Annexes to SEC(2010)1048 - Youth on the Move Results of the consultation on the Green Paper on the Learning Mobility of Young People Accompanying document to the RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNCIL 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)1048 - Youth on the Move Results of the consultation on the Green Paper on the Learning Mobility of Young People Accompanying ... |
|---|---|
| document | SEC(2010)1048  |
| date | September 15, 2010 |
Annex 2: Contributions by Organisational Type 25
Annex 3: Response Charts for the Online Questionnaire 37
1. Introduction
On 8 July 2009 the European Commission published a Green Paper on Promoting the learning mobility of young people1. The aim of the Green Paper was to launch a broad public consultation to identify the most important obstacles to mobility and how to overcome them.
The Green Paper highlighted the benefits of mobility in supporting acquisition of new knowledge and skills. It also underlined 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 were those of combating isolation, protectionism and xenophobia.
A clear consensus in Europe has emerged at the political level on the objective of expanding mobility opportunities to young people. The purpose of the Green Paper was to open up the debate to stakeholders and the wider public on how to achieve these ambitions.
The public consultation closed on 15 December 2009 and met with a high response. In total 2798 on-line responses, mainly from young people, and 258 written responses were received, from a wide range of stakeholders, including Member States authorities, the Committee of the Regions2, the European Economic and Social Committee3, regional and local authorities, European and national associations, social partners, academics and individuals.
In line with the Commission’s general principles and standards governing consultation of interested parties, this report describes the consultation procedure and analyses the contributions received.
The objective of this report is to provide an overview over the wide range and diversity of ideas, opinions and suggestions contained in the contributions received. Without claiming to be exhaustive, the report identifies the main trends, views and concerns arising from the contributions. In order to ensure full transparency, the report is complemented by the publication of the full text of the contributions received on the internet. This is a report on the public consultation. It does not aim to draw policy conclusions from the consultation process.
2. Executive Summary of Contributions
The vast majority of respondents were strongly in support of the Green Paper.
There was a clear consensus that the quality of information and guidance related to mobility needs to be improved. Some respondents saw a need for a single integrated EU web portal, not only as a tool to provide relevant information but to promote the benefits of mobility to learners, parents, education institutions and employers. There was much support for new and creative ways to disseminate information, e.g. through social networks, and consensus that teachers and trainers should themselves be experienced in mobility.
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. The cooperation between all stakeholders, from regional and local authorities to young people and their families should be improved with a view to motivating more young people to be mobile.
The importance of language learning to begin during early stages of education was stressed. Many respondents emphasised the requirement for more creative modes of language teaching as well as for higher levels of funding to promote preparatory and continued language learning. There was support for a mandatory mobility period for teachers and trainers.
Difficulties associated with visa requirements, lack of legal status of mobile learners and recognition problems were highlighted as the main legal obstacles to mobility.
Variations in the portability of grants and funding arrangements from one Member State to another were seen as key obstacles to mobility and the need for action was confirmed by most respondents. General support, but also some reservations were expressed regarding the idea to formulate guidance at European Level applicable to Member States in relation to the portability of grants, loans and access to benefits.
All organisational types highlighted the need to reduce administrative and legal burdens in order to promote mobility to and from the European Union. More cooperation and partnerships with third countries and agreements between competent authorities across Member States and bilateral agreements between institutions (e.g. on recognition) could help in this regard.
There was strong support for the idea of using existing quality charters to ensure mobility is of high quality, for introducing monitoring and evaluation methods, and for the use of standardised guidelines and templates such as learning agreements.
The main obstacles to increased mobility of disadvantaged groups concern financial constraints, lack of information regarding specific provision for learners, and existing programmes not meeting the needs of learners. Teachers, trainers, youth workers and social workers should be aware of and experienced in dealing with specific issues facing disadvantaged learners.
Good mentoring and integration for supporting students throughout the learning mobility phase was considered essential by most respondents. Peer support ("buddying") among young people should play an important role.
The validation and recognition of both formal and non-formal learning still constitutes a considerable obstacle to the mobility of young people. Existing EU instruments which facilitate the recognition and transfer of educational qualifications between Member States should be better promoted. One promising solution can be the development of good partnerships based on mutual trust and dialogue between different educational institutions.
To create a new partnership for mobility, cooperation with both public and private actors needs to be intensified and networks for the exchange of information and best practice should be created. Regional authorities should play an increasing role in promoting mobility. 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 European Social Fund should become an additional source of funding.
All respondent types see a stronger involvement of businesses as an important factor in strengthening youth mobility. In order to improve the motivation of businesses, incentives should be given, e.g. in the form of special grants or tax exemptions.
There is a clear consensus that virtual mobility should accompany physical mobility rather than replace it. ICTs can play an important role in strengthening the support for mobile learners during preparation and follow-up but that will often require a significant improvement of existing ICT infrastructure.
The eTwinning approach, according to many respondents, should be extended to all forms of formal and non-formal learning, in particular in the vocational and voluntary sector.
Mobility opportunities for ‘multipliers’, such as teachers, trainers and youth workers should be given additional support and prominence in European programmes. Many respondents suggested that teacher/trainer courses should include a mandatory period of mobility. Employers in education and training should provide incentives and recognition to staff with particular commitment to mobility.
Nearly all respondents considered mobility targets a useful tool in defining a mobility strategy, though preferences varied regarding the most appropriate level for such targets (European, national, regional, institutional, etc.). There was some concern that targets in terms of quantity may have negatively affect quality.
For each issue examples of good practice were provided. Those that contained web-links for further information are listed in Annex 1.
3. Written contributions
The written contributions can be grouped into the following categories: Governments, Regional Authorities, Local Authorities, European Associations, National Associations, Education Institutions (e.g. schools, universities), Political Groups, Individuals and Businesses. The contributors, except for the individuals, are listed in Annex 2.
Figure 1 presents an illustration of responses by organisational type. However, these numbers cannot be considered as representative of the wider consultation process as they do not take into account the consultations organised at national level.
Figure 2 presents the composition of responses according to country contributions. Also EU organisations (e.g. social partners, organisations, networks) responded to the consultation and their representation is illustrated in figure 2.
4. Online responses to the questionnaire
2798 responses were received to the online questionnaire. By far the largest numer came from from individuals (2206 - 78.8%), while 532 responses (19%) were sent by organisations. The majority of the respondents were female (1719, or 61.4%) and young people under 35 years (1758 - 62.8%).
In terms of geographical distribution, most replies come from Italy (19.5%), France (10%), Spain (7.8%) and Germany (7.5%), followed by Romania, Turkey, the UK and Belgium.
For a more detailed analysis of the responses see the response charts in Annex 3.
5. Key messages from the consultation
5.1. Information and Guidance
How can the availability of information and guidance related to mobility be improved?
There is consensus among all respondent types regarding the need to improve the quality of information and guidance related to mobility. Information was named as the most important issue related to mobility by the online respondents: 77% see it as important or very important. Effective, clear and transparent information requires, however, the precise definition of potential target groups eligible for mobility. Good and appropriate information is more difficult to get hold of for young people in schools, vocational education and apprenticeship training than in higher education.
Information should be available in a variety of forms including dedicated, one-stop-shop websites, mass media routes such as television and also in printed form. The responses to the online questionnaire showed that large numbers of respondents didn't know the various EU portals related to mobility, such as PLOTEUS, Study in Europe or Euraxess. The need for a single, integrated, simplified and clear EU portal was proposed. One suggestion is for a portal called www.mobility.eu which should be linked to national systems in order to route information more effectively.
The need for more creative ways and forms to disperse information for example was recognised, e.g. through the use of social platforms, clubs, youth organisations, rock concerts and public spaces highly frequented by young people.
Many responses emphasised the importance of promoting mobility and the benefits of mobility at an early age. In this context the awareness of teachers, trainers and parents of the benefits of mobility is crucial. It was suggested that mobility opportunities should be part of the core training for teachers and careers advisors.
"Ambassadors of mobility", such as previously mobile learners, were suggested as a good way to promote and make available information and guidance related to mobility in an accessible manner.
Some respondents highlighted the importance of training centres, hubs, or centres for information, e.g. in the form of “European offices” within the education institutions.
It was suggested that the EU should support more research on acquired competences during mobility and conduct a survey of employers’ perspectives of mobile students across the EU, as this could help inform the development of greater diversity in work placements and study mobility periods.
5.2 Promotion and Motivation
What can be done to better promote and motivate young people to be mobile?
How should this be done to ensure maximum effect?
Motivation (together with funding) is considered to be important or very important by 75% of the online respondents. 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.
The most important benefits of learning mobility to online respondents were "personal development", "foreign language skills" and "added knowledge and skills in the area of specialisation".
Many respondents stressed the need to promote the benefits of mobility at an early stage and much more broadly to reach employers, teachers, parents as well as learners, policy makers and civic organisations. Learners and their families should be reminded of their responsibility to make use of existing opportunities.
Better cooperation at European level and networking between agencies, regional, local authorities, institutions, teachers, trainers, youth workers, ex-beneficiaries, policy makers, employers, civic society, young people and their families with a view to a ‘joined up’ approach was encouraged.
All respondents highlighted the need for clear, factual, practical and targeted information tailored to individual learners. 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.
Most respondents agreed that a stronger focus on systematic preparation within the curriculum, e.g. by promoting the notion of internationalisation, and improving opportunities for recognition and validation of learning is critical to persuade learners to be mobile, as are adequate funding and resources.
Some contributors suggested improving the motivation of learners to be mobile by removing age restrictions and allowing for greater flexibility in mobility – such as access to shorter mobility periods and fostering mobility through sports.
Individuals focused on a number of practical issues in order to better promote and motivate young people to be mobile, ranging from finding suitable temporary accommodation, subsidised transport, simplifying application procedures to improving foreign language teaching.
Although physical mobility cannot be replaced as such, it was suggested virtual mobility could significantly promote the concept of ‘internationalisation’ among young people at a reasonable cost. It was noted that shorter-term exchanges for mobility should also be considered.
EU tools such as Eurodesk, Eures, Euroguidance and Europass should be used more to channel information to learners.
What do you see as the main barriers to the motivation of young people to become mobile?
Most respondents highlighted financial constraints as the main barrier to mobility. Among the online respondents, 75% considered funding to be an important or very important issue. Other constraints include: a reluctance to leave home, family commitments, linguistic and cultural barriers, fear of lack of recognition and potential consequences of an interruption of study programmes, lack of information, administrative and logistical issues (including differing academic calendars and lack of accommodation) and lack of involvement of businesses and opportunities for work placements.
Linked to financial constraints, there is a general view that the rules and regulations of European programmes limit the impact of mobility opportunities and that funding arrangements should be simplified.
The need to make language classes in particular more attractive was highlighted. With regard to the language skills of VET learners, teaching methods must be better adapted to the specific pre-requisites and needs of the target group and be linked to career objectives.
Difficulties in obtaining a visa were highlighted as a barrier. The time taken to set up mobility periods is time-consuming and often acts as a barrier to the motivation of young people.
The fear of leaving home is considered particularly pertinent for young people who are socially disadvantaged and those with low skills. More support structures are needed especially for these groups.
Concerns were expressed that families and employers will not support mobility as they do not recognise or witness the benefit of a mobility period in educational terms. The use of ECTS should be improved and the development of ECVET accelerated.
It was noted that greater public investment in education is required more generally, but also that the Green Paper does not cover the many financial and organisational measures to promote mobility outside the EU programmes in Member States.
It is suggested that Member States should remove the administrative and legislative obstacles relating to residence permits, social security rights and recognition of student cards from other countries.
As learners become increasingly aware of the environmental effects of travel, the principles of sustainable development can become an important criterion in deciding on mobility in the future.
5.3 Languages and Culture
How can the linguistic and cultural obstacles to mobility be best addressed?
The importance of language learning by embedding it into the curriculum, from early stages of education through to continued education was stressed by all categories of respondents.
Using more creative methods for the delivery of language learning and ensuring disadvantaged learners are not excluded from languages and mobility opportunities was recommended. Many respondents emphasised the requirement for higher levels of funding to promote preparatory and continued language learning, particularly for VET learners.
There was a call for Member States to revisit and, where appropriate, reform national education polices to embed language learning into the national curriculum.
Several types of respondents expressed support for a mandatory mobility period for teachers and trainers of up to a one year.
Member States were requested to do much more through national education policies to meet the target of every EU citizen speaking at least two other EU languages. In this context it was underlined that language learning must be credit bearing and delivered in more creative, social ways – for example in bars, cafes, culinary and or cultural evenings and between native and foreign learners.
5.4 Legal Issues
What are the main legal obstacles to mobility that you have encountered?
Issues relating to visa requirements and the legal status of mobile learners were highlighted by nearly all respondents as the main legal obstacles to mobility. Also problems linked to the recognition of learning were mentioned as a barrier to mobility. The overarching message was that there is no clear legal framework for learners participating in mobility periods.
In relation to the Green Paper’s 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. Some thought that European Trainee Statute would help to ensure equal treatment and provide much needed clarity on legal matters while others insisted that it would have to remain voluntary as there will be national circumstances which cannot be changed.
It was noted that within the university sector a specific problem persists for doctoral students/young researchers whose status may vary between student/scholarship holder and employee. That lack of clarity about the status of mobile learners has implications for social security claims and can discourage them from becoming mobile.
5.5 Portability of Grants and Loans
What kind of obstacles have you encountered regarding the portability of grants and loans and access to benefits?
60% of the online respondents consider the portability of grants an important or very important issue. 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. Late payments or delays in funds reaching learners can be problematic and especially difficult for economically disadvantaged learners.
A number of 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. Whilst many noted a central guidance document could be beneficial, the need to be careful that it is not too restrictive was emphasised. If a central document were to be produced, it should be developed with Member States. Concerns about the added value of a publication of guidance from the European Commission on the application of European law to current arrangements were however raised. There is a concern that common guidance may make it difficult for individual countries to make decisions based on their own systems.
In order to equally fund all learners and not exclude learners from poorer countries participating in mobility opportunities in more expensive European countries, it has been suggested that resources should be distributed centrally by a Centralised European Institution, once the number of outgoing learners has been identified.
5.6 Mobility to and from the European Union
What more should be done to promote mobility to and from the European Union? How should this be done?
All types of respondents highlighted the need to reduce administrative and legal burdens in order to promote mobility to and from the European Union. Visa issues and high costs associated with mobility (travel, accommodation) are considered to be the biggest problems. Many respondents called for greater cooperation and partnerships with third countries and agreements between competent authorities across Member States and bilateral agreements between institutions.
There were frequent requests 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. The need for greater flexibility in terms of the validation and recognition of mobility periods abroad was highlighted.
Some respondents expressed the view that a long-term, gradual expansion of learning mobility programmes into third countries such as China, India, Japan and the USA would be a reasonable investment. However, serious efforts should be made to avoid brain drain from Europe, whilst making Europe an attractive location both for learners of European origin and those from outside Europe.
It was suggested that EU exchange programmes should better reflect the desire of Europe’s young people to travel outside the EU, but that this would require further financial support. Regarding higher education, a need for greater flexibility on the interaction of non-ECTS credit systems with ECTS was highlighted.
Some considered that, if more funding were directed to mobility beyond the EU, solutions to practical problems would follow suit. However, it was noted that problems exist due to the differences in legislation of Member States concerning third country nationals. One solution would be to harmonise the rules and create a specific common status for third country mobile learners.
5.7 Quality Assurance
What measures can be taken to ensure that the mobility period is of high quality?
Nearly all organisational types of respondents were in support of using quality charters (such as the ones used in the Leonardo da Vinci and Erasmus programmes) to ensure mobility is of high quality. There was also support for introducing monitoring and evaluation methods, such as systematic quality assurance procedures for each aspect of mobility, continuous dialogue and clear contractual arrangements between all actors and beneficiaries, guidelines and templates such as learning agreements, transparent selection procedures, peer exchange and structured learner support.
Many respondents stressed the importance of good preparation required by all actors including teachers, trainers, youth workers, managers and schools. It was also noted that cultural preparation is especially important for minors and preparatory language learning for all learners.
Of particular importance is the quality assurance process associated with the recognition and validation of learning.
Bilateral intergovernmental agreements can provide the necessary focus and mechanisms to ensure the quality of delivery. On a more practical level, reducing administrative burdens, clear communication and regularly updated partnership agreements concerning the focus of the mobility period, together with a clear definition of roles and responsibilities of those involved in the mobility arrangements, are also necessary.
Organisational suggestions included tailored selection and monitoring arrangements, improving the availability of and access to practical information (particularly for disadvantaged learners), pastoral care to support younger learners and ensuring mobility becomes a mandatory component of the curriculum.
Wider use of qualifications frameworks and study and training programmes with clear objectives and based on learning outcomes can contribute to high quality mobility.
5.8 Reaching out to Disadvantaged Groups
Which are the most important difficulties encountered by disadvantaged groups with regard to learning mobility?
Among the online respondents, more than two thirds expressed their support for an even stronger focus in European, national and regional programmes on providing mobility opportunities 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. It was suggested that Member States should ensure that access to education is based on an ability to learn and not on the ability to pay.
Greater flexibility in mobility opportunities is needed in order to encourage the participation of disadvantaged learners, but the difficult personal constraints of these learners will require in addition targeted learner support and appropriate levels of funding.
It was also underlined that those involved in mobility, such as teachers, trainers, youth workers and social workers, should be aware of and experienced in dealing with specific issues facing disadvantaged learners.
The notion of ‘disadvantaged’ groups should be further defined as this term encapsulates a wide range of learners with very different needs.
It is through targeted action within the compulsory stage of education that “prior mobility” can be offered to all and the desire for further “self development” and “cultural experience” can be imbued in all citizens irrespective of gender or socio-economic background.
It was also noted that permanent access to European mobility for disadvantaged young people should be funded on a constant basis by local and national funding institutions. Here it was noted that the European Commission could play a greater role by setting priorities and indicators and assuming a driving and coordinating role.
5.9 Mentoring and Integration
Can you give some concrete examples of good practice in this area?
All respondent types underline the importance of good mentoring and integration for supporting students throughout the learning mobility phase. As examples of good practice respondents referred, inter alia, to academic mentoring and peer buddying schemes. There are differences of opinion regarding the kind of accommodation in which mobile learners 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 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.
The role of student (or other youth) organisations was also underlined as important in supporting their integration - through familiarising them with the culture and everyday life of the host country and creating a favourable environment for social interaction.
5.10 Recognition and Validation
In your experience, is the validation and recognition of both formal and non-formal learning still a significant obstacle to mobility?
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. Among the online respondents, over one third (38%) shared this view. The most common problems with the validation and recognition of learning are associated with the variability of 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
- Insufficient appreciation 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)
- In higher education contexts, problems with ECTS in universities (recognition, heavy learning requirements, lack of transparency and comparability)
- Further development of ECVET and compatibility with ECTS should be ensured.
In order to address the above issues respondents emphasise as a general rule the need for establishing clear definitions as well as synergies between formal and non-formal learning. Furthermore, the development of good partnerships based on mutual trust and dialogue between different educational institutions is considered essential in harmonising validation and recognition practices.
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 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.
5.11 Mobilising Actors and Resources
How can all actors and resources at national, regional and local levels be better mobilised in the interest of youth mobility?
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. A majority of online respondents (56.4%) sees the European Union and its institutions as the most important actor in promoting a new partnership for mobility.
The opportunities offered by mobility at European level should be promoted by the appropriate national and regional organisations, since such ‘intermediary bodies’ are more likely to have effective cooperation networks with the target groups of the LLL programme.
Successful mobility partnerships should be formed with both public and private actors operating at local level; chambers of commerce, business associations, and NGOs can also be very valuable partners.
Regional authorities should play an increasing role in promoting mobility through networks and financial support. It was 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.
5.12 More active involvement from the business world
How can businesses be motivated to become more strongly involved in youth mobility?
All types of respondents perceive the involvement of businesses as an important factor in strengthening youth mobility. 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 labels”.
Businesses themselves see costs, lack of information and administrative effort as the main barriers against a stronger engagement of the business world for learning mobility. The procedures in programmes such as Leonardo da Vinci should be simplified in order to increase the number of SMEs taking part in it.
5.13 Virtual Mobility
How can we best make use of ICTs to provide valuable virtual mobility opportunities to enrich the physical mobility?
There is a clear message 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 after the learner’s return. To make virtual mobility and ICTs a valuable source of preparation, there should be electronic guidance and counsellor services and 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 respondents alerted to the need to introduce or significantly improve the ICT infrastructure at schools before aiming at using it for the purpose of promoting mobility.
5.14 eTwinning
Can the eTwinning approach be used in other learning sectors e.g. voluntary service, vocational sector?
The eTwinning approach is embraced by all types of respondents. They underlined 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, to exchange experiences and good practice and to advance internationalisation without physically moving from one country to another. eTwinning can lead to the dissolution of barriers for students with special educational needs and special conditions and thereby involve a wider range of individuals in virtual mobility.
The eTwinning approach may be utilised with success in other learning areas such as voluntary service, higher education, and VET.
5.15 Engaging the ‘Multipliers’
Should mobility opportunities for "multipliers" (teachers, trainers, youth workers, etc.) be given additional support and prominence in European programmes?
What do you see as the main obstacles to a stronger engagement of teachers and trainers in promoting mobility?
Most respondents clearly indicated that mobility opportunities for ‘multipliers’ should be given additional support and prominence in European programmes. ‘Multipliers’ such as teachers, trainers and students who previously participated in a mobility stage can be a great source of inspiration for their students or peers and helps 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. Employers in education should accommodate teachers/trainers’ professional mobility involvement so that additional workload is avoided and should provide incentives and recognition to staff with particular commitment to mobility.
It was also suggested that more accurate statistical information about the experience of staff in mobility should be compiled, and databases gathering the testimonials of students who have experienced mobility should be established/ developed.
The importance of the Grundtvig mobility programmes which also enable adult education staff (also teachers and trainers) to be mobile was underlined.
The main obstacles associated with engagement of teachers and trainers in promoting mobility include:
- Little recognition of staff commitment by employers. Though mobility is considered to enrich a teachers’ career and experience, the benefits for career development are uncertain.
- Lack of time for staff to commit to mobility and schedule mobility into the curriculum.
- Staff lacks personal mobility experience and language skills.
- Budgetary constraints to support mobility opportunities for staff were highlighted. It was suggested the CEDEFOP Study Visits where important opportunities for staff working in mobility.
- Difficulties faced by staff when balancing mobility experiences with family life.
- Difficulties related to staff substitution.
5.16 Mobility Targets
Do you consider targets a useful tool in defining a mobility strategy and if so, at what level (European, national, institutional, sectoral, etc.)?
Nearly all respondents consider targets a useful tool in defining a mobility strategy, though preferences regarding the most appropriate level for targets varied. Many considered that targets should be set at European and national levels, while others felt they should be set at an institutional level.
There is a general view that targets would help to ensure coherence and efficiency. However, there is a concern that quantitative targets may negatively affect quality. There was a strong view that mobility targets should be realistic, supported by adequate financial tools, and not primarily focused on quantitative aspects at the expense of qualitative aspects.
Those less in favour of target setting at level felt that targets are a very blunt instrument and are only of value if resources are in place to achieve them.
Annex 1: Examples of Good Practice
Information and Guidance
In Denmark, a website provides useful information for young people who are interested in study visits, voluntary work, practical training and employment after completing their education:
www.udiverden.dk
An example of good practice in making use of young people's experience of mobility can be found in Finland:
http://www.maailmalle.net/Resource.phx/maailmalle/mainpage/mainpage.htx.
In the Netherlands, the ‘orange carpet award’ was first introduced in 2009 for higher education institutions who offer elaborate support to foreign learners:
http://www.nuffic.eu/home/news-events/newsletters/education-promotion-e-newsletter/2010/march/news/general/delft-university-of-technology-wins-orange-carpet-award
In Germany, an electronic information system containing information on mobility will be implemented in university restaurants and cafeterias:
http://www.campustv-b2b.info/
Promotion and Motivation
In France, European Cartoon Animation supported by Youth in Action motivates young people at early stages for mobility: http://www.asso-eca.org/
The White Paper on Internationalisation of Education in Norway offers a platform for the further development of internationalisation of education in Norway:
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KD/Vedlegg/Internasjonalt/Internationalisation_14_2008_2009.pdf.
Similarly, Finland’s strategy for Internationalisation of its higher education recommends that higher education institutions incorporate a module supporting internationalisation into degree programmes:
http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Julkaisut/2009/liitteet/opm23.pdf
In France, a video was created by Onisep and Centre-info about apprenticeship and mobility:
http://www.onisep.fr/depart/camera.html
In Germany, a website provides a peer-learning platform for VET students to review student web blogs on placements undertaken throughout Europe:
www.mob-reg.eu
Languages and Culture
Franco-German guidelines for work placement/vocational education abroad are available to support learners, also linguistically:
http://www.plate-forme-franco-allemande.com/
The Czech-German-Polish website 'Trio linguale' supports the linguistic preparation of youth exchanges:
http://www.triolinguale.eu
In Norway, the White Paper “Languages open doors” presents a general policy on how to boost language learning both in a lifelong learning perspective:
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KD/Vedlegg/Grunnskole/Strategiplaner/LanguagesOpenDoors_07web.pdf
In order to promote inter-cultural skills, the University of Warwick in the UK has developed Global People:
http://www.globalpeople.org.uk/
Legal Issues
In Belgium, an online database allows young people to check what they need to do before being mobile they leave in order to be prepared in legal terms:
www.kamiel.info
In January 2008, Malta enacted legislation which aims to provide for the issue of a visa and a residence permit, and allows part-time employment to those non EU higher education students who want to stay in Malta to pursue their studies for more than one year.
http://www.foreign.gov.mt/Default.aspx?MDIS=539 and http://www.doi.gov.mt/en/legalnotices/2008/01/LN%2029.pdf
Portability of Grants and Loans
Danish students have the option to use their government grant for studying abroad and may also obtain stipends to cover tuition fees at educational institutions abroad:
http://www.su.dk/English/Sider/agency.aspx
In Norway, both temporarily mobile students and degree students at Bachelor, Master or doctoral level are entitled to portable grants and loans from the State Educational Loan Fund:
http://www.lanekassen.no/Toppmeny/Languages/English/About-the-Norwegian-State-Educational-Loan-Fund-/
Mobility to and from the European Union
The Scottish Government has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with China in 2008 that includes a number of commitments to promote mobility, including concrete arrangements for the exchange of students. Some similar initiatives are underway with India, Canada and the USA.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/04/07104858
The Cinformi project in the autonomous province of Trento, Italy, supports third country citizens, including students, in administrative procedures:
www.cinformi.it
In Norway, the Norwegian Programme for Development, Research and Education (NUFU) supports independent academic cooperation between researchers and institutions in developing countries and their partners in Norway. Approximately 36 million Euros are available for the current programme period (2007-2011).
http://www.siu.no/en/Programme-overview/The-NUFU-programme
In the UK, the International Gateway for Gifted Youth (IGGY) aims at gifted and talented 11-19 year olds from around the world. Through IGGY, Warwick University has sent undergraduate and postgraduate students to work with these young people at educational programmes delivered internationally.
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/go/iggy
Quality Assurance
The National Agency of the Youth in Action in France organises preparation and evaluation events for prospective abroad students:
http://www.injep.fr/Guide-Monter-un-echange-de-jeunes.html
In Germany, the Gütegemeinschaft Au pair e.V. project is aimed at increasing quality standards in Au-Pair programmes:
www.guetegemeinschaft-aupair.de
Nuffic in the Netherlands has developed a special tool that universities can use to evaluate the quality of their own internationalization activities and policies, called Mapping Internationalization:
http://www.nuffic.nl/mint.
Together with European partners, Nuffic is now working on a similar European tool (Indicators for Mapping and Profiling Internationalisation):
http://www.impi.pl .
i2i (internship to industry), a European project coordinated by a school in Sweden, focuses on enhancing the quality of internship projects. A webpage has been made to provide manuals and a tool box for parties involved in the internship process: coordinators, supervisors and trainees:
www.internship2industry.eu
Reaching out to Disadvantaged Groups
Eurochance provides language courses for blind and visually impaired:
http://eurochance.brailcom.org/index
The Franco-Germany Youth Office initiated a programme for single-parent children to promote their education abroad:
http://www.ofaj.org
The Agency of Youth in Action in France elaborated a strategy to tackle the problems of disadvantaged young people.
http://www.injep.fr/-Inclusion-.html
In Scotland, the Teachability Project (1999 – 2006) promoted the creation of an Accessible Curriculum for Students with Disabilities. It has been widely used by academic staff in the UK and beyond to evaluate the accessibility of course provision for disabled students.
http://www.teachability.strath.ac.uk
Mentoring and Integration
Buddy schemes operate successfully in many universities in the UK. Within the University of Glasgow, the Student Network provides impartial advice to all students, including those considering or participating in a period of study abroad, on almost any aspect of studying there, both personal and academic.
http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/studentnetwork/
The University of Warwick, UK, runs a 4-day residential Orientation programme for new international students at the start of every academic year:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/international/offerholders/orientation
At the website of the youth residences in Germany, Auswärts Zuhause, young people find the support of qualified contact persons who can provide them with ongoing advice and help them in their integration in Germany:
http://www.auswaerts-zuhause.de/
The University of Gothenburg (Sweden) developed a Peer Help Programme that trains students so that they can provide active listening, support and spontaneous assistance to other students. The Peer helper core training is now scheduled in English once a year in order to open up the programme to international students.
http://www.utbildning.gu.se/education/studentsupportunit/Peer_Help_Programme/
Recognition and Validation
European Training Services are developing a European Skills Account system which will enable participants to record the development of generic employability and language skills. It will be an online portfolio divided into several modules. As participants progresses through the mobility project they are encouraged to think about a particular category of skills and to find ways to demonstrate those skills so that they can be assessed by the host organisation.
http://www.europeantrainingservices.co.uk/en/
he Confederation of Skilled Crafts in Germany (ZDH) coordinates the project SME MASTER Plus. With six partner organisations, it works on the implementation of ECVET to support stays abroad during the master education of specialists and trainees.
http://sme-master.schnittsteller.de/
The Project 'Learn and Work Abroad', coordinated by the Chamber of Crafts Muenster (Germany), implements ECVET and e-learning structures to optimize and implement joint cross-border vocational education and training in crafts and skilled trades:
http://www.lawa-quality.eu
Mobilising Actors and Resources
The International Programme Office for Education and Training (Sweden) offers one-year programmes enabling upper secondary school pupils the opportunity to study in France, Spain or Germany/Austria for one year. Students are allowed to use their normal student grants for such placements, including housing subsidies.
http://www.programkontoret.se/sv/Program-Stipendier/Program1/Ettarsprogrammen/
The project MOBIVET-Region, funded by the ESF and the FREREF (a network of European regions) supports the mobility of young people in VET:
http://www.freref.eu/page.php?page=66
A network of universities in the SaarLorLux region promotes the exchange of professors, employees and students and has established interregional study programmes, with full recognition of student achievements and academic grades:
http://www.granderegion.net/fr/autres-cooperations-interregionales/f2_charte_universitaire/index.html
Involving Businesses more strongly
The Franco-German exchange programme for young people and adults in vocational education allows vocational school students of both countries to stay in a training centre or in an enterprise of a partner country for three months.
http://www.dfs-sfa.org
The Confederation of Employers of Galicia in Spain has signed a collaboration agreement with the University of Santiago de Compostela to conduct business practices. It allows foreign Erasmus to simultaneously study at the university and carry out work experience in companies and institutions.
http://www.usc.es/csocial and
http://www.ceg.es
Virtual Networking
To4ka-Treff, a German-Russian youth portal, provides information and support to young people from both countries who want to know more about the language and culture of the other country and would like to visit it:
http://www.to4ka-treff.de
ahoj.info, a Czech-German youth portal, offers similar services to young people from Germany and the Czech Republic:
http://www.ahoj.info
The ‘Acculturation’ pilot project is part of the Dutch national action plan on e-learning which aims to support and strengthen incoming international students by providing high-quality online preparation:
http://www.acculturation.nl/pilots/the-hague-university-app-sc-pilot
eTwinning
The Pizza business across Europe project was the winner of the 2009 international eTwinning competition among vocational schools in the category of 16 to 19 year-olds. It investigates the sociological aspect and the practicability of pizza business across Europe.
http://pizzacrosseuropetorneo.blogspot.com/
Engaging the multipliers
In the Netherlands teacher mobility in primary and secondary education is supported by funding provided through the European Comenius programme and the Dutch BIOS programme which allow more than 7000 teachers annually to take part in international exchanges, go on a work placement or study abroad and enrol in post graduate courses.
http://www.nuffic.nl/international-organizations/docs/keyfigures/internationalization-monitor-of-education-in-the-netherlands-2008.pdf
The Swedish Government initiated an investment of SEK 20 million in increased teacher mobility for 2010–2011.
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/11862/a/124195
Annex 2: Contributions by Organisational Type
Government
| Ministry of Science and Research et al | Austria |
| Ministère de la Communauté française de Belgique | Belgium FR |
| Ministry of Education, Youth and Science | Bulgaria |
| Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Cyprus | Cyprus |
| Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic | Czech Republic |
| Parliament of the Czech republic - Senate | Czech Republic |
| Danish Parliament’s Education Committee and European Affairs Committee | Denmark |
| Ministry of Education | Denmark |
| Estonian Ministry of Education and Research and the Archimedes Foundation | Estonia |
| Ministry of Education and Culture | Finland |
| French Authorities, through France's Permanent Representation to the EU | France |
| BMBF und KMK - German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the German Länder | Germany |
| Bundesrat (Federal Council) | Germany |
| Hungarian Ministries' Representatives | Hungary |
| Department of Education and Science | Ireland |
| Irish Parliament - Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs | Ireland |
| National Student Council - Ministry of Education, University and Research | Italy |
| Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Latvia | Latvia |
| Ministry of Education, Culture, Youth and Sport | Malta |
| Ministry of Education, Culture and Science | Netherlands |
| Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research and the Norwegian Centre for International Cooperation in Higher Education (SIU) | Norway |
| Ministry of Education | Poland |
| Ministry of Education, Research and Innovation | Romania |
| Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic | Slovakia |
| Ministry of Education, Andalusia | Spain |
| Ministry of Education, Spain | Spain |
| Swedish Parliament | Sweden |
| Scottish Government | United Kingdom |
| UK Government | United Kingdom |
| Welsh Assembly Government EU office | United Kingdom |
Regional and local Authority
| IFAPME - Institut wallon de Formation en Alternance et des indépendants et Petites et Moyennes Entreprises | Belgium FR |
| Flemish Department of Education and Training | Belgium NL |
| Flemish Youth Council 090922 | Belgium NL |
| Flemish Youth Council 091214 | Belgium NL |
| VLHORA - Flemish Higher Education and Flemish Higher Education Board | Belgium NL |
| VLIR-UOS - Flemish Interuniversity Board - University Cooperation for Development | Belgium NL |
| VSKO - Flemish Board of Catholic Education | Belgium NL |
| South Moravian Region | Czech Republic |
| Euroregion Galicia - North Portugal | EU organisations and networks |
| Brittany Region | France |
| Champagne Ardennes - Region | France |
| Limousin Region | France |
| Paris Chamber of Commerce and Industry | France |
| Pays de la Loire Region | France |
| Poitou-Charentes Region | France |
| Regional Council Lorraine | France |
| Regional Council of Auvergne | France |
| Regional Economic Council of Ile de France (1) | France |
| Regional Economic Council of Ile de France (2) | France |
| Regional Economic Council of Ile de France (3) | France |
| Rhone Alpes Region | France |
| Ländliche Erwachsenenbildung Thüringen [Educational institution engaged in vocational training] | Germany |
| Leonardo da Vinci Koordinatoren der Hessischen Hochschulen | Germany |
| Oberrhein Conference, Upper Rhein Region | Germany |
| Saarland fur Grossregion Saarlorlux | Germany |
| ServiceBureau Jugendinformation [Eurodesk Youth Mobility Information Point] | Germany |
| Unioncamere Calabria [Regional Chamber of Commerce] | Italy |
| Buskerud County, Department of Education | Norway |
| Oppland County Authority | Norway |
| Department of Education and sport - Region of Malopolska in cooperation with the Centre for Improvement of teachers of Malopolska and the Employment Office of Cracow | Poland |
| Cambra Oficial de Comerç i Indústria de Terrassa | Spain |
| Government of Cataluña | Spain |
| City of Gothenburg | Sweden |
| Stockholm Region European Committee (SEU) | Sweden |
| Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR) | Sweden |
| Vastra Gotaland Region | Sweden |
| East of Scotland European Consortium | United Kingdom |
European Union Bodies
| Committee of the Regions | EU Body |
| European Economic and Social Committee | EU Body |
European Associations
| UEAPME - European Association of Craft, small and medium-sized Enterprises | Belgium FR |
| Don Bosco International aisbl | Belgium NL |
| 112 Foundation | EU Association |
| ACC - Association for Community Colleges | EU Association |
| AEPL - Association Européenne de la Pensée Libre | EU Association |
| AGDF - Aktionsgemeinschaft Dienst für den Frieden | EU Association |
| Assembly of European Regions / Eurodysée | EU Association |
| AVSO - Association of Voluntary Service Organisations | EU Association |
| BusinessEurope | EU Association |
| CEEMET - Council of the European Employers of the Metal, Engineering and Technology-based Industries | EU Association |
| CESI - European Confederation of Independent Trade Unions | EU Association |
| CEVI - Confédération Européenne des Vignerons Indépendants | EU Association |
| COIMBRA Group | EU Association |
| EADTU - European Association for Distance Teaching Universities | EU Association |
| EAEA - European Association for the Education of Adults | EU Association |
| EARLALL - European Association of Regional and Local Authorities for Lifelong Learning | EU Association |
| EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) | EU Association |
| EPA - European Parents' Association | EU Association |
| EPSA - European Pharmaceutical Students' Association | EU Association |
| Erasmus Student Network- International | EU Association |
| ETUCE - European Trade Union Committee for Education | EU Association |
| EUNEC - the European Network of Education Councils | EU Association |
| Eurochambres | EU Association |
| European Civic Forum | EU Association |
| European Students' Union | EU Association |
| European University Foundation | EU Association |
| European Youth Forum | EU Association |
| JEF Europe - Young European Federalists | EU Association |
| Merseyside Network for Europe | EU Association |
| NESSIE - Network for Experts in Student Support | EU Association |
| NRW.Europa - An Enterprise Europe Network Partner | EU Association |
| Rural Youth Europe | EU Association |
| YES Forum - Youth and European Social Work Forum | EU Association |
| CPMR - Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe | France |
| FREREF - Regions in Action for Lifelong Learning | France |
| ECIU - European Consortium of Innovative Universities | Germany |
| Kolpingjugend Europa | Germany |
| AEC - European Association of Conservatoires | Netherlands |
| EUproVET - representational platform for European VET providers | Netherlands |
| Yc3 - Youth Cross-border Cooperation and Communication Project | Sweden |
| DIW - Disability Issues Worldwide | United Kingdom |
National Association
| Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour | Austria |
| Fachhochschulstudiengänge Burgenland | Austria |
| Jugend in Aktion - Austrian Agency | Austria |
| AEF - l’Agence Francophone pour l’éducation et la Formation tout au long de la Vie | Belgium FR |
| Enterprise Europe Flanders | Belgium NL |
| JINT - Flemish Coordinating Agency for International Youth Work | Belgium NL |
| Interkultura - the Intercultural Centre | Croatia |
| Institute of Hospitality Mangement | Czech Republic |
| CIMO - Centre for International Mobility | Finland |
| International Working Group of the Organisers of Apprenticeships | Finland |
| National Union of University Students in Finland | Finland |
| SAMOK - Union of Students in Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences | Finland |
| Trade Union of Education | Finland |
| AFPEJA - l'Agence Française du Programme Européen Jeunesse en Action | France |
| APCM - l’Assemblée Permanente des Chambres de Métiers et de l’artisanat | France |
| ASF Vivre Sans Frontieres | France |
| Association of French Regions | France |
| CIEP - International Centre for Pedagogical Studies | France |
| CNOUS - Centre National des Oeuvres Universitaires et Scolaires | France |
| House of Europe Paris - Collective Response from 14 French Associations | France |
| Jeunes Européens-France | France |
| l’ISTP - Formation d’Ingénieurs sous Statut Salarié de l’Ecole Nationale Supérieure Des Mines de Saint Etienne | France |
| Luciole Association | France |
| OVE - Observatory of Student Life | France |
| UNMFREO - l’Union Nationale des Maisons Familiales Rurales d’Education et d’Orientation | France |
| AFJ und AKSB - Arbeitsstelle für Jugendseelsorge der deutschen Bischofskonferenz und der Arbeitsgemeinschaft katholisch-sozialer Bildungswerke in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland | Germany |
| AJA - Youth Exchange organisations | Germany |
| Association of German bishops, Catholic office in Berlin | Germany |
| Au-Pair Society e.V. | Germany |
| Auswaerts Zuhause - Jugendwohnen mit Zukunft | Germany |
| BAGF - Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege [Federal Association of Voluntary Welfare Services] | Germany |
| BDA/BDI - Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen Arbeitgeberverbände / Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie | Germany |
| Catholic Youth Social Work BAG KJS | Germany |
| DAAD - German Academic Exchange Service | Germany |
| DASV - Association of Archeological Student Organisations | Germany |
| Deutsches Studentenwerk - Association of German Student Organizations | Germany |
| EKD - Protestant Church of Germany | Germany |
| Forum Universities and Churches | Germany |
| German Bologna experts | Germany |
| Go.for.europe | Germany |
| IJAB - International Youth Service of the Federal Republic of Germany | Germany |
| IN VIA Deutschland - Katholischer Verband für Mädchen- und Frauensozialarbeit | Germany |
| JUGEND für Europa - Youth in Action National Agency Germany | Germany |
| Katholische Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Freiwilligendienste | Germany |
| VDP - Verband Deutscher Privatschulverbände e. V. | Germany |
| Ver.di Jugend | Germany |
| VIJ - Verein für Internationale Jugendarbeit | Germany |
| Leargas - Youth in Action National Agency Ireland | Ireland |
| Leargas Youth Work Service | Ireland |
| ExisT - Volontari Europei [Former Evs Volunteers] | Italy |
| Confprofessioni - Italian Confederation of Liberal Professions | Italy |
| Consiglio Nazionale degli Studenti Universitari | Italy |
| Intercultura Italy | Italy |
| Lithuanian Youth Council | Lithuania |
| NAPO - Dutch Au Pair Organisation | Netherlands |
| NUFFIC - Netherlands Organisation for International Cooperation in Higher Education | Netherlands |
| ANSA – Association of Norwegian Students Abroad | Norway |
| YS - Confederation of Vocational Unions | Norway |
| European Youth Parliament (EYP)- Regional Delegation of Azores | Portugal |
| Student Council of Higher Education of the Slovak Republic | Slovakia |
| International Programme Office for Education and Training | Sweden |
| SFS - The Swedish National Union of Students | Sweden |
| Swedish National Council of Adult Education | Sweden |
| British Council | United Kingdom |
| BUTEX - British Universities Transatlantic Exchange Association | United Kingdom |
| CILT - National Centre for Languages | United Kingdom |
| FINE - European Federation of Nurse Educators UK Collaboration | United Kingdom |
| HEURO - Higher Education European Officers Association | United Kingdom |
| NASUWT - Teachers' Union | United Kingdom |
| NUS SCOTLAND - National Union of Students Scotland | United Kingdom |
| Scottish Qualifications Authority | United Kingdom |
| UK Higher Education Europe Unit | United Kingdom |
| UK Team of Bologna Experts | United Kingdom |
Education institutions (e.g. Universities, VET schools)
| University of Graz | Austria |
| Haute Ecole de Namur | Belgium FR |
| Ghent University International Relations Office | Belgium NL |
| International Centre Aarhus University | Denmark |
| Unviersity College South | Denmark |
| Tallinn University - Tallinna Ülikool | Estonia |
| TU Dortmund University | Germany |
| University College Cork | Ireland |
| University of Limerick | Ireland |
| Il Liceo Scientifico Statale di Montecorvino Rovella | Italy |
| Liceo Classico "Carducci" Nola Napoli | Italy |
| Liceo Scientifico Statale di Melito | Italy |
| Liceo Scientifico Statale Filippo Brunelleschi | Italy |
| L'Istituto "C. A. Dalla Chiesa" di Afragola | Italy |
| Serrato Istituto Tecnico Industriale "F. Giordani" di Napoli | Italy |
| Rotterdam Law Network | Netherlands |
| Students from Hogeschool van Amsterdam | Netherlands |
| i2i Goteborg Technical College | Sweden |
| Lund University Department of Health Sciences | Sweden |
| University of Gothenburg | Sweden |
| Aston University | United Kingdom |
| ESOL Cambridge, English for Speakers of Other Languages | United Kingdom |
| Kingston University | United Kingdom |
| Oxford Brookes University | United Kingdom |
| Swansea University | United Kingdom |
| University of Glasgow | United Kingdom |
| University of Strathclyde | United Kingdom |
| University of Sussex | United Kingdom |
| University of Warwick | United Kingdom |
Political Groups
| ESP and SSU Varmland - European Social Democratic Party and the Swedish Social Democratic Youth League, Varmland | Sweden |
Businesses
| CATT Innovation Management GmbH, Austria | Austria |
| DGB - The Confederation of German Trade Unions | Germany |
| DGU - German Social Accident Insurance | Germany |
| DIHK - German Chamber of Industry and Business | Germany |
| ZDH - Central Association of German Crafts | Germany |
| La'Met Education | Netherlands |
It should be noted that the names of individuals contributing to the Green Paper consultation have not been individually named in this report for confidentiality reasons.
Annex 3: Response Charts for the Online Questionnaire
| Response statistics for Green Paper on Promoting the Learning Mobility of Young People | |||
| Consultation period: 15 July – 15 December 2009 | |||
| 2798 responses received. | |||
| Profile of the respondent | |||
| Do you reply as an individual or on behalf of an organisation? | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Individual | 2206 | (78.8%) | (78.8%) |
| Organisation | 532 | (19%) | (19%) |
| If you answer as an individual please specify | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Pupil | 184 | (8.3%) | (6.6%) |
| Student in higher education | 657 | (29.8%) | (23.5%) |
| Trainee/Apprentice | 90 | (4.1%) | (3.2%) |
| Teacher | 389 | (17.6%) | (13.9%) |
| Trainer | 94 | (4.3%) | (3.4%) |
| Reseacher/Scientist | 400 | (18.1%) | (14.3%) |
| Policy maker | 70 | (3.2%) | (2.5%) |
| Other | 479 | (21.7%) | (17.1%) |
| If answering on behalf on an organisation please specify | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Public organisation | 259 | (48.7%) | (9.3%) |
| Non-govermental organisation (NGO) | 71 | (13.3%) | (2.5%) |
| Business/Enterprise (micro, small, medium or large) | 45 | (8.5%) | (1.6%) |
| Association | 80 | (15%) | (2.9%) |
| National authority | 12 | (2.3%) | (0.4%) |
| Regional/Local authority | 36 | (6.8%) | (1.3%) |
| Other | 71 | (13.3%) | (2.5%) |
| Gender | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Female | 1719 | (61.4%) | (61.4%) |
| Male | 986 | (35.2%) | (35.2%) |
| Your age category | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Less than 35 years | 1758 | (62.8%) | (62.8%) |
| Between 35 and 44 years | 386 | (13.8%) | (13.8%) |
| Between 45 and 54 years | 367 | (13.1%) | (13.1%) |
| Between 55 and 64 years | 143 | (5.1%) | (5.1%) |
| 65 years and over | 25 | (0.9%) | (0.9%) |
| What is your country of residence? | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| BE Belgium | 118 | (4.2%) | (4.2%) |
| BG Bulgaria | 35 | (1.3%) | (1.3%) |
| CZ Czech Republic | 63 | (2.3%) | (2.3%) |
| DK Denmark | 15 | (0.5%) | (0.5%) |
| DE Germany | 211 | (7.5%) | (7.5%) |
| EE Estonia | 27 | (1%) | (1%) |
| GR Greece | 71 | (2.5%) | (2.5%) |
| ES Spain | 218 | (7.8%) | (7.8%) |
| FR France | 279 | (10%) | (10%) |
| IE Ireland | 21 | (0.8%) | (0.8%) |
| IT Italy | 545 | (19.5%) | (19.5%) |
| CY Cyprus | 29 | (1%) | (1%) |
| LV Latvia | 28 | (1%) | (1%) |
| LT Lithuania | 26 | (0.9%) | (0.9%) |
| LU Luxembourg | 10 | (0.4%) | (0.4%) |
| HU Hungary | 29 | (1%) | (1%) |
| MT Malta | 8 | (0.3%) | (0.3%) |
| NL Netherlands | 36 | (1.3%) | (1.3%) |
| AT Austria | 42 | (1.5%) | (1.5%) |
| PL Poland | 81 | (2.9%) | (2.9%) |
| PT Portugal | 45 | (1.6%) | (1.6%) |
| RO Romania | 164 | (5.9%) | (5.9%) |
| SI Slovenia | 77 | (2.8%) | (2.8%) |
| SK Slovak Republic | 15 | (0.5%) | (0.5%) |
| FI Finland | 34 | (1.2%) | (1.2%) |
| SE Sweden | 30 | (1.1%) | (1.1%) |
| UK United Kingdom | 149 | (5.3%) | (5.3%) |
| IS Iceland | 1 | (0%) | (0%) |
| LI Liechtenstein | 1 | (0%) | (0%) |
| NO Norway | 32 | (1.1%) | (1.1%) |
| TR Turkey | 164 | (5.9%) | (5.9%) |
| Other | 91 | (3.3%) | (3.3%) |
I. PREPARATION FOR A PERIOD OF LEARNING MOBILITY | |||
| How important are the following issues in order to increase learning mobility? Please note that 1 = Very important and 5 = Not important | |||
| Information | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 1654 | (59.1%) | (59.1%) |
| 2 | 502 | (17.9%) | (17.9%) |
| 3 | 158 | (5.6%) | (5.6%) |
| 4 | 122 | (4.4%) | (4.4%) |
| 5 | 286 | (10.2%) | (10.2%) |
| Motivation | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 1557 | (55.6%) | (55.6%) |
| 2 | 550 | (19.7%) | (19.7%) |
| 3 | 212 | (7.6%) | (7.6%) |
| 4 | 148 | (5.3%) | (5.3%) |
| 5 | 248 | (8.9%) | (8.9%) |
| Funding | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 1493 | (53.4%) | (53.4%) |
| 2 | 620 | (22.2%) | (22.2%) |
| 3 | 206 | (7.4%) | (7.4%) |
| 4 | 148 | (5.3%) | (5.3%) |
| 5 | 254 | (9.1%) | (9.1%) |
| Portability of grants and loans | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 828 | (29.6%) | (29.6%) |
| 2 | 834 | (29.8%) | (29.8%) |
| 3 | 535 | (19.1%) | (19.1%) |
| 4 | 225 | (8%) | (8%) |
| 5 | 170 | (6.1%) | (6.1%) |
| Visa procedures (international mobility) | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 757 | (27.1%) | (27.1%) |
| 2 | 749 | (26.8%) | (26.8%) |
| 3 | 614 | (21.9%) | (21.9%) |
| 4 | 279 | (10%) | (10%) |
| 5 | 214 | (7.6%) | (7.6%) |
| Administrative issues (insurance, social security etc.) | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 749 | (26.8%) | (26.8%) |
| 2 | 880 | (31.5%) | (31.5%) |
| 3 | 606 | (21.7%) | (21.7%) |
| 4 | 266 | (9.5%) | (9.5%) |
| 5 | 165 | (5.9%) | (5.9%) |
| Linguistic preparation | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 787 | (28.1%) | (28.1%) |
| 2 | 864 | (30.9%) | (30.9%) |
| 3 | 630 | (22.5%) | (22.5%) |
| 4 | 282 | (10.1%) | (10.1%) |
| 5 | 143 | (5.1%) | (5.1%) |
| Reception structures (housing etc.) | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 821 | (29.3%) | (29.3%) |
| 2 | 907 | (32.4%) | (32.4%) |
| 3 | 563 | (20.1%) | (20.1%) |
| 4 | 279 | (10%) | (10%) |
| 5 | 135 | (4.8%) | (4.8%) |
| Integration during the stay abroad | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 929 | (33.2%) | (33.2%) |
| 2 | 907 | (32.4%) | (32.4%) |
| 3 | 432 | (15.4%) | (15.4%) |
| 4 | 267 | (9.5%) | (9.5%) |
| 5 | 146 | (5.2%) | (5.2%) |
| Recognition and validation after return | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 1267 | (45.3%) | (45.3%) |
| 2 | 670 | (23.9%) | (23.9%) |
| 3 | 308 | (11%) | (11%) |
| 4 | 203 | (7.3%) | (7.3%) |
| 5 | 233 | (8.3%) | (8.3%) |
| Exchange of existing good practices through ICT | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 636 | (22.7%) | (22.7%) |
| 2 | 821 | (29.3%) | (29.3%) |
| 3 | 605 | (21.6%) | (21.6%) |
| 4 | 304 | (10.9%) | (10.9%) |
| 5 | 163 | (5.8%) | (5.8%) |
| Other | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 217 | (7.8%) | (7.8%) |
| 2 | 86 | (3.1%) | (3.1%) |
| 3 | 128 | (4.6%) | (4.6%) |
| 4 | 54 | (1.9%) | (1.9%) |
| 5 | 135 | (4.8%) | (4.8%) |
There are several European internet portals that provide information and guidance on existing mobility opportunities and related issues. How useful are they to you? | |||
| Portal on Learning Opportunities throughout the European Space PLOTEUS: http://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/ | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Very useful | 350 | (12.5%) | (12.5%) |
| Fairly useful | 674 | (24.1%) | (24.1%) |
| Not useful | 123 | (4.4%) | (4.4%) |
| Don't know the portal | 1239 | (44.3%) | (44.3%) |
| Youth portal: http://europa.eu/youth/ | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Very useful | 602 | (21.5%) | (21.5%) |
| Fairly useful | 819 | (29.3%) | (29.3%) |
| Not useful | 116 | (4.1%) | (4.1%) |
| Don't know the portal | 864 | (30.9%) | (30.9%) |
| Study in Europe: http://www.study-in-europe.org/ | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Very useful | 478 | (17.1%) | (17.1%) |
| Fairly useful | 694 | (24.8%) | (24.8%) |
| Not useful | 118 | (4.2%) | (4.2%) |
| Don't know the portal | 1074 | (38.4%) | (38.4%) |
| Euraxess - Researchers in motion: http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Very useful | 253 | (9%) | (9%) |
| Fairly useful | 562 | (20.1%) | (20.1%) |
| Not useful | 155 | (5.5%) | (5.5%) |
| Don't know the portal | 1319 | (47.1%) | (47.1%) |
| Your Europe: http://ec.europa.eu/youreurope/ | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Very useful | 308 | (11%) | (11%) |
| Fairly useful | 585 | (20.9%) | (20.9%) |
| Not useful | 144 | (5.1%) | (5.1%) |
| Don't know the portal | 1243 | (44.4%) | (44.4%) |
| Euroguidance: http://www.euroguidance.net/ | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Very useful | 260 | (9.3%) | (9.3%) |
| Fairly useful | 540 | (19.3%) | (19.3%) |
| Not useful | 154 | (5.5%) | (5.5%) |
| Don't know the portal | 1290 | (46.1%) | (46.1%) |
| Eurodesk: http://www.eurodesk.eu/edesk/ | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Very useful | 487 | (17.4%) | (17.4%) |
| Fairly useful | 634 | (22.7%) | (22.7%) |
| Not useful | 143 | (5.1%) | (5.1%) |
| Don't know the portal | 1023 | (36.6%) | (36.6%) |
| EURES - European Job Mobility Portal: eures.europa.eu/ | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Very useful | 514 | (18.4%) | (18.4%) |
| Fairly useful | 654 | (23.4%) | (23.4%) |
| Not useful | 165 | (5.9%) | (5.9%) |
| Don't know the portal | 966 | (34.5%) | (34.5%) |
| Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs: http://www.erasmus-entrepreneurs.eu | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Very useful | 539 | (19.3%) | (19.3%) |
| Fairly useful | 605 | (21.6%) | (21.6%) |
| Not useful | 181 | (6.5%) | (6.5%) |
| Don't know the portal | 1005 | (35.9%) | (35.9%) |
| EU support for training and mobility for SMEs: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrepreneurship/craft/craft-skills_training/skills_training_main_en.htm | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Very useful | 326 | (11.7%) | (11.7%) |
| Fairly useful | 455 | (16.3%) | (16.3%) |
| Not useful | 139 | (5%) | (5%) |
| Don't know the portal | 1309 | (46.8%) | (46.8%) |
| Other | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Very useful | 150 | (5.4%) | (5.4%) |
| Fairly useful | 76 | (2.7%) | (2.7%) |
| Not useful | 40 | (1.4%) | (1.4%) |
| Don't know the portal | 320 | (11.4%) | (11.4%) |
Which of the following benefits of learning mobility do you consider most important? Please note that 1 = most important and 5 = least important | |||
| Added knowledge and/or skills in the area of specialisation | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 1293 | (46.2%) | (46.2%) |
| 2 | 695 | (24.8%) | (24.8%) |
| 3 | 340 | (12.2%) | (12.2%) |
| 4 | 184 | (6.6%) | (6.6%) |
| 5 | 168 | (6%) | (6%) |
| Foreign language skills | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 1362 | (48.7%) | (48.7%) |
| 2 | 733 | (26.2%) | (26.2%) |
| 3 | 233 | (8.3%) | (8.3%) |
| 4 | 141 | (5%) | (5%) |
| 5 | 225 | (8%) | (8%) |
| Personal development | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 1716 | (61.3%) | (61.3%) |
| 2 | 507 | (18.1%) | (18.1%) |
| 3 | 120 | (4.3%) | (4.3%) |
| 4 | 101 | (3.6%) | (3.6%) |
| 5 | 247 | (8.8%) | (8.8%) |
| Strengthened European identity | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 764 | (27.3%) | (27.3%) |
| 2 | 808 | (28.9%) | (28.9%) |
| 3 | 577 | (20.6%) | (20.6%) |
| 4 | 284 | (10.2%) | (10.2%) |
| 5 | 221 | (7.9%) | (7.9%) |
| Intercultural skills | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 1166 | (41.7%) | (41.7%) |
| 2 | 817 | (29.2%) | (29.2%) |
| 3 | 308 | (11%) | (11%) |
| 4 | 184 | (6.6%) | (6.6%) |
| 5 | 192 | (6.9%) | (6.9%) |
Enhanced future employability | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 1073 | (38.3%) | (38.3%) |
| 2 | 817 | (29.2%) | (29.2%) |
| 3 | 374 | (13.4%) | (13.4%) |
| 4 | 198 | (7.1%) | (7.1%) |
| 5 | 205 | (7.3%) | (7.3%) |
| Other | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 129 | (4.6%) | (4.6%) |
| 2 | 46 | (1.6%) | (1.6%) |
| 3 | 34 | (1.2%) | (1.2%) |
| 4 | 14 | (0.5%) | (0.5%) |
| 5 | 61 | (2.2%) | (2.2%) |
| Do you think European, national and regional initiatives and programmes should focus even more strongly on providing mobility support to disadvantaged groups? | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Yes | 1922 | (68.7%) | (68.7%) |
| No | 298 | (10.7%) | (10.7%) |
| I don't know | 476 | (17%) | (17%) |
| II. THE STAY ABROAD AND FOLLOW-UP | |||
| "The lack of full and easy validation and recognition of a learning or training period abroad is still a significant obstacle to mobility" - do you agree with this statement? | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Strongly | 1060 | (37.9%) | (37.9%) |
| Somewhat | 1265 | (45.2%) | (45.2%) |
| Not at all | 288 | (10.3%) | (10.3%) |
| I don't know | 104 | (3.7%) | (3.7%) |
| III. A NEW PARTNERSHIP FOR MOBILITY | |||
| Many actors can play a role in promoting the learning mobiiity of young people. How important do you consider each actor's role? Please note that 1 = Very important and 5 = Not important. | |||
| European Union and its institutions | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 1578 | (56.4%) | (56.4%) |
| 2 | 516 | (18.4%) | (18.4%) |
| 3 | 232 | (8.3%) | (8.3%) |
| 4 | 131 | (4.7%) | (4.7%) |
| 5 | 213 | (7.6%) | (7.6%) |
| National governments | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 1252 | (44.7%) | (44.7%) |
| 2 | 705 | (25.2%) | (25.2%) |
| 3 | 314 | (11.2%) | (11.2%) |
| 4 | 192 | (6.9%) | (6.9%) |
| 5 | 173 | (6.2%) | (6.2%) |
| Regional governments and authorities | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 888 | (31.7%) | (31.7%) |
| 2 | 766 | (27.4%) | (27.4%) |
| 3 | 527 | (18.8%) | (18.8%) |
| 4 | 263 | (9.4%) | (9.4%) |
| 5 | 169 | (6%) | (6%) |
| Local authorities | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 755 | (27%) | (27%) |
| 2 | 688 | (24.6%) | (24.6%) |
| 3 | 623 | (22.3%) | (22.3%) |
| 4 | 307 | (11%) | (11%) |
| 5 | 207 | (7.4%) | (7.4%) |
Education and training institutions | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 1688 | (60.3%) | (60.3%) |
| 2 | 433 | (15.5%) | (15.5%) |
| 3 | 186 | (6.6%) | (6.6%) |
| 4 | 116 | (4.1%) | (4.1%) |
| 5 | 222 | (7.9%) | (7.9%) |
| Businesses | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 644 | (23%) | (23%) |
| 2 | 810 | (28.9%) | (28.9%) |
| 3 | 596 | (21.3%) | (21.3%) |
| 4 | 321 | (11.5%) | (11.5%) |
| 5 | 190 | (6.8%) | (6.8%) |
| Professional associations and networks | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 806 | (28.8%) | (28.8%) |
| 2 | 766 | (27.4%) | (27.4%) |
| 3 | 549 | (19.6%) | (19.6%) |
| 4 | 251 | (9%) | (9%) |
| 5 | 200 | (7.1%) | (7.1%) |
| Other | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| 1 | 167 | (6%) | (6%) |
| 2 | 43 | (1.5%) | (1.5%) |
| 3 | 49 | (1.8%) | (1.8%) |
| 4 | 17 | (0.6%) | (0.6%) |
| 5 | 54 | (1.9%) | (1.9%) |
| "Mobility opportunities for "multipliers" (teachers, trainers, youth workers, etc.) ought to be given additional support and prominence in European programmes" - do you agree with this statement? | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Strongly | 1682 | (60.1%) | (60.1%) |
| Somewhat | 813 | (29.1%) | (29.1%) |
| Not at all | 87 | (3.1%) | (3.1%) |
| I don't know | 126 | (4.5%) | (4.5%) |
| Do you consider mobility targets ("x percent of mobile apprentices by 2020", etc.) a useful tool in defining a mobility strategy? | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| Yes | 1378 | (49.2%) | (49.2%) |
| No | 677 | (24.2%) | (24.2%) |
| I don't know | 642 | (22.9%) | (22.9%) |
| If yes, at what level would targets be most useful? | |||
| Number of requested records | % Requested records | % of total number records | |
| European level | 514 | (37.3%) | (18.4%) |
| National level | 291 | (21.1%) | (10.4%) |
| Sectoral level (schools, higher education, etc.) | 336 | (24.4%) | (12%) |
| Institutional level (school, company, etc.) | 201 | (14.6%) | (7.2%) |
| Other | 8 | (0.6%) | (0.3%) |
1http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/mobility/com329_en.pdf
2http://coropinions.cor.europa.eu/CORopinionDocument.aspx?identifier=cdr\educ-iv\dossiers\educ-iv-043\cdr246-2009_fin_ac.doc&language=EN
3http://www.eesc.europa.eu/sections/soc/education_training_youth_culture.htm
EN EN