/files/resources/erasmus-plus-programme-guide_en.pdf

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581414

298

judgements on different objectives weighed against each other. The various objectives

should be aligned and balanced with each other so that the policy and programmes are

able to build bridges between the perceived present situation and the desired future

position described by the strategy and programme documents.

This purpose of this study is to assess the implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme in

order to improve the networked collaboration funded by the Programme. It is necessary

to create a general tool for the assessment of the Programme from different perspectives.

The assessment map is developed in this study to illustrate the objectives of the Europe

2020 strategy, the Erasmus+ Programme and other related programmes. This study

contributes especially to the assessment of the implementation of the Erasmus+

Programme, but the findings of the study are also useful for other similar purposes.

The novel framework is applied to the assessment of the Erasmus+ Programme at the

policy level which connects the Programme to the Europe 2020 strategy and to other

relevant programmes. At the more detailed level, Key Action 2, Cooperation for

innovation and the exchange of good practices, is assessed. Finally, the assessment

includes a) Strategic Partnerships, b) Knowledge Alliances, c) Sector Skills Alliances and

d) Capacity Building. The interaction between different sectors will also be examined.

A rational framework to assess the Erasmus+ Programme was found among the tools of

strategic planning because the Erasmus+ Programme aims to contribute to the

achievement of the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. Kaplan and Norton (2001,

2004) designed the balanced scorecard to communicate and implement the strategic plan.

The strategy map of the balanced scorecard is used to illustrate and make the strategic

plan understandable. It is evident that a similar approach can be used to assess the

implementation of the strategic plans and programmes. It is important to find a rational

framework to assess the performance of the Erasmus+ Programme. Otherwise the

evaluation is based on the subjective judgements of different people.

The assessment map can be used to examine the implementation of the strategic plan and

programmes across four perspectives, labelled in this case as impact, funding, activities

and skills and qualifications. The measures are balanced between the impact on

organisations and individuals, the financial steering and control, the processes and

structures and the capabilities that drive future performance. The assessment map

extends the financial control and action plans to the impact and skills and qualifications

necessary in knowledge economy. Therefore the approach is ideal for the assessment of

EU programmes.

The general approach for the planning and evaluation of networked strategies was

developed by Kettunen (2004, 2007, 2008). The efficient communication of policy

objectives is particularly important in a networked implementation of the plans. The

diverse backgrounds of participating organisations underline the need for enhanced

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414

299

communication. The assessment map developed in this study helps the personnel of the

projects and the funding bodies create a shared understanding about the policy objectives

and the implementation of the project.

The remainder of this study is set up as follows. The next chapter describes the

development of the assessment framework for the Erasmus+ Programme. The third

chapter includes the assessment of the Erasmus+ Programme at the policy level and the

detailed assessments of Key Action 2, Strategic Partnerships, Knowledge Alliances, Sector

Skills Alliances and Capacity Building. The fourth chapter describes the implementation

of the Erasmus+ projects. The following chapter offers results and discussion. The

concluding comments are presented in the final chapter.

2. Assessment framework

The balanced scorecard was developed to provide a framework for the communication

and implementation of the strategy. The scorecard translates the strategic plan into

objectives and balances them typically among four perspectives. The system of objectives

and measures should indicate the strategic plan through a sequence of relationships

between the performance drivers and desired outcomes. The assessment map follows

those guidelines in order to improve the implementation of the plan.

The perspectives of the assessment map can be written for the Erasmus+ Programme as

follows:

1. Impact. The impact perspective includes objectives that are the outcomes of past

efforts described in the activities perspective and reports on the outcomes achieved

for a better Europe and its regions.

2. Funding. The objectives of the funding perspective are prerequisites for the

activities. The perspective describes the funding of the Erasmus+ Programme.

3. Activities. The objectives of the activities perspective describe the processes and

structures needed to implement in the Erasmus+ Programme and achieve the

impact.

4. Skills and qualifications. This perspective emphasises investments in human

capital. The objectives of this perspective are the drivers for future performance

and describe the capabilities by which the activities create value for the Erasmus+

Programme.

The variations of these perspectives are necessary and sufficient in a wide variety of

organisations and networks. Typically, for-profit enterprises place the financial

perspective on the top of the hierarchy.

It is reasonable to apply the perspectives of the balanced scorecard to the assessment of

the implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme, because the assessment map is a

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581414

300

safeguard that the Programme includes all the necessary elements that can be described

and implemented in a balanced manner. The common framework is a prerequisite for the

successful assessment of the Programme. Without a proper framework, the assessment is

based on the personal experiences and beliefs about the implementation of the

programme.

The Erasmus+ Programme is analysed in this assessment using the causal chains of value

creation between the perspectives in the assessment map. The assessment map illustrates

the written strategy and policy documents in a graphical form similar to a road map. The

assessment map describes the main routes to the desired destinations but leaves out the

less important elements to focus the attention on the most important challenges and

achievements. The assessment map is essential in the knowledge society, because it

describes the activities for transforming intangible assets and financial resources into

tangible impacts among customers and regions.

The assessment map is a simple tool for illustrating and evaluating the Erasmus+

Programme. The description of the assessment map can be started in a top-down fashion

defining the desired objectives in the impact perspective. The description can begin by

asking, “What kind of impact does the Erasmus+ Programme provide for the customers

and regions? Are there any clearly defined objectives?” The general strategic objectives of

the Erasmus+ Programme – smart, sustainable and inclusive growth - can be found in the

Europe 2020 strategy, but more detailed objectives can be found in the Erasmus+

Programme.

The questions in the funding perspective are, “What is the funding for the

implementation of the strategic plan and the programmes? Are there any clearly

articulated tools of financial control? The objectives of the funding perspective include

the funding of the Erasmus+ Programme that is used to finance the processes and

structures in the activities perspective. Applicants must have stable and sufficient sources

of funding to maintain their activity throughout the period during which the activities

are carried out. The participating organisations of the projects provide additional

funding, because the funding of the Programme cannot cover all the costs of planning

and carrying out the projects. Cost-efficiency is linked to external funding and is a main

objective of higher education institutions and other participating organisations.

The core of the strategy is in the activities. Regarding the core of the strategy and

programmes, one must ask, “What has to be done and described in the activities

perspective, and what are the objectives?” At the core of the Erasmus+ Programme are

the activities of the Programme, the objectives of the European cooperation in the youth

field (2010-2018), the European Union work plan for sport and the European values of

how the activities are performed. The achievement of these objectives also supports the

European Union’s attempts to meet the objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive

growth.

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414

301

The last question is, “What kinds of skills and qualifications are required to achieve the

objectives in the activities perspective?” This perspective encompasses the skills and

qualifications of the Erasmus+ Programmes and the strategic framework for European

cooperation in education and training (ET2020), including the corresponding

benchmarks

283

. These objectives describe the driving forces to achieve the objectives in

the activities perspective and finally in the impact perspective.

The Erasmus+ Programme adapts its financial resources and detailed annual work

programmes to the changing environment. As the environment changes, learning takes

place and the participating organisations achieve their targets, the Erasmus+ Programme

is periodically updated in the work programmes. There are no exact and direct measures

indicating the achievement of strategic objectives, but the gaps can be assessed in the

planning of the work programme.

The networked strategy and the programmes are shared to achieve synergy across

otherwise autonomous organisations. The Europe 2020 strategy includes a statement that

“the Commission proposes that EU goals are translated into the national targets and

trajectories.” This principle can be extended to the strategies of the participating

organisations of projects to achieve commitment to a common European strategy. Each

participating organisation can define its own strategic themes, objectives, measures and

performance targets and include a European dimension in its strategy for seeing how it

contributes to the high-level European strategy. It is also important to commit the

participating individuals of the Erasmus+ projects to the European strategy.

3. Assessment of Key Action 2

I – The assessment of the Erasmus+ Programme at the policy level

The clearly articulated objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and Erasmus+ Programme

describe the direction and future of Europe and help its countries, organisations and

individuals understand their roles in supporting the European policy. The Erasmus+

Programme describes the dynamic actions needed for the participating organisations to

make the transition from the present situation to the desired future position described by

the policy objectives. The implementation of the programme adapts to the changing

environment, evolves over time and follows the policy objectives.

According to the Erasmus+ Programme Guide, the Programme aims to contribute to the

achievement of

283

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-framework/index_en.htm

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581414

302

• the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, including the headline education target

• the objectives of the strategic framework for European cooperation in education

and training (ET2020), including the corresponding benchmarks

• the sustainable development of Partner Countries in the field of higher education

• the overall objectives of the renewed framework for European cooperation in the

youth field (2010-2018)

• the objective of developing the European dimension in sport, in particular

grassroots sport, in line with the EU work plan for sport

• the promotion of European values in accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty on

European Union.

The sustainable development of Partner Countries in the field of higher education is

defined in the annual work programme for the implementation of the Erasmus+

Programme.

Many of the objectives of the Erasmus+ Programme have been defined in other

documents. Therefore the funding of the Erasmus+ Programme can be directly linked to

the achievement of the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, frameworks and other

documents. Enterprises and other organisations measure the achievement of their

strategic objectives by indicators and the progress of development projects. In the

Erasmus+ Programme, the achievement of the objectives can be measured by the self-

assessments reports of projects.

Figure 1 depicts the assessment map of the Erasmus+ Programme at the policy level. The

Erasmus+ Programme is committed to the objectives and targets of the Europe 2020

strategy, which comprise three mutually reinforcing priorities: smart, sustainable and

inclusive growth. The European Commission has put forward seven flagship initiatives

to catalyse progress under each priority theme. The flagship initiatives are “Innovation

Union”, “Youth on the move”, “A digital agenda for Europe”, “Resource-efficient

Europe”, “An industrial policy for the globalisation era”, “An agenda for new skills and

jobs” and “European platform against poverty” (Europe 2020, A European strategy for

smart, sustainable and inclusive growth).

The funding perspective includes financial levers which are mobilised to break

bottlenecks and deliver the Europe 2020 goals. The grants, procurements, budgets and

other arrangements are described in the annual work programmes of the Erasmus+

Programme. Detailed information on financial control can be found in the funding rules

of the Erasmus+ Programme Guide.

The activities perspective covers the processes and structures funded by the Erasmus+

Programme: “Key Action 1, Learning mobility of individuals”, “Key Action 2,

Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices”, “Key Action 3, Support

for policy reform”, “Jean Monnet Activities” and “Sport”. The activities perspective

includes also the sustainable development of Partner Countries in the field of higher

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414

303

education, the overall objectives of the renewed framework for European cooperation in

the youth field (2010-2018) and the objective of developing the European dimension in

sport, in particular grassroots sport, in line with the EU Work Plan for Sport. The

European values describe the ethical principles that govern how the actions are

performed to achieve the strategic objectives.

The skills and qualifications perspective includes the capabilities necessary in the

implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme and the objectives of the strategic

framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET2020), including the

corresponding benchmarks. These skills and qualifications are prerequisites and

contribute to the achievement of the objectives in the activities perspective.

The assessment supports the conclusion that the written plans provide a balanced mix of

objectives. There are reasonable objectives in all the perspectives. Another remark is that

reasonable causal linkages can be drawn between the perspectives. Following the

principle of continuous improvement in quality assurance, there is, however, always

room for improvement, especially in the activities perspective.

Figure 1. The assessment map of the Erasmus+ Programme at the policy level

• The impact of the Erasmus+ Programme

• Smart, sustainable and inclusive growth of the Europe 2020 strategy

• The funding of the Erasmus+ Programme

• Activities of the Erasmus+ Programme

• The sustainable development of Partner Countries in the field of higher education

• The overall objectives of the renewed framework for European

cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018)

• The objective of developing the European dimension in sport, in particular

grassroots sport, in line with the EU Work Plan for Sport

• The promotion of European values in accordance

with Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union

• The skills and qualifications of the Erasmus+ Programme

• The objectives of the strategic framework for European cooperation

in education and training (ET2020), including the corresponding benchmarks

Impact

Funding

Activities

Skills and

qualifications

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581414

304

II – The assessment of the Key Action 2 of the Erasmus+ Programme

Figure 2 depicts the assessment map of the Key Action 2 of the Erasmus+ Programme.

The impact perspective describes the indirect and direct impact of Key Action 2 on the

desired target. Alternatively one could define the external impact on the organisations

and individuals outside the intermediate organisations in the assessment map. In this

study, the term ‘impact’ is used instead of ‘external impact’ because most of the impacts

of Key Action 2 target the intermediate organisations.

There must be a strong linkage between the funding objectives and the objectives of the

activities perspective. Funding is a prerequisite for the activities, but by the same token,

cost-efficiency is required in the processes. The Erasmus+ Programme is implemented

through 1) grants, 2) procurements, 3) financial instruments and 4) other actions.

To achieve the strategic objectives, Key Action 2 supports Strategic Partnerships,

Knowledge Alliances, Sector Skills Alliances, Capacity Building and IT support

platforms. To achieve the objectives and policy priorities, general and specific calls for

proposals are published by the European Commission or by the Executive Agency. Each

year a general call for proposals of grants is published. The general call for proposals for

the implementation of the Erasmus+ Programme makes reference to a Programme Guide

for practical information. The work programme also includes the actions that will be

implemented, mostly by public procurement procedures via calls for tenders or the use of

existing framework contracts. The management of the student loan guarantee facility is

entrusted to the European Investment Fund. Other instruments are used to support the

accreditation processes in the field of higher education, vocational education and training

(VET) and youth in order to ensure the general quality framework for European and

international cooperation activities.

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414

305

Figure 2. The assessment map of Key Action 2: Cooperation for innovation and the

exchange of good practices

• The impact of the Erasmus+ Programme

• The funding of the Erasmus+ Programme

• Strategic Partnerships

• Knowledge Alliances

• Sector skills Alliances

• Capacity Building in the field of higher education

• Capacity Building in the field of youth

Impact

Funding

Activities

Skills and

qualifications

• The skills and qualifications of the Erasmus+ Programme

The skills and qualifications perspective includes the skills and qualifications of the

Erasmus+ Programme defined in each action. The Erasmus+ Programme clearly

emphasises the importance of skills and qualifications which have indirect but

nonetheless important effects on the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth of the

Europe 2020 strategy.

The following sections assess the Strategic Partnerships, Knowledge Alliances, Sector

Skills Alliances and Capacity Building. The assessments are conducted using the

information on the Erasmus+ Programme Guide, which is a document for the

implementation of the Erasmus+ projects. The information on the activities supported

and the eligibility and award criteria are used to assess the implementation of the

Erasmus+ Programme.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581414

306

III – The assessment of Strategic Partnerships

Strategic Partnerships aim to develop initiatives addressing one or more fields of

education, training and youth and promote innovation, exchange of experience and

know-how between different types of organisations in education, training and youth or

other relevant fields. Certain mobility activities are supported insofar as they contribute

to the objectives of the project. Figure 3 depicts the assessment map of Strategic

Partnerships.

The impact perspective includes “the potential impact of the project outside the

organisations and individuals directly participating in the project, at local, regional,

national and/or European levels.” The statement does not clearly state the prerequisites

or require the external impact of projects on the organisations and individuals outside the

participating organisations. The impact could be expressed in a more straightforward

manner and targeted at enterprises, other organisations and individuals outside

education institutions and other intermediate organisations to maximise their external

impact.

The funding perspective is limited, because Strategic Partnerships have only one funding

statement: “The extent to which the project is cost-effective and allocates appropriate

resources to each activity.” The funding perspective has potential as a steering

instrument and relevance to achieve the core objectives in the activities perspective but it

has primarily been left for the discretion of participating organisations following the

funding rules.

The activities perspective has plenty of opportunities for the intermediate organisations,

but only one of these opportunities is linked with the regional authorities. The long list of

activities is reasonable, because the essence to achieve the desired outcomes of projects is

in the activities. Each participating organisation should focus on its strengths, which are

the bases for the clear division of labour and the avoidance of overlapping activities.

The skills and qualifications perspective emphasises that “the project involves an

appropriate mix of complementary participating organisations with the necessary profile,

experience and expertise to successfully deliver all aspects of the project”. The

experiences from the Consortium on Applied Research and Professional Education

(CARPE) (www.carpenetwork.org), however, emphasise the importance of the similar

fields of education in the member institutions of the strategic partnership, because they

favour student and staff exchange, joint educational programmes and collaboration in

research and development projects (Kettunen, 2015 a-e, 2016 a-c). This cross-fertilisation

can be done within the participating organisations. The skills and qualifications

perspective could include an explicit reference to the European transparency and

recognition tools and especially the European Qualifications Framework. In addition, the

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414

307

relevant work experience of the project personnel could be an advantage in the award

criteria.

Figure 3. The assessment map of Strategic Partnerships

• The potential impact of the project outside the organisations and individuals directly

participating in the project, at local, regional, national and/or European levels

• The extent to which the project is cost-effective and allocates appropriate

resources to each activity

• Activities that strengthen the cooperation and networking between organisations

• Testing and/or implementation of innovative practices

• Recognition and validation of knowledge, skills and competences

• Cooperation between regional authorities

• Disabilities/special needs

• Segregation and discrimination

• Equity, diversity and inclusion

• Promote the integration of refugees, asylum seekers and newly arrived migrants

• Active citizenship and entrepreneurship (including social entrepreneurship)

Impact

Funding

Activities

Skills and

qualifications

• The project involves an appropriate mix of complementary participating

organisations with the necessary profile, experience and expertise to successfully

deliver all aspects of the project

IV – The assessment of Knowledge Alliances

Knowledge Alliances between higher education institutions and enterprises foster

innovation, entrepreneurship, creativity, employability, knowledge exchange and/or

multidisciplinary teaching and learning. Ten projects were funded (a 4% success rate)

due to the limited budget of 8.4 million euro and high demand across the programme

countries in 2014. The low success rate has a potential impact on the long-term

motivation of future applicants. At least in part, the success rate can be increased by

having smaller project sizes. Figure 4 depicts the assessment map of Knowledge

Alliances.

The impact perspective shows “societal and economic relevance and outreach”. The

Knowledge Alliances action clearly promotes external impact, because “at least two

enterprises” must be involved in the projects. An important award criterion is that the

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581414

308

proposal provides “pertinent measures to monitor progress and assess the expected

impact”. The impacts of the action have to be measurable. The external impact is clearly

the strength of Knowledge Alliances action compared with Strategic Partnerships, Sector

Skill Alliances and Capacity Building actions that could have the requirement of

enterprises or other customer organisations in their award criteria in the future.

The funding perspective includes a statement of “the appropriate allocation of resources

to each activity”. The proposal should allocate sufficient amount of funding to the core

substance to achieve the main objectives as well as possible. The funding perspective

also includes a statement: “Quality and financial control: specific measures for evaluation

of processes and deliverables ensure that the project implementation is of high-quality

and cost-efficient.” Quality is unnecessarily combined with financial control because

quality is primarily associated with activities. Cost-efficiency is necessary and it should

be achieved especially in the secondary activities which are less important in relation to

the primary objectives of the external impact according to the lean management

principles (Trent, 2007).

The activities of the Programme Guide include “boosting innovation in higher education,

business and in the broader socio-economic environment” that includes new learning

and teaching methods, curricula, continuing education and development in higher

education. The activities of the Programme Guide include the phrase “developing

entrepreneurship mind-set and skills” that includes various forms of entrepreneurship

education. The statement “stimulating the flow and exchange of knowledge between

higher education and enterprises” covers various forms of outreaching and engagement

with regional development. The activities clearly strengthen the external impact.

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414

309

Figure 4. The assessment map of Knowledge Alliances

• The societal and economic relevance and outreach

• At least two higher education institutions and at least two enterprises

• Pertinent measures to monitor progress and assess the expected impact

• The appropriate allocation of resources to each activity

• Quality and financial control: specific measures for evaluation of processes and

deliverables ensure that the project implementation is of high quality and cost-efficient

• Boosting innovation in higher education, business and in the broader

socio-economic environment

• Developing entrepreneurship mind-set and skills

• Stimulating the flow and exchange of knowledge between higher education

and enterprises

Impact

Funding

Activities

Skills and

qualifications

• An appropriate mix of higher education and business partners with

the necessary profiles, skills, experience, expertise and management support

required for its successful realisation

The performance drivers in the skills and qualifications perspective should communicate

the capabilities necessary to achieve the objectives in the activities perspective and finally

in the impact perspective. The skills and qualifications perspective includes “the

necessary profiles, skills, experience, expertise and management support” of higher

education institutions and their business partners. Applicants must have the professional

skills and qualifications required to complete the proposed activities. These skills and

qualifications are not, however, specified in detail. The necessary skills and qualifications

can be described by relevant education using the European Qualifications Framework

and experience with enterprises.

V – The assessment of Sector Skills Alliances

Sector Skills Alliances support the design and delivery of joint vocational training

curricula, programmes and teaching and training methodologies, drawing on evidence of

trends in a specific economic sector and skills needed in order to perform in one or more

professional fields. Figure 5 depicts the assessment map of Sector Skills Alliances.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581414

310

The impact of the proposal should show “societal and economic relevance and outreach”.

The impact perspective clearly indicates the exploitation of Sector Skills Alliances,

because the award criteria stipulate that “the proposal demonstrates how the outcomes of

the Alliance will be used by the participating organisations and other stakeholders”. The

results and solutions should be transferable and accessible to a broader audience.

The funding perspective indicates that “the budget provides appropriate resources

necessary for success and it is neither overestimated nor underestimated”, which is a

rather general criterion for activities but do not provide accurate financial steering or

guidelines for achieving the most important objectives of the project. The funding

perspective indicates also that “financial and quality control measures and quality

indicators ensure that the project implementation is high-quality and cost-efficient”,

which contains a redundant connection of financial control and quality assurance.

The activities perspective includes “Sector Skills Alliances for skills needs identification”

and the “design and delivery of VET”. The activities are tailored to meet the needs of

specific economic sectors. Lots 1 and 2 focus on the skills and qualifications, but

prominently not to the systematic procedure to make sure that the educational provision

meets the needs of a given specific economic sector. Such a procedure could include

processes and structures used to monitor and develop the curricula. The close

cooperation of participating organisations is essential to plan and carry out projects. With

the help of the network, each participating organisation can supplement its capabilities

needed in the project. The Annual Report 2014 reveals that many applicants did not

understand the action which should have well-defined processes and structures to

achieve the objectives. Even though the 2015 Programme Guide provided clarification,

there is still room for improvement because they do not clearly describe the needed

activities nor do they describe the essential skills and qualifications for the projects.

The objective of the skills and qualifications perspective is to develop capabilities among

the personnel of Sector Skills Alliances. The perspective makes special mention of “digital

and green skills”. The perspective also emphasises the importance of “the expertise and

competences required in the skills identification and anticipations, skills supply, and

skills policy issues more generally”. In addition, the perspective states that “the

coordination shows high-quality management and coordination of transnational

networks and leadership in complex environment”. Applicants’ misunderstanding or

confusion can be prevented by a clearer definition of skills and qualifications with a

reference to the European transparency and recognition tools and to the relevant work

experience needed in this action.

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414

311

Figure 5. The assessment map of Sector Skills Alliances

• The proposal shows societal and economic relevance and outreach

• The proposal demonstrates how the outcomes of the Alliance

will be used by the partners and other stakeholders

• The budget provides for appropriate resources necessary for success,

it is neither overestimated nor underestimated

• Financial and quality control measures and quality indicators ensure that

the project implementation is of high quality and cost-efficient

• Lot 1: Sector Skills Alliances for skills needs identification

− Defining skills and training provision need in a given specific economic sector

• Lot 2: Sector Skills Alliances for design and delivery of VET

− Designing European vocational core curricula

− Delivering European vocational core curricula

Impact

Funding

Activities

Skills and

qualifications

• Digital and green skills

• The expertise and competences required in the skills identification and anticipations,

skills supply, and skills policy issues more generally

• The coordination shows high quality management and coordination of transnational

networks and leadership in complex environment

V – The assessment of Capacity Building in the field of higher

education

Capacity Building supports cooperation with the Partner Countries of the European

Union in the fields of higher education and youth. Capacity-building projects aim to

support organisations and systems in their modernisation and internationalisation.

Certain types of Capacity-building projects support mobility activities insofar as they

contribute to the objectives of the project. Figure 6 depicts the assessment map of

Capacity Building in the field of higher education.

The impact perspective includes the statement that the project will have “a substantial

impact on the capacities of participating organisations, in particular on the development

and modernisation of higher education” to open them to society, labour market and

international cooperation. In addition, “the project will produce multiplier effects outside

the participating organisations at local/regional/national or international level”. The

impact of the projects is measured by indicators. The action clearly has external impact,

because the projects should have multiplier effects not only in higher education

institutions, but also outside of them.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581414

312

The funding perspective includes the statement that “the project is cost-effective and

allocates appropriate resources to each activity”. Meagre resources should be earmarked

to achieve the core objectives of the project. The funding perspective also states that “the

overall project design ensures consistency between project objectives, methodology,

activities and budget proposed”. The financial criteria are scarce but detailed information

can be found in the separate tables of personnel costs which indicate the daily funding

amounts for each person. These funding tables seem to distort the use of high-skilled

labour force in the projects, because it is not profitable for participating organisations to

use high-skilled and high-salary staff in the projects.

The activities perspective includes a wide variety of “joint and structural projects”, which

offers a great deal of flexibility in terms of the activities that a Capacity-building project

can implement. Capacity Building supports “student and staff mobility” which is also

supported by Key Action 1. The Capacity-building network identifies how the activities

of separate higher education institutions and other participating organisations can be

combined to create synergies and value added on the capabilities of the participating

organisations in Partner Countries.

Figure 6. The assessment map of Capacity Building in the field of higher education

• Substantial impact on the capacities of participating organisations,

in particular on the development and modernisation of higher education

• The project will produce multiplier effects outside the participating organisations

at local/regional/national or international level

• The project is cost-effective and allocates appropriate resource to each activity

• The overall project design ensures consistency between project objectives,

methodology, activities and budget proposed

• Joint projects

• Structural projects

• Student mobility

• Staff mobility

Impact

Funding

Activities

Skills and

qualifications

• The project team has the necessary skills, experience, expertise and management

support to successfully deliver all aspects of the project

• Where relevant, the project also includes the most appropriate and diverse

range of non-academic partners, in order to benefit from their different experiences,

profiles and specific expertise

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414

313

The skills and qualifications perspective emphasises that “the project team has the

necessary skills, experience, expertise and management support to successfully deliver all

aspects of the project”. The skills and qualifications could be described in terms of

advanced degrees, publications, pedagogical capacity and international experience using

the European transparency and recognition tools. It also emphasises that “where

relevant, the project includes the most appropriate and diverse range of non-academic

partners, in order to benefit from their different experiences, profiles and specific

expertise.” The latter statement may remain ambiguous. The use of the European

Qualifications Framework, international experience and other relevant work experience

is recommended.

VI – The assessment of Capacity Building in the field of youth

Capacity-building projects in the field of youth aim to foster cooperation and exchanges

between Programme and Partner Countries. They also aim to improve the quality and

recognition of youth work, non-formal learning and volunteering in Partner Countries.

The projects foster the development, testing and launching schemes and programmes of

non-formal learning mobility and promote transnational non-formal learning mobility,

especially for young people with fewer opportunities. The projects can also involve

organisations from the fields of education and training, as well as from other socio-

economic sectors. Figure 7 depicts the assessment map of Capacity Building in the field of

youth.

According to the impact statement: “The potential impact of the project on participants

and participating organisations, during and after the project lifetime and outside the

organisations and individuals directly participating in the project, at local, regional,

national and/or international levels.” The statement is rather general and it can be made

more precise using the innovation concept. The impact perspective could define how the

activities of the projects improve or create innovations defined by new processes, services

or products (Christensen, 1997; Tidd, Bessant and Pavitt, 2001).

The funding perspective also asserts that “the existence and relevance of quality control

measures to ensure that the project implementation is of high quality, completed in time

and on budget.” Quality control is insufficiently connected with the budget. The funding

perspective also includes the statement: “the extent to which the project is cost-effective

and allocates appropriate resources to each activity.” The financial steering could

incorporate some guidelines on where to allocate most of the funding to reach the

objectives in the projects and achieve cost-efficiency.

The activities perspective has a long list described in the Erasmus+ Programme Guide.

“Capacity-building activities” are planned to have an impact on project participants and

participating organisations. “Mobility activities” include youth exchanges, European

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581414

314

Voluntary Service between eligible Partner Countries and the mobility of youth workers.

Mobility activities have positive impact, because transnational mobility for the purpose

of acquiring new skills is one of the fundamental ways in which young people can

strengthen both their future employability and their personal development (European

Commission Green Paper: Promoting the learning mobility of young people)

284

Figure 7. The assessment map of Capacity Building in the field of youth

• The potential impact of the project on participants and participating organisations,

during and after the project lifetime and outside the organisations and individuals

directly participating in the project, at local, regional, national and/or international

levels.

• The existence and relevance of quality control measures to ensure that the project

implementation is of high quality, completed in time and on budget.

• The extent to which the project is cost-effective and allocates appropriate resources

to each activity.

Impact

Funding

Activities

Skills and

qualifications

• The quality of arrangements for the recognition and validation of participants'

learning outcomes as well as the consistent use of European transparency and

recognition tools.

• The project involves an appropriate mix of complementary participating

organisations with the necessary profile, experience and expertise to successfully

deliver all aspects of the project.

• Capacity building activities

• Mobility activities

The skills and qualifications perspective contains an excellent and clearly defined

statement that is also applicable to other actions: “The quality of arrangements for the

recognition and validation of participants' learning outcomes as well as the consistent use

of European transparency and recognition tools.” The other statement is: “The project

involves an appropriate mix of complementary participating organisations with the

necessary profile, experience and expertise to successfully deliver all aspects of the

project.” It does not, however, define the experience required of participants.

Strategic Partnerships, Knowledge Alliances, Sector Skills Alliances and Capacity

Building actions are relatively balanced, including reasonable strategic objectives in the

perspectives of the assessment map. Most of them have aligned their funding and human

284

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Aef0017

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414

315

resources with the activities to achieve the desired objectives in the impact perspective. It

can be concluded that the remarkable share of their contents is in the activities

perspective, which is the essence of the projects. A notable share of the contents is also in

the skills and qualifications perspective which describes the drivers of the activities.

Many objectives and the linkages between the perspectives can be, however, be more

explicitly stated to better achieve their desired impacts.

4. Assessment of Erasmus+ projects

I – Erasmus+ projects

This chapter presents four Erasmus+ projects: the CARPE-ESSENCE project of Strategic

Partnerships, the FINCODA project of Knowledge Alliances and the INDOPED project of

Capacity Building in the field of higher education and the SIVIM project of Capacity

Building in the field of youth

285

II – The CARPE-ESSENCE project of Strategic Partnerships

The HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht (Hogeschool Utrecht) and the Turku

University of Applied Sciences (Turun ammattikorkeakoulu) started to plan the

Consortium on Applied Research and Professional Education (CARPE) in 2008 and the

strategic partnership agreement was signed in November 2011. The Polytechnic

University of Valencia (Universitat Politècnica de València), the Hamburg University of

Applied Sciences (Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften Hamburg) and the

Manchester Metropolitan University joined as members of the consortium (Kettunen,

285

The author acknowledges the helpful information provided by the project personnel, especially

Ms. Piia Nurmi, Ms. Jenni Suominen and Mr. Harri Lappalainen from the Turku University of

Applied Sciences.

Key findings

 Strategic Partnerships, Sector Skills Alliances and Capacity Building in the

field of higher education may focus only on the intermediate organisations

and are not explicitly targeted to achieve external impact on organisations

and individuals.

 Knowledge Alliances outreach and engage directly with the region and

society outside the intermediate institutions because the participating

organisations include at least two enterprises.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581414

316

2015a-e, 2016a-c). The CARPE-ESSENCE project implements the idea of creating Strategic

Partnership extremely well because the institutions had established a permanent strategic

partnership before the project.

286

The experiences with the CARPE partnership and its

permanent structure ensure the real sustainability of the project after the project lifetime.

The members of the strategic partnership articulated the rationale of their close

cooperation with each other rather than having each institution operating as an isolated

entity with its own self-governing activities. The objectives of the network are 1)

exchange and collaboration in European research programmes, 2) the development of

joint study programmes, 3) the exchange of students and staff and 4) establishment of a

strong European reputation.

The similar fields of education favour student and staff exchange, joint educational

programmes and research and development projects in the strategic partnerships of

higher education institutions. The institutions are intermediate organisations that support

the success of enterprises in international trade and the other organisations in their

international activities. International trade was an important motivation for the

geographical coverage of the network, because Europe is an important market for the

export enterprises of the countries where the institutions of CARPE are located.

It was also fairly straightforward for the institutions to commit to their strategic

partnership, because the partnership supports the European economic and social

cohesion in the common market. An additional motivation was the funding from the

European Union for student and staff exchange and research and development projects.

The responsible people of CARPE think that the collaboration creates shared value that

cannot be otherwise achieved in a cost-efficient manner. Another advantage of the

CARPE network is that each member institution is committed to the EU-funded projects

and exchange.

The Erasmus+ Programme aims to promote cross-fertilisation among fields. Also the

requirements of the regional development do not follow the subjects or degree

programmes of higher education institutions. This cross-fertilisation has been seen at the

Turku University of Applied Sciences and many other institutions with multi-

disciplinary faculties and activities. Excellent examples can be found also in Aalto

University and Stanford University, which combine engineering and business education

with design following the innovation process of enterprises.

The strategic CARPE network was used to apply the Strategic Partnership funding of the

Erasmus+ Programme for the project titled CARPE European Sustainable Solutions for

Existing and New City Environments (CARPE-ESSENCE). HU University of Applied

Sciences Utrecht is the coordinator of the project (2014-2017). The list of the participating

286

http://husite.nl/essence/

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414

317

organisations of the CARPE-ESSENCE project includes all member institutions of the

CARPE network. The cities of Alcoi, Turku and Utrecht also participate in the project.

CARPE-ESSENCE uses Open Educational Resources (OERs) that are any type of

educational materials placed in a public domain or introduced with an open license

(Bozkurt et al., 2015). Anyone can legally and freely copy, use, adapt and re-share the

material placed on the platform. OERs can be lecture notes, assignments, textbooks or

any other educational material used for teaching, learning, assessing or research. Each

higher education institution prepares courses for OER based on its own expertise and

interest in the course topics.

The project proposal includes an international Sustainable City Competition for Students

held in Alcoi, Turku and Utrecht in combination with an intensive learning programme.

The competition challenges students to develop viable action plans for making cities

more sustainable. Groups of international students adopt a city for which they develop

smart sustainable solutions under the supervision of teachers. The competitors

endeavour to find real solutions for the challenges commissioned by the cities. The

assignments of the cities will remain a permanent practice after the project.

The project proposals include also an intensive programme for teachers. The programmes

consist of personnel training on blended learning (Littlejohn and Pegler, 2007; Nordberg,

Dziuban and Moskal, 2011; Moskal, Dziuban and Hartmen, 2013; Taylor and Newton,

2013) in Valencia and creative solution searching in Turku. Several events are organised

to share the intellectual outputs with a wider audience. These multiplier events include

an International Conference on Blended Learning and Open Educational Resources in

Valencia, the International Smart Sustainable Cities Event in the Skanssi Area in Turku

and the Conference on Creating Smart Sustainable Cities in Utrecht.

Special attention of the project is paid to entrepreneurship and encouragement to develop

start-up enterprises. Higher education institutions formulate business models and

develop entrepreneurship via an international Start-Up Competition for Students using a

pressure cooker model (Schoenmaker, Verlaan and Hertogh, 2015) during the Smart City

Bootcamp in Manchester. Local authorities explore the causes of the lack of

entrepreneurship in their regions and come up with new solutions for sustainable

challenges.

Key findings

 The CARPE-ESSENCE project of Strategic Partnerships effectively promotes

sustainability in the higher education institutions, student enterprises and

municipalities in different parts of Europe with e-learning and e-skills.

 The similar fields of education favour the strategic partnerships of higher education

institutions, but institutions can generate cross-fertilisation by their structures and

processes.

 The project exchanges, investigates and tests the best practices of innovative

teaching approaches, develops a joint international course programme on creating

sustainable cities and delivers the outcomes using Open Educational Resources.

 The project promotes entrepreneurship and encourages students to establish start-

up enterprises.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581414

318

III – The FINCODA project of Knowledge Alliances

This section applies the strategic partnerships of higher education institutions to

Knowledge Alliances where enterprises have an important role. The project presented in

this section contributes to the objectives of the strategic framework for European

cooperation in education and training (ET2020). The project implements the strategic

objective 2 (“Improving the quality and efficiency of education and training”) and

strategic objective 4 (“Enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship,

at all levels of education and training”).

287

This section presents the project titled “Framework for Innovation Competencies

Development and Assessment” (FINCODA), which utilises and develops innovation

pedagogy (Kettunen, 2009, 2011) based on the socio-cultural theory and the constructivist

view of learning (Vygotsky, 1978; Piaget, 2001).

288

The project is funded by the Erasmus+

Programme and it belongs to the Knowledge Alliances of Key Action 2, Cooperation for

innovation and the exchange of the good practices. The project is being carried out in

2014-2017.

The Turku University of Applied Sciences is the coordinator of the FINCODA project.

Other participating institutions are the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, the HU

University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, the Manchester Metropolitan University and the

Polytechnic University of Valencia. Participating organisations include Elomatic Ltd,

Hamburger Hafen und Logistik AG, Lactoprot Deutschland GmbH, European Computer

Driving Licence Foundation Limited, ECDL Foundation, John Caunt Scientific Ltd, Carter

& Corson Partnership Ltd, Celestica Valencia SA and Schneider Electric España SA. The

FINCODA project meets the requirement of involving at least six independent

organisations from at least three Programme Countries, of which at least two are higher

education institutions and at least two are enterprises.

Innovation pedagogy extends the Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes

(AHELO) initiative of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD). AHELO addresses the generic and discipline-specific skills based on the US

Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) test (Kettunen, Kairisto-Mertanen and Penttilä,

2013). While AHELO is based on written performance, the real-life innovations typically

take place in interaction among several people. Therefore the FINCODA project aims to

develop a tool for assessing people’s performance in authentic innovation processes.

287

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52009XG0528(01)

288

http://www.fincoda.eu/

Impentlemation of the Erasmus+ Programme (Regulation EU No 1288/2013)

PE 581.414

319

The theory of constructive alignment (Biggs and Tang, 2011) is used to define objectives

that are aligned with the methods of learning and finally with the assessment of learning

outcomes. Higher education institutions are expected to increase their external impact on

their environment with innovation competence. They have organised higher education

and developed adequate educational methods of achieving the desired objectives. The

development gap exists in the assessment of innovation competence.

The project develops a novel INCODE barometer by utilising the Innovation

Competencies Barometer (ICB) that was developed in 2011-2013 (Watts, García-

Carbonell, Andreu-Andrés, Stange and Helker, 2013; Räsänen, 2014). This FINCODA

project will expand the use of INCODE barometer into companies and increase the

knowledge in behaviour-based assessment in universities and enterprises. The project

also produces Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) for INCODE barometer and

behaviour assessment.

IV – The INDOPED project of Capacity Building in the field of higher

education

This section presents the project “Modernizing Indonesian Higher Education with Tested

European Pedagogical Practices” (INDOPED).

289

The project is funded by the Erasmus+

Programme and belongs to Capacity Building in the field of higher education of Key

Action 2, Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices. The project is

being carried out in 2015-2018. The INDOPED project is an excellent example of how the

modernisation and internationalisation of higher education can be implemented in

Partner Countries to have a substantial impact on the capabilities of participating

organisations, society, labour market and international cooperation.

289

http://www.indoped.eu/

Key findings

 The FINCODA project implements strategic objective 2 (“Improving the quality and

efficiency of education and training”) and strategic objective 4 (“Enhancing

creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship, at all levels of education and

training”) of the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and

training (ET2020).

 The project helps higher education institutions develop e-skills by developing the

INCODE barometer and organizing MOOCs.

European Implementation Assessment

PE 581414

320

The Turku University of Applied Sciences is the coordinator of the INDOPED project.

Other participating organisations include the Inholland University of Applied Sciences,

the Business Academy Aarhus, the University of Gdansk and the University of Seville.

The Indonesian participating organisations include the BINUS International, the Syiah

Kuala University, the Syarif Hidayathullah State Islamic University Jakarta, the Widya

Mandala Catholic University Surabaya, the Yogyakarta State University and the

Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization Regional Open Learning Centre

(SEAMOLEC).

The project utilises e-learning and e-skills by establishing a website and uses social media

to maintain contact with the participants and disseminate results to a wider audience,

though the project personnel have an impression that they have underestimated the

importance of face-to-face meetings and trusted too much on digital communication. A

periodic online journal will be issued and a call for papers will be issued worldwide to

acquire the best knowledge on active learning methods. Enthusiastic collaboration with

the Indonesian ministries is used to open vistas for the fruitful dissemination of results.

SEAMOLEC, the participating organisation of the project and a department of the

Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Religious Affairs are invited to all events