Legal provisions of SEC(2010)1050 - SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying document to the Proposal for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Youth on the Move - promoting the learning mobility of young people - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | SEC(2010)1050 - SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying document to the Proposal for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Youth on the Move - ... |
|---|---|
| document | SEC(2010)1050  |
| date | September 15, 2010 |
EN
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 15.9.2010
SEC(2010) 1049
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying document to the
Proposal for a
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Youth on the Move – promoting the learning mobility of young people
{COM(2010) 478 final}
{SEC(2010) 1050}
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Procedural issues 4
1.1. Lead service: DG Education and Culture 4
1.2. Political Background 5
1.3. Work on Impact Assessment 7
1.4. Purpose of the impact assessment report 8
1.5. Main sources of information and consultations 8
2. Problem definition 11
2.1. EU instruments in support of learning mobility 12
2.2. Specific Problems and underlying drivers 13
2.3. Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? 17
2.4. How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? 17
2.5. Basis for EU action 18
3. Objectives 19
3.1. The main policy objectives to be achieved are to make learning mobility an opportunity for all, via: 19
3.2. Specific/operational objectives 19
3.3. Consistency of these objectives with other EU policies and horizontal objectives 20
4. Policy options 21
4.1. Policy options considered: 21
4.2. Options considered unfeasible and discarded at an early stage: 21
4.3. Option 1: No EU Action/Status Quo 22
4.4. Option 2: A Council Recommendation: Youth on the Move: Promoting the learning mobility of young people 23
4.5. Option 3: A new Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC) for the learning mobility of young people 24
5. Analysis of impacts 25
5.1. Likely economic, social and environmental impacts of the short-listed options 25
5.2. Assessment of administrative burden 26
5.3. Impacts outside the EU 27
5.4. Social groups, economic sectors or particular regions affected 27
5.5. Overall assessment of impact of the three options 28
6. Comparing the options 29
6.1. Justification of ratings based upon the assessment of impacts 29
6.2. Preferred option: 30
7. Monitoring and evaluation 30
7.1. Core indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives 30
7.2. Monitoring and evaluation arrangements 31
Annexes - technical background material
Annex 1: Baseline data on Mobility for Learning Purposes
Annex 2: Analysis of Responses to the Public and Stakeholder Consultation (Green Paper on promoting learning mobility)
Annex 3: Links to key studies/work carried out by external consultants, stakeholders or academics
Annex 4a: Overview of progress in implementing the provisions of the 2001 Recommendation on mobility within the Community for students, persons undergoing training, young volunteers, teachers and trainers (2001/613/EC)
Annex 4b: Overview of Level of Progress in implementing the provisions of the 2001 Recommendation (2001/613/EC) and presentation of Areas emerging since 2001
Annex 5: Links between the problems, objectives and areas where Member State action should be pursued
Annex 6: Mobility Scoreboard – illustrative example
1.Procedural issues
Lead service: DG Education and Culture
Other involved services: EMPL, ENTR, INFSO, JLS, MARKT, REGIO, RELEX, RTD and SG
Agenda planning or WP reference: 2010/EAC/008
This Impact Assessment is part of the Youth on the Move initiative, one of the flagship actions of EUROPE 2020: A strategy for sustainable growth and jobs.
Modifications following the opinion of the Impact Assessment Board
The above impact assessment was reviewed by the Impact Assessment Board at its meeting of 14th April 2010.
Changes to the Report were made in order to take account of the Board's recommendations. In particular, the problem definition has been expanded and focus improved. Links between identified problems, formulated objectives and concrete proposals for Member State action have been strengthened, both in the body of the text and by the inclusion of Annex 5.
A more detailed exposé of which elements of the existing policy framework (2001 Council Recommendation) have been successful and which not, and which areas have emerged in the 10 intervening years is presented, notably via the addition of a table at annex 4b and an enhanced textual information.. This is complemented by the addition of two new specific/operational objectives ensures that all identified problems are adequately reflected in the objectives and consistent with proposals for concrete action.
The description of the policy options has been enhanced, and further assessment and comparison included on how these options will address the problem drivers and objectives identified as priorities for the initiative. Furthermore, an expanded analysis of the potential administrative burden of each option is provided.
Finally, increased attention is paid to how uptake by Member States will be assured and to an explanation of the proposed mobility scoreboard that will contribute to increased visibility and better monitoring.
Disclaimer: This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission.
Section 1: Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties
Organisation and timing
This Impact Assessment is part of the Youth on the Move initiative, one of the flagship actions of EUROPE 2020: A strategy for sustainable growth and jobs.
1.1.Political Background
Young people are crucial for Europe's future. The EU has close to 100 million young people, representing a fifth of its total population. They have been hit particularly hard by the economic and social crisis. They continue to suffer due to weaknesses in education and employment systems which see high numbers of young people leave school early or with low qualifications and then struggle to find jobs. Transnational learning mobility can contribute strongly to excellence in European education and training and to the prospects of young people to improve their life opportunities. However, not enough young people are able to reap the benefits of a transnational mobility period and there remains enormous untapped potential.
In 2008, more than half a million EU students studied abroad, 75% of these choosing to study in another EU country. EU Programmes make a significant contribution to the number of young people taking up mobility opportunities; in 2008 there were approximately 370,000 mobile learners in EU mobility programmes (Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci, Comenius, Grundvig, Youth in Action and Erasmus Mundus)1
Mobility and its potential to contribute to European strategies for learning and skills has been the subject of considerable policy reflection over recent years. The 20th anniversary of the Erasmus programme in 2007, triggered many debates on the benefits of mobility in higher education as calls to expand such opportunities to other areas of education and training.
December 2007: Portuguese Presidency Conclusions call upon the Member States and the Commission to promote greater mobility in the context of delivering lifelong learning to all citizens […] alongside its social dimension, of particular importance for more and better jobs.2
January to June 2008: High Level Expert Forum on Mobility, bringing together 11 internationally renowned experts in the field of mobility, from academia, social partners, NGOs and the European Economic and Social Committee.
November 2008: Council Conclusions on youth mobility3 which invite the Member States and the Commission to adopt measures with a view to removing barriers to mobility in different areas and ensuring that periods of study and training abroad are recognised. Mobility is here aimed above all at intra-European mobility but it may also contribute towards developing mobility between Europe and third countries.
May 2009: Council conclusions on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’)4 set out four strategic objectives, the first of which is: Making lifelong learning and mobility a reality. As an essential element of lifelong learning and an important means of enhancing people’s employability and adaptability, mobility for learners, teachers and teacher trainers should be gradually expanded with a view to making periods of learning abroad – both within Europe and the wider world – the rule rather than the exception;
April 2009: In the context of the Bologna Process (intergovernmental co-operation in higher education) Ministers responsible for higher education agree a communiqué5 which stresses: Student-centred learning and mobility will help students develop the competences they need in a changing labour market and will empower them to become active and responsible citizens. And agreeing a benchmark that: In 2020, at least 20% of those graduating in the European Higher Education Area should have had a study or training period abroad
September 2009: In his Political Guidelines, President Barroso announced: "Europe is a reality in everyday life also through exchange initiatives. At a time of economic and social crisis, I feel very strongly that it is of particular importance to further the access of the young generation to the European dimension. To this end, I propose to expand existing instruments like Erasmus into a new EU youth and mobility initiative, as part of the EU 2020 strategy. By 2020 all young people in Europe must have the possibility to spend a part of their educational pathway in other Member States. Such a 'Youth on the Move' initiative would be a decisive contribution to the promotion of cultural diversity, intercultural dialogue and multilingual learning."
In presenting the portfolio for Education, Multilingualism and Youth to Mrs Vassiliou, the President underlined that "More mobility for all and in all learning experiences should become the norm. I would like you to launch a 'Youth on the Move' initiative in the course of 2010, highlighting the general needs of our young people with a particular focus on mobility."
March 2010: The Commission proposal for a Europe 2020 strategy6 sets out as one of its priorities to develop an economy based on knowledge and innovation – "smart growth", and highlights the flagship initiative: 'Youth on the move' to enhance the performance and international attractiveness of Europe's higher education institutions and raise the overall quality of all levels of education and training in the EU, combining both excellence and equity, by promoting student mobility and trainees' mobility, and improve the employment situation of young people.
March 2010: draft Council Conclusions on the social dimension of education and training highlight the need 'continue to eliminate barriers to, expand opportunities for, and improve the quality of, learning mobility, including by providing adequate incentives for the mobility of students from disadvantaged backgrounds'
June 2010: expected Commission approval of a Youth on the Move package to include an overarching Youth on the move strategy (Commission Communication), to be accompanied by a Recommendation on actions necessary to expand and promote learning mobility by removing obstacles (Council Recommendation), the Communication will also announce further initiatives to be taken forward in the coming years. Proposals for programme resources in support of Youth on the Move will be elaborated within the context of an integrated Youth on the Move Programme 2014-20 and will be subject to separate wide-scale consultation and a separate Impact Assessment Report.
1.2.Work on Impact Assessment
July to December 2009: Green Paper Promoting the Learning Mobility of Young People7 launched a wide-scale public consultation which resulted in over 3,000 responses (2,798 via an on-line IPM questionnaire and 258 written responses from national, regional or local authorities, associations and other stakeholders).
The preparation of this Green Paper was carried out by an Inter Service Group; DGs represented: EMPL, ENTR, INFSO, JLS, MARKT, REGIO, RELEX, RTD and SG. This Group met twice (30 January and 2 April 2009) and their input was valuable in refining the Green Paper, its associated consultation documents/tools and the target groups where the Green Paper should be promoted.
March 2010: an Inter-Service Steering Group provided input to the drafting of the proposed Mobility Recommendation and Impact Assessment. DGs involved: EMPL, ENTR, INFSO, JLS, MARKT, REGIO, RELEX, RTD and SG. The representatives involved in this Group are the same as those who have co-operated on the work on the Green Paper, and as such were already attuned to the mobility aims and key obstacles.
Given the complementarity of the policy field and the expected positive employment and social impacts of the initiative, a bilateral inter-service brainstorming meeting between DGs EAC and EMPL was also held (8 February 2010). This meeting brought together representatives of 3 EAC units and 4 EMPL units (Employment Analysis, Employment Strategy, Employment Services and Mobility, and Social Inclusion). Information was shared on complementary initiatives, tools and strategies planned or in progress e.g. work on child poverty, the social aspects of migration, active inclusion, a thematic focus on Youth under the Cambridge process, developments on Eures and a '1st job' (abroad) project. These inputs have been taken on board in the proposal for a Recommendation and its associated Impact Assessment.
An Inter Service meeting of all DGs involved was held 9th March to discuss the draft Recommendation and accompanying Impact Assessment. The comments of the services represented have been taken into account in the proposal for a Recommendation and in the Impact Assessment.
A further Inter Service meeting is planned 22 April 2010 to discuss the finalisation of the draft Recommendation (ie. the preferred option of this Impact Assessment, which will be presented in the following sections) and other parts of the Youth on the Move package before the formal inter-service consultation.
1.3.Purpose of the impact assessment report
This impact assessment report aims to support a policy action at EU level to improve the cross-border mobility of young people for learning purposes, which includes formal, non-formal and informal learning and volunteering.
The Report defines the problem at stake as well as the rationale for policy action at EU level and addresses the aims of the initiative in terms of general and specific objectives. Finally, it presents a range of different policy options to achieve such objectives and an analysis and comparison of their possible impact.
The results of the stakeholder consultation, as well as evidence material are presented, and ways to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the proposed initiative are addressed.
1.4.Main sources of information and consultations
The Impact Assessment has been informed by a wide-scale public and stakeholder consultation which took place July–December 2009 on the Green Paper Promoting the Learning Mobility of Young People8 More than 3,000 responses were received to this consultation, (2,798 via an on-line IPM questionnaire and 258 written responses from national, regional or local authorities, associations and other stakeholders). The majority of the individual responses (1,758 = 62.8%) were received from young people who are the focus of this initiative.
The questions posed in the consultation specifically focussed on key obstacles to learning mobility and as such has direct relevance for the formulation of the Recommendation's themes.
The Results of the Green Paper consultation have informed this impact assessment and the proposal for a Council Recommendation. In particular, the high number of young people with direct experience of, or who are considering a learning mobility period abroad, which have provided feedback to the Green Paper consultation has enhanced our understanding of the practical issues faced.
Analysis of responses indicates that (in order of importance) the key issues most often cited are:
- 'Information', and in particular a lack of accessible and reliable information on the possibilities for study abroad and its benefits. Furthermore, awareness of EU portals in support of mobility is disapointing, up to half of all respondents say they don't know the portals mentioned in the questionnaire.
- 'funding', including the availability of financial resources in support of mobility and the portability of financial support (grants and loans).
- 'motivation' with poor awareness of the benefits of learning mobility. 'Personal development' is considered by respondents to be the most important benefit of learning mobility followed by 'foreign language skills', 'Added knowledge and/or skills in the area of specialisation' and 'Intercultural skills' .
- 'recognition and validation after return'. problems with formal recognition of the study, volunteering or traineeship period. When examining the stay abroad and follow-up, over 83.1% of respondents agree strongly or somewhat that: 'The lack of full and easy validation and recognition of a learning or training period abroad is still a significant obstacle to mobility'.
- 'technical and legal barriers', such as with visas, health and social security provisions are also cited
These issues are consistent with, and have informed, the problem drivers identified in section 2.
More information on the results of the Green Paper consultation can be found at Annex 2
In addition, proposals have also been inspired by:
The work of the High Level Expert Forum on Mobility (December 2007-June 2008), which brought together 11 members with expertise in fields relevant to learning mobility. These experts included governmental advisors, representatives from academia, from agencies involved in the management of EU mobility programmes, a member of the governing board of the Confederation of German Employers' Association, a member of the European Economic and Social Committee and Chief Executive of Irish Children's Rights, and a member of the Commission's network of the Group of Societal Policy Analysis, and representatives with experience of specific sectors such as music, the Arts, heritage and the culture sector.
The Group found that current levels of geographic mobility are low. Only 18% of Europeans have moved outside their region, while only 4% have moved to another Member State and 3% outside the Union, which contrasts with the USA, where almost a third (32%) of the citizens live outside the state in which they were born. Nevertheless, while almost 70% of the European citizens have no intention to move on the near future, most of them view geographical mobility very positively. In addition, different Member States and social groups show different mobility intentions; the propensity is currently higher in the new Member States and in the Member States with liberal or social-democratic welfare regimes; more vulnerable workers are exposed to more involuntary job changes than their higher-skilled or better protected counterparts; voluntary mobility goes hand in hand with economic success, both at country level and for individuals; young and educated workers are the most likely to move.
The Group concluded that learning mobility should become a natural feature of being European and an opportunity provided to all young people in Europe. And stated that such mobility would contribute to two vital policy goals:
- to strengthen Europe's competitiveness, building its knowledge-intensive society;
- and to deepen the sense of European identity and citizenship within its youth generation.
Their final report - 'Making learning mobility an opportunity for all' is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/2008/mobilityreport_en.pdf
In the area of higher education, a Eurobarometer Survey9 was conducted, which interviewed 15,000 students across 31 countries on their perceptions of higher education reform, including notably on questions relation to mobility and obstacles to the ambition of studying abroad. The survey asked students about mobility issues such as plans to study in another country and obstacles that might prevent (or have prevented) them following such a path. The majority of interviewees (53%) said they had intention to study abroad, with 11% stating that they had planned to, but had abandoned their plans to study in another country. When asked about the various potential reasons for not studying abroad, they cite a range of obstacles such as a lack of funds, language barriers, and recognition difficulties.
Mobility is an area which has been the subject of many studies and academic work, a review of this material has been undertaken in consideration of the key obstacles to mobility and conclusions on action needed to remove these obstacles. In addition to the work of DG EAC, the JRC ipts (Sevilla) has provided support in this exercise.
No external expertise has been used for the preparation of the Impact Assessment; however, external expertise has been used for the analysis of responses to the public consultation (Green Paper on Promoting the Learning Mobility of Young People)
2.Problem definition
Mobility has an important impact in that, as part of the freedom of movement of persons, it is a means of promoting employment, reducing poverty, and promoting active European citizenship by improving mutual and intercultural understanding in the EU and boosting economic, social and regional cohesion.Learning mobility, i.e. transnational mobility for the purpose of acquiring new skills is one of the fundamental ways in which individuals, particularly young people (aged 16-35), can strengthen their future employability as well as their personal development.
Studies confirm that learning mobility adds to human capital, as students access new knowledge and develop new linguistic skills and intercultural competences. Furthermore, employers recognise and value these benefits. Evidence shows that, Europeans who are mobile as young learners are more likely to be mobile as workers later in life. They also tend to enjoy higher salaries and more rewarding careers.
EU action, in particular through flagship programmes such as Erasmus in higher education and Youth in Action in the field of non-formal education, has done much to increase mobility and to provide financial support to individuals to make this happen. Tools such as ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) and ECVET (European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training) for Credit Transfer and Accumulation and Europass and Youthpass to make an individual's skills and qualifications more clearly and easily understood throughout Europe, act as powerful levers to facilitate mobility.
However, still relatively few young people reap the benefits of a learning experience abroad and some groups, such as young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are particularly underrepresented10 (for example, during 2007/8 the number of disabled students participating in Erasmus mobility represented only 0.1% of the total)11. At present, 380,000 mobilities per year are realised under the EU programmes (Lifelong Learning Programme, Youth in Action, Erasmus Mundus, Marie Curie Actions). There is a huge untapped potential for increasing this number.
Obstacles to learning mobility persist, too often, young people are deterred from engaging in mobility for learning purposes or encounter problems when they undertake such mobility. Problems most often cited, as indicated above, are: lack of information and guidance about mobility opportunities; difficulties with the recognition of studies completed in another country; limitations on the portability of financial support for study (grants and loans), legal hurdles relating to the status of young researchers, trainees and volunteers; and national restrictions which impede the development of joint programmes.
Furthermore, there is an uneven distribution of flows of young people between Member States (with some countries net senders and others net receivers of mobile learners). There are no specific EU wide studies available on this particular topic and the reasons behind imbalances, but available evidence suggests that the language spoken in the host country is a strong determining factor as well as the overall attractiveness and perceived quality of the education system.
Imbalances over the short-term do not have a substantial impact on the system or present an undue burden to individual Member States, but longer-term unbalances can place a strain on receiving countries educational systems in particular, and upon sending countries if mobile learners choose not to return to their home country ('brain drain'). Evidence from European mobility programmes shows that the East-West imbalance which currently exists, is gradually shrinking and some countries have introduced national policies aimed at rebalancing mobility flows, for example, by giving higher grants for students going to less popular destinations.
It should be stressed that freedom of movement between Member States is a fundamental pillar of EU rights, safeguarded by the Treaty. Restrictions on cross-border mobility for the purposes of study have been the subject of high profile court cases. A guidance note on the rulings of the European Court of Justice in this area is being elaborated.
2.1.EU instruments in support of learning mobility (baseline)
Several instruments already exist at the European level in the context of removing obstacles to such mobility. In particular, three separate Recommendations in the areas of Education and Training and Youth:
- A 2001 Council Recommendation on mobility within the Community for students, persons undergoing training, volunteers, teachers12,
- A complementary 2006 Council Recommendation on the European Quality Charter for Mobility13.
- A 2008 Council Recommendation on mobility of young volunteers across Europe14, which seeks to boost cooperation between organisers of voluntary activities in the Member States of the European Union.
Other provisions exist where the EU has competence to legislate, notably Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens and their family members to reside freely within the territory of the Member States and a Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications (205/36/EC). However, it should be noted that Directive 205/36/EC is aimed professional recognition for employment purposes and not for citizens wishing to study in another Member State (academic recognition) and has a particular focus on certain professions such as in medicine.
In addition, EU programmes seek to provide direct financial support for mobility. Most notably the Lifelong Learning Programme (€ 7bn), Erasmus Mundus (€ 953m), Youth in Action (€ 885 m), and Marie Curie (€ 4.75 bn). In 2008 there were approximately 370,000 mobile learners in EU mobility programmes (Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci, Comenius, Grundvig, Youth in Action and Erasmus Mundus) 15
Erasmus, the EU's flagship mobility programme, celebrated its 2 millionth mobile student in 2009. Growth in participation in Erasmus has, however, slowed in recent years. In 2008 there were 183,000 Erasmus students and it is estimated that only around 4% of European students have had the opportunity to participate in the Erasmus programme during their studies. Further baseline data on mobility can be found at Annex 1. It should be noted that baseline data on youth mobility outside European programmes is lacking. A Member State Expert Group has been established (2010) to examine available data and propose an EU benchmark on mobility.
The Bologna process, an intergovernmental process involving 47 counties (including all EU member states), offers potential for synergies in the area of higher education. A work programme is agreed, which receives orientations from ministerial conferences every two/three years, this is supported and receives input from working groups and seminars. Higher education priorities for the decade 2010-20 are:
- social dimension: equitable access and completion,
- lifelong learning;
- employability;
- student-centred learning and the teaching mission of higher education;
- education, research and innovation;
- international openness;
- mobility;
- data collection;
- multidimensional transparency tools;
- funding.
Progress within the framework of Bologna can act as an impetus for agreements at an EU-level, for example, an EU level target on mobility will be inspired by the 20% higher education mobility target agreed by Bologna Ministers in 2009.
2.2.Specific Problems and underlying drivers
The specific problems are summarised below. The underlying problem drivers which prevent learning mobility becoming a realistic opportunity mainly arise from obstacles in the national context. In some cases this is a result of administrative or legal barriers, in others it is due to lack of information about opportunities for mobility and individual rights and entitlements.
Information shortfalls and motivation: insufficient information is available and easily accessible to young people considering a mobility experience, for example, 66% of those interviewed by Eurobarometer on the subject cited this as a problem (see 1.4 above). Student guidance services, teachers, trainers and counselors are often unaware of the possibilities for study abroad and of the benefits of such mobility.
Set against the provisions of the 2001 Council Recommendation, evaluation indicates that Member State progress is mixed in this area. Such mixed progress may be linked to the nature of this problem, which is dynamic and requires ongoing efforts as new potentially mobile learners emerge. Furthermore, whilst efforts may have been made to increase the availability of information, these may have failed to reach their target groups.
Similarly, success in encouraging students and pupils to complete part of their studies in another Member State is very mixed, with many Member States not prioritising such actions.
Language and culture: mastery of a foreign language is instrumental in engaging in successful cross-border learning mobility; yet too few young people have the requisite language skills. 70% of those interviewed by Eurobarometer (see section 1.4 above) highlighted lack of language skills as a barrier to their mobility. Increased awareness of cultural and social differences, including those relating to teaching and learning, are also needed to foster a positive learning experience.
Good progress can be noted in the availability of linguistic and cultural preparation for mobility periods, and to some degree in the expansion of language learning in the mainstream curriculum. However, continued problems are reported as regards to the level of fluency attained in order to undertake learning programmes in a foreign language. Furthermore, lesser-spoken languages continue to be disadvantaged in this regard, with many smaller countries increasingly opting to offer programmes in English.
Legal issues: such as the status of young researchers, trainees, volunteers, problems relating to health and social security coverage and the absence of a coherent legal framework for the mobility of minors continue to pose unnecessary hurdles, which in some cases prove insurmountable. Added to this, are difficulties surrounding visas and the implementation of visa Directives for third country nationals wishing to come to the EU to study, do research or engage in volunteering.
Cross-border working on curriculum development between institutions and agencies can also be impeded by national legislative frameworks which place restrictions on the development of joint (cross-border) education and training programmes and degrees e.g. by specifying that programmes must be delivered and assessed in the national language. In several countries, it is not legally possible for universities to deliver an international joint degree.
Evaluation of progress shows that legal issues are an area where progress is particularly lacking and many problems remain. Given the broad range of legal issues, the reasons for shortcomings in implementation are varied; however, legal changes which could give rise to rights or entitlements that may lead to an increased demand upon public finances (in particular where benefits are not available in other countries) may face particular scrutiny or resistance eg. extending accessibility of benefits (other than social security) available to domestic students to students from other Member States – public transport subsidies, accommodation support etc.
Restrictions on the portability of financial support (grants and loans): trainees, researchers and students are often faced with difficulties when moving between countries and accessing, or continuing to benefit from grants and loans.
Despite rulings of the European Court on the portability of grant assistance, this continues to be an area of confusion and frustration for many mobile citizens. Portability of loans for education and training purposes, especially as concerns support for living costs, are even more fraught; with accessibility a particular issue and substantial differences in residency requirements between Member States. Aside from concerns over the potential cost implications of full portability of all types of grants and loans and the potential for imbalanced burden between Member States, lack of progress in this area may also be attributable to accessibility of information on national schemes to the target groups, and the absence of a clear presentation of the EU jurisprudence in this area for administrative levels.
Recognition and validation of the stay abroad: A key consideration for young people thinking about a mobility period abroad is the value of such an experience, not only as enriching personal development (which in itself is important), but also to enhance their employability and to deepen their knowledge and understanding of their field of study or practice in another setting. Understandably, where doubts exist over the recognition and formal validation of such a mobility period, many people choose not to go. Recognition is one of the most frequently cited difficulties by young people engaging in mobility (65% of those interviewed on the subject by Eurobarometer); and is especially problematic as concerns non formal and informal learning and for volunteering moves.
Analysis of the implementation of the 2001 Council Recommendation indicates that good progress exists as regards the recognition of qualifications completed in another Member State. A clear commitment and concrete action on the part of Member States to encourage the creation of a European Qualification Area can be seen, including via the establishment of national qualifications frameworks linked to the European Qualifications Framework. The existence of European-level tools and frameworks to facilitate the recognition of formal academic study, in particular the ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System), and the Diploma Supplement in higher education, which makes the content of individual qualifications more transparent, has done much to stimulate progress. Monitoring and assessment of Member State progress in this area has been closely followed up at European level, via the production of specific and regular analysis and the agreement of timelines, and active sharing of experience through peer learning and the promotion of good practices.
Member State progress on recognition and validation of informal and non-formal learning undertaken in another country (including volunteering) is notably lacking. This is much more complex in its nature and in many Member States the frameworks to make this happen (including for the validation of such learning undertaken in a domestic context) are not yet developed. In addition, decisions on recognition and validation may fall under the competence of several different agencies, or individual learning institutions, and as such will suffer from any lack in joined-up working.
Linked to issues of recognition, quality assurance and the importance of high quality in all mobility activities is essential, with 62% of those interviewed by Eurobarometer on barriers to mobility citing concerns over quality as an obstacle to mobility. A European Quality Charter for Mobility was agreed in 2006, but outside European programmes, uptake of this Charter is disappointing. Information on the reasons for this is not available.
In addition, structural rigidities result from sectorally-focussed working. Too often national/local departments and agencies dealing with different target groups (higher education students, school pupils, volunteers etc) do not work in a joined-up fashion, despite the potential for synergies and the existence of shared problems between target groups.
This assessment of key obstacles is echoed by the Bologna process on co-operation in higher education, which highlights that many challenges to mobility remain, especially with regard to: visas, residence and work permits; recognition of qualifications; financial incentives (including portable student loans and grants); pension arrangements; and joint programmes and flexible curricula16
Overall, when looking at the different approaches taken by individual Member States, the reasons why a specific provision highlighted in the 2001 Council Recommendation was successful (or not) are many and varied. Some countries have introduced mobility strategies or established interdepartmental committees as is the case in Ireland to look at barriers across all areas. Whilst others have focussed on specific initiatives or areas of specific concern in their country, e.g. Belgium Flanders has ensured that foreign students in Flemish institutions have access to the same social benefits as domestic students (housing, cheap meals, free public transport etc), in some cases leading to mixed results.
Furthermore, and in line with the assessment by specific problem above, it is clear that some elements of the 2001 Recommendation were easier to deliver upon than others and bring more visible outcomes. More problematic areas are often those which required changes to legislation and/or administrative regulations and which involve cross-agency working at Member State level eg. for the portability of grants and loans or measures to apply equal or comparable treatment to different target groups such as the legal status of volunteers/trainees.
Problems, challenges and opportunities which have emerged since the 2001 Council Recommendation include:
Substantial technological progress, including Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), brings new opportunities for virtual mobility and for accessibility of information on mobility possibilities/preparing mobility
More emphasis is increasingly placed upon the social dimension eg. as HE becomes more accessible to non-traditional learners such as those from disadvantaged backgrounds these groups will have different needs to the traditional student body, perhaps more financial support but especially cultural/aspirational and guidance support
New partnership models and new alliances are an increasingly common aim of educational establishment, yet these can be restricted due to administrative and legislative barriers to co-operation. Joint working is more of a feature than 10 years ago eg. for the delivery of joint degrees, yet many countries do not permit their accreditation bodies to certify joint programmes.
Extra EU mobility is increasingly demanded by students as part of the curriculum, yet the availability of information on opportunities for learning mobility outside the EU and academic recognition of periods spent outside the EU is particularly weak and in the case of incoming students legal and administrative barriers are particularly acute (e.g. visa restrictions).
The economic crisis has led to a reduction in budgets available to support mobility initiatives and implementing institutions in many countries, making it more difficult for young people to afford a mobility period. Conversely, more young people, faced with a difficult labour market, are seeking to differentiate themselves in order to be more attractive to employers and/or defer potential unemployment
Furthermore, it should be noted that the existing legislative framework (the 2001 Council Recommendation) was agreed before the accession of newer Member States. The circumstances and mobility challenges of these countries may differ somewhat to older Member States Eg. Central and Eastern European countries have experienced large mobility outflows for study and employment.
2.3.Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent?
Those affected are young people (primarily those aged 16-35), and in particular students and learners who have chosen (or who wish) to pursue a part of their learning pathway in another Member State. They face unnecessary obstacles and restrictions which inhibit their ability to engage in cross-border learning. The extent of these barriers to mobility results in many people being deterred from engaging in mobility.
2.4.How would the problem evolve, all things being equal?
A 2001 Council Recommendation on mobility within the Community of students, persons undergoing training, volunteers and teachers and trainers17 seeks to guide Member State action in removing obstacles to learning mobility. A 2004 Report on the implementation of this Recommendation by Member States18 recognised that some progress has taken place, and the Recommendation was effective to a certain extent., but highlights that '..the share of the actually mobile persons in education and training clearly indicates that much more still has to be done. People have to be persuaded of the benefits of a learning related mobility experience.'
Without substantial increased visibility and renewed efforts by Member States and competent national, regional and local organisations, progress in reducing obstacles will be insufficient to realise the shared goal of the EU and Member States of making mobility an opportunity for all. The low and static proportion (approximately 10% of the relevant population cohort, of which 4% in EU supported programmes) of people who effectively participate in mobility in education and training make it clear that much more effort is needed (see Annex 1 for a detailed presentation)
Following the specific Report on the follow-up of the Recommendation (2004), 19 monitoring was subsequently integrated into national reporting in the context of the broader Education and Training Work Programme 2010 (open method of co-ordination). The incorporation of the monitoring and follow-up of the Recommendation into the Education and Training 2010 OMC from 2004 onwards led to a shift in focus away from mobility. It is fair to say that the 2001 Council Recommendation has largely fallen into disuse. Whilst progress against some areas is substantial, this has been more marked in areas followed up within the context of specific actions or initiatives at EU level. Other areas, notably at the national or regional level have fared less well overall, and in some cases insufficient information is available to assess if adequate progress has been made. A detailed presentation of to what degree areas of the 2001 Recommendation have worked is included at Annex 4.
2.5.Basis for EU action
Education, Youth and Training Policy is an area where the EU has supporting competence as defined by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Lisbon Treaty).
The Treaty (articles 165 and 166) provides that 'The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action' and in particular, foresees that Community action shall be aimed at 'encouraging mobility of students and teachers, by encouraging inter alia, the academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study' as well as at "encouraging the development of youth exchanges and of exchanges of socio-educational instructors".
This Recommendation conforms to the principle of subsidiarity referred to in Article 5 of the Treaty insofar as Community action, complementing action by the Member States, is necessary for the obstacles to mobility to be removed. It is important to that end, to emphasise that mobility requires Community intervention because by its nature it entails transnational aspects. This Recommendation also conforms to the principle of proportionality referred to in that Article because it does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives pursued.
The EU adopts a twin-track approach to taking forward this mission, through policy cooperation with EU Member States, and through the implementation of the Lifelong Learning and Youth in Action Programmes which provide funding in support of mobility actions (i.e. Erasmus, Comenius, Leonardo, Grundtvig).
Much progress has been made in opening up mobility opportunities for young people across Europe. However, further and sustained action will be necessary to make transnational learning mobility truly an opportunity for all. Policy initiatives and programme resources at the EU level have been put in place to facilitate mobility, but challenges remain, especially at the national and regional level. Proposals for removing obstacles to learning mobility for young people will seek to update and refocus the existing 2001 Council Recommendation on mobility within the Community for students, persons undergoing training, volunteers, teachers and trainers, and will be complementary to other initiatives in this area, including notably proposals for a Community spending programme for Youth on the Move.
3.Objectives
3.1.The main policy objectives to be achieved are to make learning mobility an opportunity for all, via:
- The elimination of barriers to learning mobility at national/regional levels
- The promotion of learning mobility
3.2.Specific/operational objectives
Based upon the underlying drivers/obstacles to mobility set out in section 2.1 above,
- improve the availability and accessibly of reliable information on the possibilities for study abroad and its benefits
- improve language skills, consistent with the aims of the multilingualism strategy, including the target of "Mother tongue plus two (foreign languages) for every citizen20
- remove legal and administrative barriers to the development of cross-border joint study programmes and other forms of learning mobility
- reduce legal and administrative barriers relating to health and social security coverage for young researchers, trainees and volunteers
- promote a coherent legal framework for the mobility of minors
- reduce or remove restrictions on the portability of student financial support (grants and loans)
- improve recognition and validation for formal, non-formal and informal learning completed abroad
- increase opportunities for young people from underrepresented groups (lower socio economic backgrounds, minority ethnic groups, disabled people) to participate in learning mobility
- encourage a focus not only on increasing mobility in quantitative terms but, above all, on improving its quality, including via increased take-up of the voluntary European Quality Charter for mobility
- encourage cross-sectoral working, in order to facilitate shared solutions common to different target groups
- enable a better comparison of progress between Member States and reinforce peer learning, via an effective monitoring process
It should be stressed that whilst it is appropriate to set out the areas where action is particularly needed by Member States in order to realise mobility as an opportunity for all, Recommendations at the EU level should not be overly prescriptive: it will be for Member States themselves, in respect of the subsidiarity principle, to define how this will be taken forward
3.3.Consistency of these objectives with other EU policies and horizontal objectives
As one of the four strategic objectives of the Education and Training 2020 work programme, mobility contributes to the creation of the European Area of Education and Training and plays an essential part in supporting smart growth as set out in the Europe 2020 Strategy proposals. Promoting mobility of young people is also underlined in the EU Youth Strategy: Investing and Empowering as a means to achieve the overall objectives of European youth cooperation.
The elimination of obstacles to mobility and the promotion of mobility for the purposes of learning are fundamental to the aspirations set out in the Youth on the Move initiative. Youth on the Move (YoM) is a flagship EU initiative to support the Europe 2020 Strategy. The aim is to "enhance the performance and international attractiveness of Europe's higher education institutions and raise the overall quality of all levels of education and training in the EU, combining both excellence and equity, by promoting student mobility and trainees' mobility, and improve the employment situation of young people.21 It will pursue five main lines of action:
- Higher education educates highly skilled workers and contributes to the research base and capacity for innovation that determine competitiveness in a knowledge-based economy. Europe needs to raise the percentage of young people participating in higher education to keep up with competitors. It also needs to improve the quality and attractiveness of higher education and make university studies more open to the rest of the world and equipped to respond to the challenges of globalisation. Student mobility has played a key role in the 'internationalisation' of higher education, which has raised standards considerably and led to the emergence of worldwide university rankings. The EU should step up efforts to promote more and better student mobility.
- The EU's long track record of supporting mobility through various programmes and initiatives will need to be reviewed, expanded and linked up with national and regional resources in order to meet the ambitions of Europe 2020. Obstacles to mobility need to be tackled. The aim is that by 2020 all young people in Europe should have the possibility to spend a part of their educational pathway in another Member State.
- Smart and inclusive growth also depends on actions throughout the lifelong learning system, to secure key competences, including solid basic skills, and quality learning outcomes. The high level of early school leaving needs to be tackled. Opportunities for learning mobility should also be more widely accessible to all young people, including those in non-formal and informal learning arrangements.
- Europe must improve the employment situation of young people. A Youth employment framework should be launched outlining policies aimed at reducing youth unemployment rates, facilitating the transition from school to work and promoting labour mobility
- Europe needs to extend and broaden learning opportunities to young people as a whole and promote their active involvement in society.
4.Policy options
Policy options considered:
- No EU Action/Status Quo
- A new Council Recommendation: Youth on the Move: Youth on the Move: Promoting the learning mobility of young people, monitored through the existing Education and Training 2020 Open Method of Co-ordination
- A new and standalone Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC) for the Learning Mobility of Young People
- Legislative options such as a Regulation or Directive
- Increased investment via an EU programme
- Commission Recommendation
4.1.Options considered unfeasible and discarded at an early stage:
- Legislative options such as a Regulation or Directive – the Community has no competence to issue such instruments in the area of Education and Training policy. Furthermore, in the case of a Regulation, the nature of the problems to be addressed and the diversity of national approaches do not lend themselves well to this type of instrument
- Increased investment via an EU programme – the Commission will explore the possibility to make extra resources available to support learning mobility when it makes proposals for the integrated Youth on the Move Programme in 2011. However, whilst increased resources would certainly assist in achieving the general objectives of increasing learning mobility, and provide support to individuals to overcome some of the obstacles identified (eg. financial barriers to mobility, or information campaigns to promote the value of mobility),extra funding alone will not be sufficient to unblock progress in some key areas eg. legal restrictions on portability of grants and loans, or continued problems with recognition and validation.
- Commission Recommendation –. Given the importance of the objectives and the focus of proposed follow-up, and in particular that some of the key obstacles to mobility are at national/regional level, a Council Recommendation would set a strong, and consistent message for implementation (the existing texts which this initiative seeks to build upon are Council Recommendations). In the event that a Commission Recommendation were pursued it is unlikely that this would be sufficiently powerful to trigger the changes required to achieve the specific and operational objectives outlined in section 3 above.
Following an assessment of possible options, three main options emerge as those most realistic and feasible, and are in line with the narrow scope for EU intervention in the field of education and training.
4.2.Option 1: No EU Action/Status Quo
The status quo is based upon three separate Recommendations in the areas of Education and Training and Youth as detailed in section 2.5 above.
The implementation of these Recommendations is monitored via the Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC) in Education and Training and via a separate OMC in the Youth field. Open method of coordination focuses on the definition of common objectives and the monitoring of progress towards agreed benchmarks, supported by peer learning amongst Member States.
As highlighted above, the 2001 Council Recommendation is the key text in this area but is now somewhat out of date and has fallen into disuse. Much progress has been made in some areas (such as the introduction of the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) and the European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET), quality assurance and the development of EU programmes in support of learning mobility), but in other areas progress has been slow and is still lacking (eg. full validation and recognition of learning periods abroad, legal and administrative barriers for trainees, portability of grants and loans). Furthermore, new challenges have emerged in the 10 years since the Recommendation was adopted, which were not addressed by the original text: a greater awareness of the employability benefits and a stronger focus on the social dimension (disadvantaged groups) of mobility, and substantial increases in mobility beyond the EU's borders both in terms of EU citizens going further afield to study and in students from outside being attracted to study in the EU. A fuller analysis of uptake of this Recommendation and new challenges can be found in section 2.3 and Annex 4.
Even if fully implemented, the 2001 Recommendation would be insufficient to address all current obstacles to mobility, as a result of new challenges and it would be difficult to revive this Recommendation in its current form and the sectoral approach taken by the Recommendation may compound structural rigidities.
Based upon past experience, it can be expected that the current pace of progress in removing obstacles to mobility will not deliver a change consistent with the political aspiration of mobility as an opportunity for all and will be insufficient to raise mobility levels in line with agreed or planned benchmarks.
4.3.Option 2: A Council Recommendation: Youth on the Move: Promoting the learning mobility of young people
Building upon the 2001 Council Recommendation and subsequent texts on learning mobility and on transnational volunteering a new Recommendation would be elaborated to take account of progress since 2001 and new obstacles which have arisen in the intervening 10 years.
Whilst the 2001 Recommendation adopted a sectoral approach to examining obstacles and formulating proposals, a new Recommendation should focus on a cross-sectoral approach thus ensuring increased visibility and a more co-ordinated approach across sectors where obstacles are often shared rather than distinct.
Evaluation of progress in implementing the 2001 Recommendation has revealed that obstacles remain entrenched, and in some areas and for some countries efforts to remove obstacles are not visible at all eg. national legislation facilitating the portability of grants to support living expenses of students or volunteers. A new 2010 Recommendation to Member States would call for renewed action on areas where progress lags behind, advocate increased cross-sectoral work to remove obstacles and set out which further obstacles have emerged in recent years and for which action is required as detailed in section 2.3 above and Annex 5. The role of this Council Recommendation in removing obstacles to learning mobility are part of a wider suite of Youth on the Move actions, which together represent a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach covering both policy and programme elements, with action foreseen at both national and European levels
A Council Recommendation would propose Member State action in the following areas:
- Providing easily accessible, up-to-date and comprehensive information on mobility opportunities (eg. by reaching out to underrepresented groups via the use of innovative ICT tools such as social networking websites, or by setting up mobility counselling facilities in university campuses)
- Motivating young people to be mobile by explaining the benefits of learning mobility (eg. by providing targeted information/case studies in co-operation with business about the value of a learning mobility experiences to employers)
- Improving language skills and intercultural awareness (eg. through changes to the curriculum, including the provision of mobility preparation courses)
- Facilitating mobility to and from the EU by reducing administrative and legal burdens related to the exchange with Third Countries (e.g. by addressing visa restrictions for non-EU learners)
- Removing restrictions on the development of cross-border joint study programmes and other forms of learning mobility
- Reducing legal and administrative barriers relating to health and social security coverage for young researchers, trainees and volunteers (eg. by clarifying the legal status of some groups of mobile young people (apprentices, volunteers, researchers))
- Reducing or removing restrictions on the portability of student financial support (grants and loans)
- Improving recognition and validation procedures for formal, non-formal and informal learning completed abroad (eg. through adoption of validation procedures which adequately evaluate and certify learning gained as part of volunteering in another Member State)
- Addressing specific obstacles faced by disadvantaged groups (eg. financial constraints, better guidance and support to increase aspiration)
- Mobilising actors via mobility partnerships, in particular the business community, NGOs and local level authorities in co-operation with learning institutions.
All elements above are equally important. See annex 5 for more detail on concrete actions to be proposed at Member State level.
A mobility scoreboard would be introduced as part of the existing monitoring and reporting framework under the Open Method of Co-ordination in Education and Training (ET2020). This scoreboard would allow for transparent assessment of progress and comparison across countries.
As set out in section 1.2, the political commitment (at both EU and Member State level) to increasing learning mobility and addressing the barriers to mobility has never been higher. This strong political commitment linked to recommendations for action in areas of identified need, and followed up by a transparent and focussed monitoring mechanism is expected to lead to a good uptake of the Recommendation and represents a significant advance on the circumstances surrounding the earlier 2001 Recommendation.
4.4.Option 3: A new Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC) for the learning mobility of young people
Description
Member States will be asked to formulate national action plans for the removal of obstacles to mobility and to report on progress on a bi-annual basis to the Commission. Common objectives and benchmarks would be agreed at the EU level in order to monitor progress. Based upon the national reports, the Commission would present a bi-annual assessment of progress across Member States and observations at country-level regarding strengths and weaknesses in removing obstacles to learning mobility.
A mobility scoreboard would be introduced and incorporated into the new OMC monitoring and reporting framework, in order to complement the country-specific analysis and allow for transparent assessment of progress and comparison across countries. This element is common with Option 2.
The new OMC would work in parallel and be independent of other existing OMCs, such as on Education and Training Strategic Framework 2020 and the Youth OMC.
A fresh impetus and an increased visibility, combined with the potential for clear comparison of progress between countries could be expected to act as a stimulus to driving forward progress in this area, in particular in addressing objectives which are linked to information sharing and learning from experience elsewhere eg. encouraging the development of partnerships and exchanges between education intuitions to address linguistic and cultural obstacles, or using more creative methods for language learning.
However, the establishment of a new OMC would bring an additional administrative burden, both at national and EU levels. Furthermore, this option is limited to its nature of soft law which could weaken its potential impact compared to a legal instrument, in particular as regards addressing legal and administrative barriers at the Member State level. As compared with Option 2, the absence of a Recommendation as the initial driver of the exercise risks to weaken the collective effort.
5.Analysis of impacts
5.1.Likely economic, social and environmental impacts of the short-listed options
The estimated economic, social and environmental impact assessment below is based upon qualitative judgement.
The option 'status quo' would have a small but limited economic and social impact because it implies no further action at EU level.
Both options 2 (a new Council Recommendation) and 3 (a new standalone OMC) would lead to more substantial positive economic and social impacts due to an increased volume of young people engaging in learning mobility, which has proven benefits for their employment and cultural integration. It is expected that Option 2 has greater impacts for social groups, as it will bring about concrete action on the part of Member States across all objectives. Given the nature of the instrument, it is could be expected to be more successful than Option 3 in driving progress in harder areas, such as those involving revisions to legislation or changes in administrative procedures eg. making study grants and loans more portable, introducing changes to the curriculum or ensuring national laws do not impede joint (cross-border) educational programmes, and in cross-sectoral issues. See Annex 5 for a fuller assessment.
In this respect, it should be noted that in particular young people from disadvantaged backgrounds or for whom mobility was beyond reach, are expected to benefit particularly from the removal of specific barriers which disadvantage them. Thus they can expect to benefit from increased social (re)integration through the expansion of opportunities (to all) for learning mobility. These options offer the potential to strengthen commitment to improve young people's economic integration through the development of increased and broader skills and through the expansion of their horizons and aspirations.
This is in line with the New Skills for New Jobs initiative which specifically highlights the importance of the removal of obstacles, including administrative barriers, to the free movement of workers in the EU, as well as more transparent information on labour market trends and skills requirements, would contribute to the promotion of occupational, sector and geographical mobility and allow a better match between peoples' skills and job opportunities. Mobility periods during education and training (e.g. via the Erasmus and Leonardo programmes) help make people more open to mobility later in their working lives. 22As regards environmental impact, increased mobility may give rise to increased carbon emissions as a result of more travel. However, the overall increase in volume is likely to be relatively discrete when compared to overall emissions. Furthermore, several projects supported by the European Commission Lifelong Learning Programme are seeking to explore new and joint curricula in areas of environmental sustainability and green sectors. At the same time, several activities financed by the Youth in Action Programme also contribute to raising the awareness of young people on environmental issues and promoting 'green' behaviours. Options such as virtual mobility/internationalisation at home, can be a valuable complement to physical mobility, but should not act as a substitute.
5.2.Assessment of administrative burden
The criteria used for the estimation of the administrative costs combine quantitative (EU level only) and qualitative aspects (at EU and Member State level).
Option 1 (status quo) requires no additional administrative burden or cost because it involves no further action on the part of the EU or national authorities.
Option 2 (a new Council Recommendation) will imply some additional costs for implementing agencies, institutions and government departments in the design of new strategies or revision of legislation to make learning mobility easier for young people. However, such costs could be partly offset by the benefits of mobility and through improved information sharing and cross-sectoral working at national and local level. Furthermore, such costs would largely be limited in time e.g. during the revision of legislation. The administrative burden of monitoring and reporting is expected to be neutral as this would be incorporated into existing frameworks (Education and Training 2020 OMC), which would be re-oriented for this purpose. Guidelines issued to Member States for the completion of their national reports would include a specific section on removal of obstacles to mobility, including a requirement for self-assessment by Member States in the format of the mobility scoreboard, supported by relative qualitative and quantitative data. Whilst this represents an innovation, it will replace some of the existing reporting under ET2020 and as such lead to no overall increase in the administrative burden, which is already provided for at national and European-level).
Option 3 (a new standalone OMC) will lead to the highest additional administrative burden at both EU and national levels, as it will require the establishment of a new framework for monitoring and reporting (agreement of common objectives, submission of action plans/national reports, EU-level monitoring and reporting). This would be in addition to existing OMC processes, and based upon the model which exists in the areas of Education and Training, Employment, Social Protection and Inclusion and would have resource implications both at national and at European level. Based upon experience of such co-operation in Education and Training policy, the estimated direct cost at European level would be approximately 3.3 m€ per year, plus a human resource implication of 5 full time equivalent posts. Costs at national level associated with monitoring and reporting have not been estimated, but these would be commensurate with the levels of resource committed to existing OMC processes.
5.3.Impacts outside the EU
Both inward mobility (third country nationals travelling to the EU for learning purposes) and outward mobility (EU citizens travelling abroad to study, volunteer or to do research) have positive and far-reaching benefits in cultural understanding and increased propensity for academic and economic links. This may also include positive spill-over effects in the area of external relations through improved understanding and partnerships. The conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service are set out in a Council Directive23. EU Member States should make all efforts possible to facilitate such mobility experiences e.g. by improved study visa arrangements, promotion of the value of, and providing adequate recognition for, studying in other world regions. Qualitative criteria have been used for the estimation of impacts.
Whilst all three options aim for an increase in mobility flows due to reduced obstacles, Option 1 is expected to have a limited impact on extra EU mobility, since the 2001 Council Recommendation does not address this specifically.
Option 2 is expected to bring wider positive impacts for mobility outside the EU, given that a new Council Recommendation will explicitly target this aspect, eg. by promoting greater co-operation and the establishment of partnerships and bilateral agreements with non-EU institutions and in addressing difficulties associated with obtaining visa requirements and residency permits for non-EU residents . This will provide an important update and enhancement compared to the baseline.
Option 3 will have more limited impact for extra-EU mobility as the absence of a legal instrument might provide less of an incentive for action by Member States.
5.4.Social groups, economic sectors or particular regions affected
Statistical and qualitative evidence from EU programme evaluations and from studies24 tells us that young people engaging in learning mobility are predominantly from relatively privileged backgrounds. Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, such as lower socio-economic status/low income families, people with disabilities, youngsters who have dropped out of formal education are significantly underrepresented in existing mobility flows, whether through organised EU/national mobility programmes or as independent free movers. Women are slightly overrepresented in mobility actions. Improving access to reliable information on possibilities for mobility experiences, and putting in place tools and resources to facilitate mobility will help all young people to take up mobility opportunities. It is expected, that disadvantaged or underrepresented groups will particularly benefit e.g. improved portability of grants and loans for study abroad will help those from modest backgrounds who would otherwise struggle with the financial cost of mobility.
Qualitative criteria have been used for the estimation of impacts, with all three options expected to have positive impacts for social groups to date underrepresented in mobile learning, with options 2 and 3 particularly advantageous. The impact on human rights is expected to be broadly neutral for all three options; although access to learning mobility opportunities is highly supportive of the fundamental right to education. The effects of all three options are also likely to be largely consistent across regions, but Options 2 and 3 offer increased effectiveness.
In addition, there are expected benefits to the educational sector, and the NGO volunteering sector brought about by increased internationalisation bringing increased openness and enhanced performance. Students, young researchers, volunteers and others engaging in cross-border learning experiences will widen horizons in teaching and learning approaches and foster mutual understanding. There is no substantive difference between the individual options.
5.5.Overall assessment of impact of the three options
It should be stressed, that irrespective of the option chosen, the overall objective is to remove obstacles to mobility and promote mobility with a view to making it 'an opportunity for all' – which will in turn lead to more young people choosing to study, train, volunteer and engage in research in another country.
The status quo (Option 1) might allow for some improvements in evolution, but these are likely to be insufficient to realise the aspiration of learning mobility as an opportunity for all. The current set of legal documents do not cater for important developments in recent years within the education and training sector which have influence on learning mobility. Furthermore, the sectoral approach of the 2001 Recommendation makes it difficult to address cross-sectoral issues common to more than one target group. Obstacles to mobility have emerged more recently which are not adequately recognised or addressed and as such are likely to remain areas of concern.
As concerns options 2 and 3, both options offer good potential for progress and positive economic and social impacts combined with neutral to mildly negative environmental impacts as highlighted above. The nature of the instrument proposed in Option 2 is stronger and therefore will offer higher visibility and an increased commitment on the part of Member States for action. In particular, a Council Recommendation should update, refocus and revitalise action in this area and boost Member State commitment, acting as a stimulus at both national and regional levels, which will substantially increase visibility and benefit many potential students and learners. A further differentiating factor between options 2 and 3 lies in the potential administrative burden, with Option 3 representing an increased burden at both EU and national/regional levels associated with a new standalone OMC process.
6.Comparing the options
| ++ | + | 0 | - | -- | |
| Impact compared with baseline scenario | positive | slightly positive | neutral | slightly negative | negative |
| Option 1 (status quo – continuing with existing framework) | Option 2 (2010 Council Recommendation Youth on the Move) | Option 3 (new Youth on the Move OMC) | |
| Effectiveness in terms of achieving objectives | |||
| Objective 1 Eliminate obstacles to mobility at national/regional levels | 0 | ++ | + |
| Objective 2 Promotion of learning mobility | 0 | ++ | + |
| Financial impacts (EUR million) | |||
| Implementation costs | 0 | not quantified | not quantified |
| Administrative burden | 0 | 0* | -- (4.3m€ pa) |
| Including Member States | 0 | ** | not quantified |
| Coherence | |||
| 0 | ++ | ++ | |
| Feasibility of implementation | |||
| 0 | + | - |
* Costs associated with monitoring and reporting are expected to be neutral as the existing OMC in Education and Training would be re-oriented to include a focus on mobility and to incorporate a mobility scoreboard.
** potential for cost savings based upon increased cross-sectoral and cross-agency working
6.1.Justification of ratings based upon the assessment of impacts
Whilst Option 1 is expected to be neutral overall, both Options 2 and 3 represent the potential for increased effectiveness in eliminating obstacles to mobility and to promoting learning mobility, through the prioritisation of mobility and the implementation of specific measures at national and regional levels in areas identified as obstacles, as set out in the problem description above. Option 2 offers the potential for the highest impact based upon the agreement by the Council of a new legal instrument and its potential triggering effects at Member State level.
In terms of financial impact, option 1 remains the baseline position, with Options 2 and 3 representing an overall net cost implication, although for Option 2 this is expected to be relatively small. For Option 2, costs associated with the implementation of the Recommendation will include, for example, adaptation of legislation to make grants and loans more portable, the provision of more information on mobility opportunities via careers and study guidance/counselling offices. The administrative burden of monitoring and reporting for Option 2 is expected to be broadly neutral as administration will be incorporated into existing monitoring and reporting frameworks (Education and Training Open Method of Co-ordination ET2020). For Option 3, substantial administrative costs at both EU and Member State level will stem from the establishment of a new standalone OMC process.
In comparing the feasibility of implementation, Option 2 will be readily possible under existing administrative frameworks, but will require extra efforts on the part of Member States to remove obstacles – legal, technical and administrative – to improve opportunities for learning mobility. Option 3, however, presents more challenges as a standalone monitoring and reporting framework would need to be introduced to assess progress. All options are highly coherent with EU and national agreed policy priorities and strategies.
6.2.Preferred option:
Option 2 – A Recommendation on Youth on the Move: Promoting the learning mobility of young people - represents the best potential for achieving the desired objectives, when balanced with the potential for administrative burden and increased cost.
7.Monitoring and evaluation
7.1.Core indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives
Result Indicators:
- Decrease in significant problems with obstacles to mobility reported by mobile students/volunteers/researchers (as measured by surveys)
- Specific indicators to be elaborated based upon progress in each field of obstacle, to be monitored via a proposed Mobility Scoreboard
Impact Indicators:
- An increase in the number of young people (16-35) engaging in mobility for the purposes of learning;
- An EU-level mobility benchmark(s) for learning mobility (by the end of 2010 in the field of Higher Education, and subsequently extended to VET and teachers) will be proposed (foreseen within the context of the Strategic Framework on Education and Training ET2020)
- In higher education: In 2020, at least 20% of those graduating in the European Higher Education Area should have had a study or training period abroad. (Bologna Process mobility benchmark)
7.2.Monitoring and evaluation arrangements
Monitoring and evaluation should take place within the context of the reporting structures which already exist within the framework of the Open Method of Co-ordination in Education and Training (ET2020). This framework provides for (biennial) reporting by Member States which leads to a Joint (Commission-Council) Report.
Experience has led to the conclusion that stronger mechanisms for monitoring are needed to ensure that the pace of progress is accelerated. With this in mind, a mobility scoreboard will be introduced as part of the existing monitoring and reporting framework.
Member States will be invited to report specifically on progress in removing obstacles to learning mobility as part of their ET2020 country reports; this will be a standing item in national reports submitted for the period 2011-2020. The Commission will analyse this information based upon transparent criteria and present an overall assessment of progress including via the compilation of a comparative assessment across countries (Mobility Scoreboard). The precise criteria/indicators upon which the assessment will be based still need to be developed and agreed. Whilst criteria and result indicators may be fairly easy to define, impact indicators (what is the ultimate and quantifiable effect on citizens ability to be mobile) are more difficult to estimate. A Member State working group on mobility indicators within the framework of ET2020 has been set up and would be consulted on the most appropriate indicators for the mobility scoreboard.
The scoreboard will support monitoring and peer review and as such will reinforce the commitment of Member States to driving forward progress in this area. See Annex 6 for an illustrative example of what a mobility scoreboard may look like.
In addition to the strong political commitment on the part of both Member States and the Commission, uptake of the Recommendation by the Member States will be ensured via the increased focus on visibility and on monitoring, as detailed above and in section 4.3.
In addition, an evaluation is proposed to assess the overall effectiveness of the implementation of a new Recommendation after the first four years of implementation of the Recommendation (ie. by end 2014).
Annexes - technical background material
Annex 1: Baseline data on Mobility for Learning Purposes
Annex 2: Analysis of Responses to the Public and Stakeholder Consultation (Green Paper on promoting learning mobility)
Annex 3: Links to key studies/work carried out by external consultants, stakeholders or academics
Annex 4a: Overview of progress in implementing the provisions of the 2001 Recommendation on mobility within the Community for students, persons undergoing training, young volunteers, teachers and trainers (2001/613/EC)
Annex 4b: Overview of Level of Progress in implementing the provisions of the 2001 Recommendation (2001/613/EC) and presentation of Areas emerging since 2001
Annex 5: Links between the problems, objectives and areas where Member State action should be pursued
Annex 6: Mobility Scoreboard – illustrative example
Annex 1: Baseline data on Mobility for Learning Purposes
Annex 2: Green Paper on promoting learning mobility – Consultation
In July 2009 the European Commission published a Green Paper on Promoting the learning mobility of young people. The public consultation closed on 15 December 200925 and was open to all parties including individuals, European, national, regional and local organisations involved in mobility.
The Green Paper highlighted the benefits of mobility in supporting acquisition of new knowledge and skills. It also highlighted the contribution to opening up the education and training institutions to a wider world, different audiences of learners and consequently contributing to enhancing the quality of education and training. Other benefits noted are those of combating isolation, protectionism and xenophobia as well as the contribution to fostering a deepened sense of European identity and citizenship among young people.
The ambition of the Green Paper is to set the road for further developing and strengthening the European and national policies and programmes supporting mobility. It affirms that every young person should have the opportunity to participate in some form of mobility.
There were three main channels available to submit responses. These were:
An online questionnaire for citizens
An online questionnaire for organisations
Sending a written response to DG EAC
2798 on-line responses were received and 258 written responses were received.
Respect of the Commission's minimum standards on consultation:
The Green Paper consultation was fully in line with the General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission26
Information provided on the consultation was clear and concise, facilitating responses. With over 3,000 replies received to this consultation; this represents twice the average expected for Commission consultations.
The Green Paper consultation was publicised widely to reach relevant consultation target groups. The consultation was targeted both at the public at large and at interested stakeholders:
- a press release and news story on the European Commission and DG EAC home pages, supplemented by further information and relevant links on DG EAC webpages;
- the consultation was announced via the Your-Voice-in-Europe webportal27 and responses were received via the on-line IPM Questionnaire or by written contribution to a mailbox set up for this purpose;
- presentations to consultation target groups (Government officials and policy-makers at different territorial levels, student groups; national agencies for the promotion of mobility; University associations and networks, recognition experts via the National Academic Recognition Information Centres, youth organisations, Vocational Education and Training experts and other stakeholders within education and training;
- standardised presentation materials were developed and circulated to maximise multiplier opportunities;
- a mailing list of around 10.000 people contacts was constructed to reach as many key stakeholders as possible and to ensure balance in the consultation.
Adequate time was provided for preparation and planning of responses. The consultation period ran from 8 July to 15th December 2009. The volume of responses received and the wide range of stakeholders participating are testament to the success of this consultation and the effectiveness of the approach chosen.
Analysis of the 2,798 on-line (IPM questionnaire) responses
Responses received were primarily from individuals (78.8%) but also from organisations (19%). The majority of the respondents are female (61.4%) and given the nature of the initiative, it is particularly welcomed that a high number of young people under 35 years participated in the consultaiton (1,758 = 62.8%). Replies come from a broad cross section of coutnries with the highest numer of replies coming from Italy (19.5%), France (10%), Spain (7.8%) and Germany (7.5%), followed by Romania, Turkey, the UK and Belgium.
Analysis of responses indicates that, 'Information' seems to be the most important issue in order to increase learning mobility followed by 'funding', 'motivation' and 'recognition and validation after return'.
According to the replies, 'Personal development' is considered to be the most important benefit of learning mobility followed by 'foreign language skills', 'Added knowledge and/or skills in the area of specialisation' and 'Intercultural skills' .
Awareness of EU portals in support of mobility is disapointing, up to half of the respondents say they don't know the portals mentioned in the questionnaire.
When examining the stay abroad and follow-up, over 83.1% of respondents agree strongly or somewhat that: 'The lack of full and easy validation and recognition of a learning or training period abroad is still a significant obstacle to mobility'.
Furthermore, responses indicate that the 'European Union and its institutions' followed by 'Education and training institutions' and 'National governments' play the most important role in promoting learning mobility of young people.
A full analysis of the results of the questionnaire will be published on the Education and Training pages of the Europa website: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/index_en.htm
Analysis of the 258 in-depth written responses
Responses by organisational type
(nb. These numbers cannot be considered as fully representative of the wider consultation process as they do not take into account the consultations organised at national level.)
Composition of responses by organisational type and country (plus EU-level organisations such as social partners, organisations, networks)
Key messages from the consultation
Preparing for a mobility period
Information and Guidance: There is a very clear message from all respondent types to improve the quality of information and guidance related to mobility. Central to effective, clear and transparent information is however the need to redefine what is understood by mobility and potential target groups eligible for mobility. This is necessary to provide dedicated information and guidance to meet specific needs of learners.
To ensure information and guidance reach learners, the need for a single integrated EU web portal was proposed not only as a tool to provide relevant information but to promote the benefits of mobility to learners, parents, education institutions and employers. However, there was much support (particularly from governments) for new and creative ways to disseminate information (e.g. through social networks, bars, rock concert and cafes, though other respondents emphasised the need for associated funding to ensure the effective availability and dissemination of quality information and guidance through more creative channels.
Ensuring teachers, trainers, administrative staff and social workers are experienced in mobility was also highlighted as a necessary requirement by all respondents to improve information and guidance. Making use of learners with previous mobility experience to act in the capacity of mobility ambassadors was also proposed.
Promotion and motivation: Promoting the benefits of mobility for young people by providing evidence of the added value of mobility in terms of future employability and their professional and intercultural skills development was recommended by all respondents.
Better cooperation at European level and networking between agencies, regional, local authorities, institutions, youth workers, multipliers, ex-beneficiaries, policy makers, employers, civic society, young people and their families with a view to an improved ‘joined up’ approached is encouraged.
All respondents highlighted the need for clear factual, practical and targeted information tailored to individual learners is central to the success of mobility and is required in advance of mobility. Peer exchange with a focus on the experiences of young people returning from mobility experiences was proposed as one way to better promote and motivate young people.
It was noted that more focus on systematic preparation within the curriculum, improving opportunities for recognition and validation of learning is critical however adequate funding and resources must be made available to support mobility in its entirety.
Individuals focused on a number of practical issues in order to better promote and motivate young people to be mobile, these range from finding suitable temporary accommodation, subsidised transport, simplifying application procedures, improve preparatory arrangements and information exchange, improving informal language development and increasing the number of places available for learners to access mobility opportunities.
Languages and culture: The importance of language learning to begin during early stages of education (primary and secondary) through to continued education was stressed. Using more creative methods for the delivery of language learning and ensuring disadvantaged learners are not excluded from languages and mobility opportunities is recommended. Here, many respondents emphasise the requirement for higher levels of funding to promote preparatory and continued language learning.
There is a call for Member States to revisit and where appropriate reform national education polices to embed language learning into the national curriculum.
Emphasising the cultural and linguistic value of mobility experiences in the context of employability was highlighted as an important factor to address.
Some respondents expressed support for a mandatory mobility period for teachers and trainers (a small number of respondents proposed up to a one year mandatory requirement). Developing partnerships and exchanges between education institutions was also considered necessary to address linguistic and cultural obstacles.
Legal issues: Legal issues relating to difficulties associated with obtaining visa requirements (residency permits, cot of visa, timings) together with implications in relation to the lack of legal status of mobility learners were highlighted by nearly all respondents as the main legal obstacles to mobility encountered. Serious concerns about the implications for social welfare arrangements were expressed. Legal issues linked to the recognition of learning were also raised as a barrier to mobility. The overarching message is that there is no clear legal framework for learners or employers participating in mobility periods.
In relation to the proposal to establish a framework to support minors, it was noted that the different legal rules exist across Member States may make it difficult for a European framework to be developed and implemented.
Further to the proposal to introduce a European Trainee Statue, few but mixed views were received. On the one hand a European Trainee Statute would help to ensure equal treatment and provide much needed clarity on legal matters. On the other hand however, views were expressed that the status of the individual as a ‘learner’ or as a ‘worker’ is blurred and reflects the complexity in the relationship between education and training and the labour market across Member States more generally.
Portability of Grants and Loans: All respondent types cited variations in the eligibility, portability of grants and funding arrangements from one Member State to another as key obstacles. Lack of information together with administrative and bureaucratic burdens were cited as adding to difficulties associated with the portability of grants and loans where evidence suggests late payments or delays in funds reaching learners is problematic and especially difficult for economically disadvantaged learners. A key message from European Associations in particular is that all funding arrangements associated with learner mobility should be revisited.
A number of government responses discussed the possibility to formulate guidance at European Level applicable to Member States in relation to the portability of grants, loans and access to benefits. Generally speaking, governments highlighted some reservations and voiced concerns that common guidance may be difficult for individual countries to implement.
Mobility to and from the European Union: All organisational types highlighted the need to reduce administrative and legal burdens in order to promote mobility to and from the European Union. Government and Regional Associations called for greater cooperation and partnerships with third countries and agreements between competent authorities across Member States and bilateral agreements between institutions.
European Associations, National Associations and education institutions were mainly more focused on the need to improve access to quality information; enhance funding opportunities for non-nationals and create more programmes/opportunities for learners in order to promote mobility to and from the European Union. Specific attention was given to educational arrangements and the need for greater flexibility in terms of the recognition and accreditation in addition to the relationship between non-ECTS arrangements/systems with ECTS for example.
Preparation of the mobility period and quality assurance issues: Nearly all organisational types were in support of using existing quality charters to ensure mobility is of high quality. There was also support for introducing monitoring and evaluation methods – suggestions include systematic quality assurance procedures for each aspect of mobility and qualitative and quantitative measures for example. Other quality assurance measures cited include continuous dialogue and clearly established contractual arrangements between all actors and beneficiaries, a standardised approach to guidelines and templates, transparent selection procedures, peer exchange and structured learner support (through student associations, counselling and networks for example).
Reaching out to Disadvantaged Groups: The main barriers cited by all respondent types concern financial constraints, lack of information regarding specific provision for learners and existing programmes not meeting the needs of learners.
The need for greater flexibility in mobility opportunities in order to encourage the participation of disadvantaged learners is required, however it was noted that the difficult personal constraints learners experience will require targeted learner support and appropriate levels of funding.
There was a clear view that those involved in mobility such as teachers, trainers, youth workers and social workers must be aware of and experienced in dealing with specific issues facing disadvantaged learners. There is however a call for the term ‘disadvantaged learners’ to be further defined as this term is wide reaching and encapsulates a wide range of learners with very different needs.
Supporting the stay abroad
Mentoring and Integration: All respondent types underline the importance of good mentoring and integration for supporting young people throughout the learning mobility phase. Academic mentoring and peer buddying schemes are seen as central in this process by all respondents. Mentoring and buddying should be provided to students in the form of a single academic advisor or tutor by the educational institution. The role of peer support is equally important in providing guidance to students and facilitating their integration. Peer tutoring should take place in the accommodation where students reside. In this regard, there are differences of opinions in what kind of accommodation students should be placed ranging from mixed accommodation and dormitories to host families.
Since adaptation to the new environment is very important, particularly in the first few weeks of arrival, specially programmed orientation events should be made available to incoming students to orientate them in academic and practical matters. Such events should be organised by the host educational institution or by a student organisation. Through membership in student organisations incoming students can also take part in social and intercultural activities with a view to enhancing their integration in the new country.
Recognition and Validation: There is a unanimous view shared by all respondent types that the validation and recognition of both formal and non-formal learning constitutes a considerable obstacle to the mobility of young people. The most common problems with the validation and recognition of learning are associated with the variability of validation and recognition practices among institutions and the lack of a common language about them. Other relevant issues include:
- Lack of information about existing EU instruments which facilitate the transfer of educational qualifications between Member States
- Lack of recognition of the value of non-formal learning
- Lack of flexibility in validation and recognition in primary and secondary schools
- Lack of flexibility in validation and recognition in some profession-oriented programmes (e.g. nursing, engineering, social work)
- Problems with ECTS in universities – this include recognition verses replacement, heavy ECTS requirements, lack of transparency and comparability
- Further development of ECVET and compatibility with ECTS
In order to address the above issues respondents emphasise as a general rule the need for establishing a good definition and synergies between formal and non-formal learning. Furthermore, the development of good partnerships based on mutual trust and dialogue between different educational institutions is essential in harmonising validation and recognition practices.
In particular, recognition instruments such as Europass and Youthpass should be better promoted, particularly among employers who are presently not familiar with them. It is suggested that perhaps a common recognition tool should be established which would help individuals to document all the knowledge, skills and competences acquired throughout their lifetime. A broader understanding of the value of non-formal learning for the acquisition of key competencies for lifelong learning should be promoted in society. The use of ECTS and ECVET should be expanded through greater collaboration in this area.
New partnerships for mobility
Mobilising actors and resources: All respondent types agree that creating or improving partnership involvement as well as improving funding opportunities and information and support structures would help to mobilise all actors in the interest of youth mobility.
Successful mobility partnerships should be formed with both public and private actors operating at local level; chambers of commerce, business associations, and NGOs can be very valuable non-educational partners. In addition, networks of schools and universities exchanging information, news and experience should be created.
Furthermore, it is noted that regional authorities should play an increasing role in promoting mobility through building on existing networks and creating new partnerships and encouraging it through financial support. On the same issue of financing mobility, it is suggested that a system with funding from different sources needs to be established. The EU should streamline mobility notably in the Structural Funds and the Research and Development Framework programme. It is also noted that the ESF should become an additional source of funding.
More active involvement from the business world: All respondent types perceive the involvement of businesses as an important factor in strengthening youth mobility. In order to improve the motivation of businesses, active cooperation and communication (including awareness-raising and advocacy about the value of mobility) between the educational and the business sector is essential.
The latter should not only be familiarised with the benefits of mobility but also given incentives to engage more young people in training periods abroad. It is suggested that such incentives should be in the form of special grants or tax exemptions, or ethical awards such as ‘mobile excellence label’. Where financial compensation is lacking, the importance of exchange in order to find substitutes replacing missing employees in enterprises during a mobility phase should be considered.
Virtual Networking and eTwinning28: There is a clear message from all respondent types that virtual mobility should accompany physical mobility rather than replace it. Virtual mobility and ICTs play an important role in strengthening the support for learners when it comes to preparing them for the physical mobility phase as well as maintaining follow-up communication and networking once the mobility stage is over. In order to make virtual mobility and ICTs a valuable source of preparation, it is suggested that there should be a range of electronic guidance and counsellor services and that teachers and trainers should undergo regular training to ensure an adequate provision of such services. In addition, online learning communities between teachers and learners should be established to support those willing to go abroad through peer learning. ICTs should also offer online language courses to learners prior to the stage of mobility.
Several types of respondents alert to the need to introduce or significantly improve the ICT infrastructure at schools before aiming at using it for the purpose of promoting mobility.
The eTwinning approach is embraced by all types of respondents who underline that it should be extended to all forms of formal and non-formal learning, in particular the vocational and voluntary sector. eTwinning is seen as a very good way to develop partnerships with educational institutions and to exchange experiences and good practices.
Mobility opportunities for ‘multipliers’: Respondents of all types clearly indicate that mobility opportunities for ‘multipliers’ should be given additional support and prominence in European programmes. ‘Multipliers’ such as teachers, trainers, youth workers and students who previously participated in a mobility stage could be a great source of inspiration for their students and peers which is considered as a sure way to promote young people’s mobility in Europe.
To provide more mobility opportunities for multipliers, teacher/trainer courses should be modernised to include a mandatory period of mobility. Later on, employers in education should be able to accommodate teachers/trainers’ professional mobility involvement so that additional workload is avoided. Public and school authorities should be strongly involved in the management and allocation of resources. It is also proposed that they should provide incentives and recognition to staff with particular commitment to mobility.
Mobility Targets: Nearly all respondents consider targets a useful tool in defining a mobility strategy, though preferences for at what level the targets should be set varied. Most respondent types were of the view targets should be set at European and National levels, though many education institutions, felt targets should be set at an institutional level.
There is a general view that on the one hand targets would help to ensure coherence and efficiency, however on the other hand, there is a concern that targets in terms of quantity may have a negative consequence in distorting the initial principles of mobility and, thus, affect quality. As such, there was an overarching view that mobility targets should be realistic, supported by adequate financial tools and not primarily focused on quantitative aspects of improvement at the cost of qualitative aspects
The full analysis of the in-depth submissions will be published on the Education and Training pages of the Europa website: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/index_en.htm
Annex 3: Links to key studies/work carried out by external consultants, stakeholders or academics
Report of the High Level Expert Forum on Mobility: 'Making learning mobility an opportunity for all' (2008) - http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/2008/mobilityreport_en.pdf
Open Method of Co-ordination in Education and Training - Peer Learning on Ways to increase mobility: funding models examined (2008) http://www.kslll.net/Documents/PLA_Ways%20to%20increase%20mobility_final%20report_Oct.%2008.pdf
Eurobarometer Special Target Survey 'Students and Higher Education Reform' (March 2009) http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_260_en.pdf
A Study on the Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility (2006) which surveyed former ERASMUS students and teachers, university leaders, employers, and mobility experts on experiences of Erasmus mobility and the perceptions of the role and impact of learning mobility http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc/publ/evalcareersum_en.pdf
Annex 4a: Analysis of Progress in implementing the provisions of the 2001 Recommendation on mobility within the Community for students, persons undergoing training, young volunteers, teachers and trainers (2001/613/EC)
Key to symbols: ✓: positive progress X: poor progress ~: mixed progress
| 2001 Recommendation | Assessment of Progress to date | Comments |
| 1. Member States are called on to take the measures they consider appropriate in order to: | ||
| 1. (a) remove the legal and administrative obstacles to the mobility of persons | ~ | Very limited reporting by MS in this area |
| 1. (b) reduce linguistic and cultural obstacles, notably by - encouraging the learning of at least two Community languages and - encouraging linguistic and cultural preparation before any mobility measure; | | Variety of efforts in all countries. Trend towards two foreign languages at school. |
| 1. (c) promote the development of the various forms of financial support for mobility, - facilitate the portability of scholarships, national aids and other support arrangements | X | Improved portability sometimes mentioned, but also controversial issue to be tackled at European level. |
| 1. (d) encourage the creation of a European qualification area | | Efforts made in all countries. |
| 1. (e) extend to persons participating in mobility schemes the benefits (other than social security benefits) available to the same categories of persons in the host State, such as fare reductions for public transport, financial assistance with accommodation and meals, etc.; Introduction of a mobility card | X | Few reported measures. Some countries report the system to be already implemented. |
| 1. (f) facilitate access to all useful information. - information dissemination - ensuring that citizens are aware of their entitlements under Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (social security) - training on community aquis on mobility - creation of a database on jobs and learning opportunities | ~ ~ ~ X | Information available throughout Europe by many initiatives which are being extended and improved. Internet portals complement traditional means. |
| (g) take the measures they consider appropriate so that the categories of persons concerned by this Recommendation are not subjected to discrimination in their home Member State in relation to the same categories of persons who do not undertake a transnational mobility experience; | X | Specific new initiatives are not common |
| (h) take measures they consider appropriate to remove obstacles to the mobility of third country nationals who, when participating in Community programmes, including Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth, pursue study or training, do voluntary work or provide teaching or training. | ~ | Some improvements in simplified admission procedures and specific financial help |
| 2. Measures proposed by the Recommendation which specifically concern students include | ||
| 2. (a) facilitate the recognition in the home Member State of the period of study undertaken in the host Member State. To this end, use of the European Credit Transfer [and Accumulation] System (ECTS), | | Increasing use of ECTS reported. Used in all countries. Also adjustment of national systems. |
| 2. (b) ensure that the decisions of the competent authorities responsible for academic recognition are made within reasonable timescales, are justified and are open to administrative and/or legal appeal; | ~ | Autonomy of HEIs in this area.; normally appeal procedure available. |
| 2. (c) encourage educational establishments to issue a European supplement as an administrative annexe to the diploma, describing the studies undertaken, in order to facilitate their recognition; | | Use of Diploma supplement increasing and widely supported. |
| 2. (d) encourage students and pupils to complete part of their studies in another Member State and to facilitate recognition | ~ | Mobility encouraged through legislative and non-legislative measures |
| 2. (e) take appropriate measures to make it easier for students on mobility schemes to prove that they have the health cover or insurance needed in order to obtain a residence permit | X | No specific actions undertaken. Although in some countries incoming students part of national health care system. |
| 2. (f) facilitate the integration (academic guidance, educational psychology etc) of students undergoing mobility into the education system of the host Member State | ~ | Varied actions taken. Often practical services provided by HEIs without reference to wider policy measures. |
| 3. Measures proposed by the Recommendation which specifically concern persons undergoing training include: | ||
| 3. (a) facilitate the recognition of the training undertaken in another country. To this end, the use of the ' EuropassTraining ' document, designed to promote European pathways in work-linked training, should be encouraged; | ~ | The use of Europass-Training implemented in all MS as action to increase status of a mobility period abroad. Lack of other actions. |
| 3. (b) encourage the use of more transparent models for vocational training certificates. For example, official national certificates should be accompanied by a translation of the certificate and/or a European certificate supplement; | ~ | Signs of converging views and successful cooperation. Certificate Supplement is being prepared. |
| 3. (c) take the measures they consider appropriate, in accordance with Community law and in the framework of their national law, so that persons travelling to another Member State for the purpose of undergoing recognised training there are not subject, because of their mobility to discrimination with respect to relevant social protection, including the administrative formalities for this protection, such as in the area of health care and other relevant areas; | ~ | Significant variation across Member States |
| 3. (d) take appropriate measures to make it easier for persons undergoing training to prove that they have the financial resources needed in order to obtain a residence permit. | | Following Directive 93/96/EEC a declaration of sufficient resources (not proof of) is enough. |
| 4. Measures proposed by the Recommendation which specifically concern young volunteers include: | ||
| 4. (a) ensure that the specific nature of voluntary activity is taken into account in national legal and administrative measures; | X | Volunteering still mostly informal activity; unclear status, varying between countries. |
| 4. (b) promote the introduction of a certificate of participation for persons who have taken part in voluntary activity projects, with a view to bringing about a common European format for curricula vitae; | ~ | The only case seems to be volunteers within EVS (European Voluntary Service) who receive a certificate. |
| 4. (c) ensure that volunteers on transnational mobility schemes are not discriminated against in terms of entitlement to social protection measures. | ~ | Only volunteers within the EVS are automatically insured. |
| 4. (d) ensure that recognised voluntary activities are not treated as employment. | ~ | In many countries volunteering treated as employment. Influences taxation, but gives access to social security benefits. |
| 5. Measures proposed by the Recommendation which specifically concern teachers and trainers include: | ||
| 5. (a) take into account the problems of short-term mobility covered by legislation of several Member States and encourage co-operation | X | Some countries point to the employer's responsibility. General absence of policies supporting short-term mobility. |
| 5. (b) promote the European mobility of teachers and trainers by - making arrangements for the temporary replacement of teachers - measures to facilitate integration in the host establishment - introducing European training periods; | ~ ~ x | In some cases a national strategy on mobility, in some cases regional and local initiatives. Little action to facilitate integration in the host institution. |
| 5. (c) encourage the introduction of a European dimension into the professional - in the context of teacher training programmes - by encouraging contacts and exchanges between establishments within Europe which train teachers and trainers | ~ ~ | Except some initiatives, a general lack of a European dimension in teacher's training at national level. |
| 5. (d) promote inclusion of European mobility experience as a component of the careers of teachers and trainers. | ~ | For university teaching staff mobility is in some countries considered standard. On general weak link between teaching exchanges and career development. |
| II Member States are called on to | ||
| submit to the Commission every two years a report on the implementation of the proposals made in the Recommendation. | | A first report was submitted, reporting was subsequently subsumed into the ET2010 OMC |
| III The Commission is called on to: | ||
| (a) set up a group of experts in order to permit exchanges of information and experience concerning the implementation of the Recommendation and of the Action Plan for Mobility ; | | A working group with a double mandate was set up. |
| (b) continue to cooperate with the Member States within the European Forum on the transparency of professional qualifications; | | Common structure for a certificate supplement. |
| (c) submit no later than two years and six months after the adoption of the Recommendation, and thereafter every two years, an analytical summary of the national reports on the implementation of the Recommendation; | | (2004 Report. Reporting subsequently incorporated into the Education and Training OMC Framework – biennial Joint Report) |
| (d) study the procedures for introducing a pass for schoolchildren/ students/ trainees/ volunteers within the Community, giving holders entitlement to various concessions during their period of mobility; | X | |
| (e) draw up proposals designed to promote the transparency of professional qualifications and the exchange of information on opportunities for studying, performing voluntary work or teaching in other Member States. | | Implemented through NRP and Europass. |
| (f) study appropriate procedures and measures with Member States for the exchange of information on opportunities for education, training or voluntary work or providing teaching or training in other Member States | | Ploteus Internet Portal (launched March 2003) and development of a service to make national services inter-operable. |
Assessment of progress is based upon the findings of the Report on the follow-up to the Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 10 July 2001 on mobility within the Community of students, persons undergoing training, volunteers and teachers and trainers (Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions) COM(2004) 21, supplemented with additional information from Education and Training Joint Reports 2006, 2008 and 2010 where available.
Annex 4b: Overview of Level of Progress in implementing the provisions of the 2001 Recommendation (2001/613/EC) and presentation of Areas emerging since 2001
| Areas identified by the 2001 Council Recommendation where progress has been positive | Areas identified by the 2001 Council Recommendation where progress mixed or limited information available | Areas identified by the 2001 Council Recommendation where progress is lacking | Areas emerging since the 2001 Council Recommendation | |||
| Recognition of qualifications completed in another Member State, in particular through the use of the ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System), and use of the Diploma Supplement in higher education, and the use of more transparent models for vocational training certificates | Ensure decisions of competent academic recognition authorities are made within reasonable timescales | Recognition of non-formal and informal learning undertaken in another Member State, including volunteering | Substantial technological progress, including Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), brings new opportunities for virtual mobility and for accessibility of information on mobility possibilities/preparing mobility | |||
| Availability of linguistic and cultural preparation for mobility periods | Facilitation of access for people considering learning mobility to all relevant information eg. awareness of possibilities for mobility, awareness of rights to social security, and facilitate integration in the host country (guidance and support services) | Take appropriate measures to ensure that mobile students are not subject to discrimination in their home Member State, when compared to people not undertaking transnational mobility | There is a greater emphasis on employability eg. stages/work placements increasingly popular as part of a study programme and mobility experience – this brings different challenges for facilitating mobility compared to traditional learning mobility | |||
| Encourage students and pupils to complete part of their studies in another Member State | Make it easier for students on mobility schemes to prove they have health cover or insurance needed in order to obtain a residence permit. | More emphasis is increasingly placed upon the social dimension eg. as HE becomes more accessible to non-traditional learners such as those from disadvantaged backgrounds these groups will have different needs to the traditional student body, perhaps more financial support but especially cultural/aspirational and guidance support | ||||
| Removal of legal and administrative obstacles to mobility | Ensure the specific nature of voluntary activity is taken into account in national legal and administrative measures, including ensure that recognised voluntary activities are not treated as employment | New partnership models and new alliances are an increasingly common aim of educational establishment, yet these can be restricted due to administrative and legislative barriers to co-operation. Joint working is more of a feature than 10 years ago eg. for the delivery of joint degrees, yet many countries do not permit their accreditation bodies to certify joint programmes. | ||||
| Promote the European mobility of teachers and trainers, and encourage the introduction of a European dimension into their professional development | Take into account the problems of short-term mobility for teachers and trainers, covered by legislation of several Member States and encourage co-operation | Extra EU mobility is increasingly demanded by students as part of the curriculum, yet the availability of information on opportunities for learning mobility outside the EU and academic recognition of periods spent outside the EU is particularly weak and in the case of incoming students legal and administrative barriers are particularly acute (e.g. visa restrictions). | ||||
| Remove national obstacles to mobility of third country nationals participating in EU mobility programmes | Portability of grants and loans. Many Member States have introduced new student support mechanisms which have differing portability provisions (also the subject of ECJ rulings in recent years) | The 2001 Recommendation was agreed before the accession of new Member States. The circumstances and mobility challenges of these countries may differ somewhat to older Member States Eg. Central and Eastern European countries have experienced large mobility outflows for study and employment. | ||||
| Extend the accessibility of benefits (other than social security) available to domestic students to students from other Member States eg. public transport subsidies, accommodation support | The economic crisis has led to a reduction in budgets available to support mobility initiatives and implementing institutions in many countries, making it more difficult for young people to afford a mobility period. Conversely, more young people, faced with a difficult labour market, are seeking to differentiate themselves in order to be more attractive to employers and/or defer potential unemployment. |
Annex 5: Links between the problems, objectives and areas where Member State action should be pursued
| COMPARING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE OPTIONS | |||||
| PROBLEM | SPECIFC OBJECTIVE | PROPOSED MEMBER STATES' ACTION | 1. STATUS QUO/ | 2. NEW RECOMMENDATION | 3. NEW OMC |
| Information shortfalls and motivation | improve the availability and accessibly of reliable information on the possibilities for study abroad and its benefits | Take appropriate measures to improve the information and guidance on mobility opportunities in their countries: | |||
| - Improve the quality of information and guidance and target it to specific groups of learners. | |||||
| - Make information easily accessible to all young people interested in learning mobility, | |||||
| - Cooperate with the Commission to further develop the PLOTEUS portal on learning opportunities. | |||||
| - Provide evidence of the added value of learning mobility | |||||
| - Encourage the use of ICTs to support physical mobility, | |||||
| - Use ICTs to set up electronic guidance and counselling services and online learning communities | |||||
| Enhance the motivation of young people to participate in transnational mobility activities: | |||||
| - Encourage networking between agencies, and other stakeholders to ensure a coordinated approach to motivating young people. | |||||
| - Encourage 'peer exchange' between mobile and not yet mobile young people. | |||||
| - Promote the value of learning mobility to learners, their families and employers | |||||
| - Wherever feasible, make a mobility period for teachers and trainers mandatory. | |||||
| Role of multipliers | |||||
| - Encourage the use of ‘multipliers’ who previously participated in a mobility stage as an important source of inspiration and motivation. | |||||
| - Include a European mobility experience as a component of the careers of teachers and trainers. | |||||
| - Encourage employers in education to recognise and reward mobility |
| Language and culture | improve language skills, consistent with the aims of the multilingualism strategy, including the target of "Mother tongue plus two (foreign languages) for every citizen | - Use more creative methods for the delivery of language learning.. | |||
| - Encourage the development of partnerships and exchanges, such as eTwinning. | |||||
| - Embed linguistic and cultural preparation for mobility into the curriculum. | |||||
| - Use more creative methods for the delivery of language learning.. |
| Legal issues such as: - the status of young researchers, trainees, volunteers, including problems relating to health and social security coverage - the absence of a coherent legal framework for the mobility of minors - difficulties surrounding visas and the implementation of visa Directives for third country nationals wishing to come to the EU to study, do research or engage in volunteering. - Impediments to cross-border working on curriculum development between institutions and agencies | reduce legal and administrative barriers relating to health and social security coverage for young researchers, trainees and volunteers promote a coherent legal framework for the mobility of minors remove legal and administrative barriers to the development of cross-border joint study programmes and other forms of learning mobility | - Simplify and co-ordinate national procedures | |||
| - Ensure that the legal provisions related to the free movement of workers within the European Union are fully respected and applied where appropriate. | |||||
| - Address the lack of legal status of some groups of mobile learners, notably minors taking part in mobility schemes. | |||||
| - Address legal issues relating to difficulties associated with obtaining visa requirements and residency permits for non-EU residents. | |||||
| - Reduce administrative and legal burdens in order to promote mobility to and from the European Union. | |||||
| - Ensure that national laws encourage and don't impede joint programmes and degrees in education and training. |
| Restrictions on the portability of financial support (grants and loans) | reduce or remove restrictions on the portability of student financial support (grants and loans) | - Ensure that policies in relation to the portability of grants, loans and access to benefits are fully in line with the rulings of the European Court of Justice. |
| Recognition and validation of the stay abroad | improve recognition and validation for formal, non-formal and informal learning completed abroad | - Improve procedures and guidelines for the validation and recognition of both formal and non-formal learning . | |||
| - Commit to changing attitudes and creating a broader understanding in society of the role played by knowledge and skills acquired in informal or non-formal learning environments. | |||||
| - Take a pragmatic approach to the issue of validation and recognition of knowledge acquired elsewhere (e.g. foreign language skills acquired during a stay abroad) | |||||
| - Set up a central reference point where individuals seeking to be mobile for learning purposes could have their qualifications recognised and certified. |
| Quality assurance and concerns regarding the quality of mobility, including disappointing uptake of the 2006 Quality Charter for Mobility | encourage a focus not only on increasing mobility in quantitative terms but, above all, on improving its quality, including via increased take-up of the voluntary European Quality Charter for mobility | - Ensure mobility is of high quality, and consider the introduction of quality assurance procedures for each aspect of mobility | |||
| - Encourage continuous dialogue and clearly established contractual arrangements between the sending and the hosting institutions and a standardised approach to guidelines and templates | |||||
| - Organise regular reporting, stocktaking and feedback mechanisms, to reassure prospective mobile learners regarding the high quality of their mobility experience. | |||||
| - Encourage mentoring and peer learning schemes to ensure good integration of mobile young people. | |||||
| - Encourage public actors to better exploit existing structures for hosting young people in convenient and affordable facilities. | |||||
| - Provide guidance to mobile individuals after their return on how to make use of the competences acquired during their stay abroad, and help with reintegration |
| Structural rigidities resulting from sectorally-focussed working. | encourage cross-sectoral working, in order to facilitate shared solutions common to different target groups | - Encourage mobility partnerships with both public and private actors operating at local level. | |||
| - Encourage regional authorities to play an increasing role in promoting mobility. | |||||
| - Stimulate active cooperation and communication between the educational and the business sector. | |||||
| - Pay attention to the coherence and complementarity of national and European programmes | |||||
| - Encourage national agencies to ensure that their work is integrated with that of all stakeholders |
| Still relatively few young people reap the benefits of a learning experience abroad and some groups, such as young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are particularly underrepresented. | increase opportunities for young people from underrepresented groups (lower socio economic backgrounds, minority ethnic groups, disabled people) to participate in learning mobility | - Ensure that those involved in mobility are aware of and experienced in dealing with specific issues facing disadvantaged learners. (including the disabled) | |||
| - Develop a mobility culture during the period of compulsory education | |||||
| - Pay particular attention to providing disadvantaged learners with targeted information on programmes and support tailored to their specific needs. |
| Lack of information on progress in removing barriers to learning mobility | enable a better comparison of progress between Member States and reinforce peer learning, via an effective monitoring process | - Encourage the setting of mobility targets | |||
| - Provide the Commission with data on national performance which the Commission will use to monitor developments through a 'mobility scoreboard' |
Key to colour-coding
Very good potential for progress
Good potential for progress
Neutral progress/status quo
Negative progress
Annex 6: Mobility Scoreboard – illustrative example
The proposed mobility scoreboard model could be based upon a traffic-light approach, inspired by the Stocktaking of progress made in the area of Higher Education Reform in the context of the Bologna Process.
Here, countries are assessed on a range from red = poor performance to dark green = very good performance (see below).
This traffic-light system has an advantage of being well known in the education sphere, easily understandable and relatively light in its approach.
Source: Bologna scorecard, Bologna Process stocktaking report 200929
1Eurostat data ; Progress report on indicators and benchmarks 2009 (Staff Working Paper SEC (2009) 1616)
2Brussels European Council 14th December 2007 – Presidency Conclusions http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/97669.pdf
32008/C 320/03 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:320:0006:0009:EN:PDF
42009/C 119/02 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:119:0002:0010:EN:PDF
5http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/Bologna/conference/documents/Leuven_Louvain-la-Neuve_Communiqué_April_2009.pdf
6http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf
7http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/mobility/com329_en.pdf
8http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/mobility/com329_en.pdf
9Eurobarometer Special Target Survey (March 2009) http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_260_en.pdf
10 Key issues for the European Higher Education Area – Social Dimension and Mobility (2009)
11 European Commission, DG EAC – Erasmus Statistics
122001/613/EC: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:215:0030:0037:EN:PDF
132006/961/EC: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0005:0009:EN:PDF
142008/C 319/03 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:319:0008:0010:EN:PDF
15European Commission DG EAC
16Bologna Process Stocktaking Report 2009 - http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/Stocktaking_report_2009_FINAL.pdf
172001/613/EC: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:215:0030:0037:EN:PDF
18COM(2004) 21 Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Report on the follow-up to the Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 10 July 2001 on mobility within the Community of students, persons undergoing training, volunteers and teachers and trainers
19COM(2004) 21
20Council Resolution on a European strategy for multilingualism 2008/C 320/01http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:320:0001:01:EN:HTML
21"A strategy for smart,sustainable and inclusive growth". COM (2010) 2020
22COM/2008/0868 Commission Communication New Skills for New Jobs - Anticipating and matching labour market and skills needs
232004/114/EC of 13 December 2004
24See for example, http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc/publ/evalcareersum_en.pdf
25http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/consult/mobility_en.html
26COM(2002)704
27http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/consult/index_en.html
28eTwinning enables schools across Europe to link online and engage in ICT-based partnerships
29http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/Stocktaking_report_2009_FINAL.pdf
EN EN