-
COUNCIL OFBrussels, 25 November 2011
THE EUROPEAN UNION
17188/11 ADD 6
Interinstitutional File:
2011/0371 (COD)
EDUC 273 JEUN 74 SPORT 44 SOC 1015 RELEX 1212 RECH 378 CADREFIN 141 CODEC 2193
COVER NOTE
from:
Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director
date of receipt: 25 November 2011
to: Mr Uwe CORSEPIUS, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union
No Cion doc.: SEC(2011) 1403 Final
Subject: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF
THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT - accompanying document to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a single Education, Training, Youth and Sport Programme for the period 2014 - 2020 SUMMARY AND INTEGRATED CONCLUSIONS
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 23.11.2011 SEC(2011) 1403 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying document to the
Proposal for a
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
establishing a single Education, Training, Youth and Sport Programme for the period
2014-2020
SUMMARY AND INTEGRATED CONCLUSIONS
Lead Service: DG Education and Culture (EAC) supported by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)
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.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4
-
1.Problem description ..................................................................................................... 4
-
2.Justification of EU intervention ................................................................................... 6
-
3.Objectives of the future intervention............................................................................ 7
-
4.Options ......................................................................................................................... 9
-
5.Main impacts of the options....................................................................................... 12
-
6.Comparison of options ............................................................................................... 15
-
7.Description of the preferred option ............................................................................ 21
-
8.Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 24
INTRODUCTION
This document provides a summary of the four impact assessments covering Education, Training, Youth and Sport.
The four impact assessments examine the operations of three existing programmes and, in the case of sport, preparatory actions voted by the Budgetary Authority. Overall, the four following options have been examined into depth: Discontinuing the existing actions or programmes; continuing them in their current form; strengthening the objectives of the current programmes; and a single Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport to strengthen objectives and impacts through concentration and a streamlined architecture.
The preferred option identified in each of the four IAs is the merger into a single programme, which is in line with the Decision of the Commission on the Multiannual Financial Framework adopted on 29th June 2011. This preferred option would be the most coherent and cost-effective, for the main following reasons:
-
1.It responds to the need for increased EU investment in Education and Training in these times of financial and economic crises, as a growing economy depends on the supply of highly skilled workers and on the mobilisation of the skills and competences of the unemployed;
-
2.It focuses on and develops those actions identified in the current programmes as having the highest European added value and the strongest multiplier effects, leading to tangible impact on European education and training systems and thus considerably improved returns on investment;
-
3.The concentration of efforts within the new streamlined programme architecture will allow for greater synergies among existing programmes and across different educational sectors, thus bolstering the lifelong learning approach to education, increasing coherence and improving access to potential beneficiaries through a streamlined set of key transversal actions;
A report1on sources of growth presented by the Polish Presidency of the Union recommends an
increase of the funding for programmes supporting mobility of students, young researchers and employees (e.g. Erasmus, Marie Curie), stating that raising the ratio of people with higher education to 40% would contribute to increasing GDP per capita in the EU by 4%.
The experience of the current programmes demonstrates that EU budget support can contribute significantly to improving the preparedness of EU citizens for the labour market and professional life, and to tackling the key problems of education and training systems: high levels of early school leaving, low achievement in basic skills and key competences, insufficient participation in higher education and vocational training, insufficient participation of adults in education and training, insufficient opportunities for the training of education staff, and low levels of entrepreneurship and creativity among young people. EU support can also help reduce inequality in the provision and access to learning, notably vis-à-vis people with disadvantaged backgrounds, people with special needs, and gender inequalities in E&T. Similarly, EU support can contribute to the development of social capital among youth, to the empowerment of young people and to their ability to participate actively in society in line with the new Treaty.
Taking into account the lessons from the current programmes, the competences of the EU and the strengths and limits of intervention through EU financial instruments, as well as the views expressed in the consultation of stakeholders, EU support to education and training, youth and sport in the 2014-2020 MFF should focus primarily on a series of key issues and problems:
-
-The need to develop transnational mobility and the European area of education and training:
The system for recognition and transferability of qualifications and competences, needed for building-up the European area in E&T, is not yet sufficiently developed. Participation in E&T programme's mobility actions is not fully linked to the E&T policy priorities as defined in the Europe 2020 Strategy and in the ET 2020 Education and Training strategy- for example to the need to contribute to the adoption of the tools for recognition and transfer of learning outcomes. Similarly, there is an insufficient link between mobility and the institutional framework e.g. as part of a wider internationalisation effort. And there are other obstacles to learning mobility, in particular regarding languages. Moreover, in the area of non-formal learning and youth work, there is a fragmented and uneven provision of opportunities for young people.
-
-The need for evidence-based analysis to support the reform and modernisation of education systems as well as youth work development:
The collection of data, their analysis and their use including within the Open Method of coordination and the governance of Europe 2020 for evidence-based policy making and reform are insufficient. The provision of policy tools and peer comparison/pressure for programming smart investments in the areas of education and training as well as youth is insufficient.
-
-The need to reduce inequality in the provision and access to learning opportunities, relating to gender, people with disadvantaged background and with special needs.
-
-The need to ensure that young people participate actively and constructively in society and in
democratic life.
-
-The need to increase awareness and knowledge-sharing on how to address sport-related problems, mainly at local and grassroots level, notably in the fields of good governance, health-enhancing physical activity, social inclusion, violence and intolerance, dual careers and doping
While these problems refer to the scope and content of EU support, it is also essential to tackle, in parallel, the key issue of European added value, management and simplification. Even if the results of the interim evaluations of current programmes, as well as the online consultations of stakeholders, reflect relatively high levels of satisfaction, there is considerable room for improvement, particularly in light of the current difficult budget constraints.
Current programmes in the field of education, training and youth are too complex, with too many objectives and actions which limit the systemic impact and thus the European added value and potential investment value of EU interventions. By way of illustration, the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) has 6 sub-programmes, more than 50 objectives and over 60 actions. The Youth in Action Programme focuses on the mobility and (non-formal) learning of young people, while approximately 80% of the LLP's funding also benefits youth. Some actions simply lack the critical mass required for long-lasting impact. International cooperation in higher education is also characterized by the fragmentation between different EU instruments implementing similar objectives and actions.
-
-
The transnational and innovative character of its activities and the outputs it helps
develop: The existing actions of Member States remain at national level. The EU added value lies in that the Community budget promotes and supports individual mobility, cooperation, collaboration and partnerships across participating countries and with non EU partner countries (notably for higher education cooperation and mobility), to enable learning and transfer of knowledge and innovation between education and training and youth stakeholders, institutions, organisations and systems.
-
-The way it supports cooperation between Member States, particulary through the Open Method of Coordination. EU supports the priorities outlined in EU strategies, to help create a consensus among the various stakeholders on the role of education, training and youth support for economic and social development, and to contribute to improvements in the knowledge of policy makers and education and training specialists regarding international good practices, including in the field of sports. With the aim to influence systemic changes in the field of education and training, the programme should act as a driving force for the implementation of general European tools for mobility and recognition of qualifications
2.
-
-The way it complements national, international and EU programmes: The specific added value of EU support, as compared with other (national and international) programmes, lies also in the broader geographical coverage of its activites and in the fact that it promotes consistent cooperation in the fields of education, training, youth and sports, as well as mobility and the internationalisation of education and training. The initiatives of other EU programmes, mainly the EU structural funds, in the area of education and training, are different. Activities of the European Social Fund are generally linked to the provision of assistance with a focus on jobs and the labour market integration of participants, whereas the future programme will provide opportunities for mobility, and for the development of new projects, ideas and techniques - which can subsequently be supported and mainstreamed by the ESF. The European Regional Development Fund can invest in educational infrastructure which help to strengthen communities and improve access. The Socio-economic science and humanities research programme (DG RTD FP7) play an important role in supporting educational research, by funding research projects on lifelong learning, skills needs, education, youth and social inclusion, involving the whole research community in Europe and beyond. There is thus at the same time a clear-cut distinction and scope for synergies and cooperation amongst these programmes.
the 2014-2020 MFF; therefore, EU budget support in these areas should have as the overarching aim to contribute to these EU strategies; the main associated impact indicators should be the relevant headline targets of Europe 2020.
General objectives
The overall general objective of the programme is to contribute to the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and of the Education and Training strategic framework 2020 (ET2020), including the corresponding targets, to the renewed framework for European Cooperation in Youth field (2010- 2018), to the sustainable development of third countries in the field of higher education and to develop the European dimension in sport.
In the individual Impact Assessments, the following general objectives have been set for future
support:
Lifelong Learning/education and training: To empower individuals of all ages and social backgrounds by contributing to the development of quality education and training systems, as part of the Europe 2020 strategy of smart, inclusive and sustainable growth and of the ET 2020 strategic framework.
International cooperation in Higher Education: To strengthen openness, innovation and excellence in education, with a view to producing long-lasting systemic impact, building capacity and supporting reform of higher education institutions in the EU and in partner countries.
Youth non-formal education: To contribute to young people's employability, active participation in society and sense of belonging to the EU, as a means to foster human and social capital development and promote growth and social cohesion in support to the Europe 2020 Strategy and the EU Youth Strategy.
Sport: To develop the European dimension in sport.
Related specific and operational objectives are developed in each IA report, with indicators at different levels. For illustrative purpose a summary of indicators can be found in Annex to the Impact Assessment on Lifelong Learning.
4. - OPTIONS
-
The research carried out in support of the impact assessments has enabled identifying "what works and what doesn't work" at the baseline. The results have been applied in the process of defining the preferred option, and thus guided the distribution of funding between the different actions covered on the basis of the Commission's proposal for a Multiannual Financial Framework 2014 2020;
Policy option 1: Status quo (baseline option)
The current programmes and sub-programmes would broadly retain their current, independent objectives, actions, structures and management systems, as well as their current budget allocations. Therefore, these programmes would essentially be the same as the ongoing:
· Lifelong Learning Programme
· Erasmus Mundus Programme and other external cooperation programmes in Higher Education
· Youth in Action Programme
There would be no programme specifically devoted to Sport.
Policy option 2: `No action'
Under this option there would be no EU spending programmes in the areas concerned after 2013. Policy coordination and mutual learning processes (i.e. the Open Method of Coordination in Education and Youth policies, policy coordination in Sport) would continue. The EU would continue its obligations under Article 165 and Article 166 of the Treaty, which would necessitate some expenditure on the provision of information and analysis and human resources in order to fulfil its mandate. Some sport-related projects might be funded within other EU programmes and related instruments, such as Public Health or via the ESF. Otherwise, spending on education, training and non-formal learning mobility, youth work and transnational cooperation activities would be entirely reliant on non-EU resources (in particular, from the Member States).
Policy option 3: Strengthening the objectives of the current programmes
Building on the strengths and eliminating the weaknesses of the current programmes, this option would consist of refocusing the objectives of the existing separate programmes to better support the Europe 2020 strategic framework and the new EU political context relative to Education, Training and Youth. The administrative structures and the architecture of the different (sub) programmes of education, training and youth would not be altered for the sake of continuity. A small Sport Programme with a modest budget would be created separately. The changes to the current programmes would be led by the following guiding principles:
o focus on mobility with strong systemic impact, in particular higher education students,
o traineeships in enterprises to support the transition between education and work and foster entrepreneurship;
· Supporting mutual learning guided by excellence and modernisation of systems both in the EU and its partner countries, including:
o peer learning activities,
o exchange of good practices,
o development of joint projects and innovative methods,
o stronger cooperation with the world of work,
o incentives to reward excellence in education for innovation and entrepreneurship;
· Supporting OMC policy networks with Member States and to the joint testing of innovative policy approaches, e.g. on
o development of EU tools for transparency/ transferability/recognition of qualifications,
o analysis directly linked to the Europe 2020 and Annual Growth Survey priorities, as well as the Bologna and Copenhagen processes,
o policy exchange between education authorities and other stakeholders on the modernisation agenda,
o policy exchange between youth authorities and other stakeholders within the European framework of cooperation in the youth field,
o policy dialogue with third countries, focusing on strategic partners.
The Programme would include a separate chapter and budget for Sport activities.. This would avoid a proliferation of individual legal bases in line with the overall MFF approach towards streamlining and simplification whilst still exploiting both the common general objectives and the potential for economies of scale and harmonisation of administrative and management procedures.
The single programme would inherently deepen the scope for systemic impact and returns on investment through a concentration of activities with European added value and through increased synergies and reduced duplications across sectors, policies and . The architecture of, and access to, the programme will be greatly simplified and delivered through three types of actions: mobility, cooperation and policy reform oriented activities. It would be improved mainly by:
(a) As illustrated for Option 3, concentrating on activities with the highest added value, where a critical mass can be mobilized, and on strong conditionality/incentives to achieve the Union's policy objectives targeting systemic change.
(b) Identifying those areas of activity where the programme has a competitive advantage as compared to other EU instruments or initiatives, and identifying and exploiting already in the design phase the opportunities for synergies and complementarities between different sectors, policy fields and other funding sources.
(c) Reducing radically the complexity of the architecture of the programmes, and identifying the scope for economies of scale and for simplifying the programme management and increasing the programme user-friendliness.
Regarding the delivery mechanism, the programme would build on the present strengths of the National Agency system, as specified under section 6 of this document.
This policy option would aim at providing more flexibility and incentives to promote EU added value, so that budget allocation between actions, beneficiaries and countries can take better account of actual quantitative and qualitative performance. It would also allow for making wider use of research results and transferring mature innovations/best practices that are ready for mainstreaming at lower level programming.
The sport actions within the programme would benefit from the existing delivery mechanisms, allowing economies of scale (with respect to creating a new, separate programme alongside the current ones as in Option 3) and the use of good practices.
Economic Impacts
The programmes would improve to a limited extent the functioning of the single market by increasing the number of people willing to work abroad, and it would facilitate the transparency of qualifications. Thus there would be a mid- and long-term positive impact on competitiveness at the European level, thanks to the improvement of the skills levels of the population and to a better allocation of human capital in Europe through mobility.
Fundamental Rights
The programmes would have positive impacts in relation to a number of fundamental rights, such as the right to education and right to freedom of movement. Mobility flows would also consider linguistic diversity, as countries with less widely spoken languages are involved in mobility flows.
Option 2: No action
Social Impacts
Future developments in the area of mobility, cooperation and policy development would be much more fragmented and bilateral, would take place at a smaller scale and would not develop as consistently across EU Member States.
It would result in missed opportunities in terms of development of European citizenship and the understanding of European integration. As some of the most popular EU actions in the eyes of the citizens would disappear, this would create a negative image of the Union.
Economic Impacts
It could aggravate future shortages of labour-market relevant skills such as linguistic skills, communication skills and technical skills resulting in loss of productivity and competitiveness.
The discontinuation of the programmes would not contribute to the creation of the necessary conditions for European citizens to actively enjoy the right to move and work across the EU.
would enhance the perception of beneficiaries of being European citizens and empower them to contribute to economic and social life. A focus on hard-to-reach and disadvantaged groups could also favour the development of European citizenship among those participants who are traditionally not engaging in any transnational activity. Furthermore, enhanced cooperation in promoting participation in sport would lead to potential impacts e.g. in the field of health.
Economic Impacts
Economic impacts are likely to be positive as the future programme would tackle, in a more effective way, problems which generate considerable costs in terms of unemployment benefits and active labour market measures, as well as hidden costs in terms of loss of productivity. Even with a moderate contribution to the reduction of these problems, the future programme would ensure significant savings and generate growth in the long-term. By improving its skills supply, Europe would become a more attractive business location, which has positive consequences for the smart growth of the European economy.
Fundamental Rights
Compared to Option 1 (Status Quo), this option would provide a further positive impact on fundamental rights, as it would put greater emphasis on ensuring the right to education of all in the EU in particular for disadvantaged groups.
Policy option 4: A single Programme for education, training, youth and sports: strengthening impact through concentration of objectives and a streamlined architecture.
Social Impacts
The social impacts listed for Option 3 also apply for this option, but on a higher level, given that the fragmentation of programmes and actions limits the scope for increasing the impact, simplification and effectiveness of current programmes. Furthermore, the integration and considerable simplification of the programme would generate a positive impact in terms of administrative expenditure and
accessibility: more individuals, education and training institutions and youth organisations could be in a position to apply for funding, with the establishment of mobility `one-stop-shops' (integrated NAs). The new structure of the programme would also facilitate the development of activities across different education sectors and thus help promote the development of lifelong learning in a more efficient way.
The same as for Option 3.
6. - COMPARISON OF OPTIONS
The following table provides a comparison of the options identified.
Comparison of options
Legend: -
++ + 0 - --
Comparison to baseline scenario Positive slightly positive neutral slightly negative negative
Criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 - Explanation of given ratings:
Status quo No action Policy option 3: Strengthening the current programmes Policy option 4:
A single Programme for education, training, youth and sports
Effectiveness in terms of achieving specific objectives:
-
1.To empower individuals of all ages and social backgrounds by contributing to the development of quality -- + ++ Option 1: Only a limited number of participants from disadvantaged groups would be reached. Certain countries would continue having a low participation in the initiative. The current fragmentation of EU action and lack of focus and critical mass would persist.
education and training Option 2: The identified problems would not be addressed, causing fragmentation and back-sliding of EU competitiveness.
systems, as part of the Europe 2020 strategy of smart, inclusive and sustainable growth and of the ET 2020 strategic framework.
Option 3: The increased focus on skills and added value would contribute to increasing competitiveness of the EU. The increased volume would allow mobilising a critical mass for achieving the desired impacts. The problems identified at the baseline would be well addressed, but the potentials of synergies between the different, separate programmes would remain unexploited.
Option 4: As for Option 3. Furthermore, merging the programmes into one would
Criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 - Explanation of given ratings:
Status quo No action Policy option 3: Strengthening the current programmes Policy option 4:
A single Programme for education, training, youth and sports
promote the development of Lifelong Learning in a more effective way.
-
2.Strengthen openness and -- + ++ Option 1: Fragmentation of EU action would persist, resulting in insufficient EU contribution to quality of HE and the realisation of a European area of HE. Certain partner countries would not have the capacity in HE to establish mutually beneficial partnerships with the EU.
excellence with a view to producing long-lasting
systemic impact,
building capacity and supporting reform
of higher education Option 2: The identified problems would not be addressed, causing fragmentation and back-sliding of EU competitiveness.
institutions in the EU and in partner countries.
Option 3: The divide between the different EU external cooperation programmes in HE would be addressed, and this in combination with increased volumes would significantly strengthen systemic impacts.
Option 4: In addition to the benefits of Option 3, this option would facilitate further the exploitation of synergies between Erasmus and the international cooperation programmes in higher education, which would strengthen impacts.
-
3.To contribute to young people's employability, active participation in society and sense of belonging to the EU as a means to foster human and social capital development, support growth and social cohesion in support to the Europe 2020 Strategy -- + ++ Option 1: This option would not address in the most effective way the priorities of the new policy context and the recommendations of the YiA interim evaluation, notably as regards the possibility to strengthen focus on youth employability without losing the participation dimension; the need to further clarify support to disadvantaged young people; the need to improve and streamline the programme rationale and structure; the possibility to simplify administrative requirements.
Option 2: The identified problems would not be addressed, causing fragmentation and
Criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 - Explanation of given ratings:
Status quo No action Policy option 3: Strengthening the current programmes Policy option 4:
A single Programme for education, training, youth and sports
and the EU Youth Strategy. back-sliding of EU competitiveness.
Option 3: This option would involve focusing on actions with the highest added value and creating the strongest multiplier effects. Furthermore, a better alignment with policy priorities would be achieved. However, these improvements would be limited to what can be done within each separate programme.
Option 4: In addition to the benefits of Option 3, this option would further provide synergies and cross-fertilisation with the formal education area, which would bring positive impacts in relation to promotion and recognition of youth work and learning pathways for young people.
-
4.To develop the European N/A + + Option 1: The problems identified in the areas of awareness and knowledge sharing would remain unaddressed.
dimension in sport.
Option 2: N/A (new actions, thus identical to Option 1)
Option 3: This option would address the identified problems by promoting the establishment of a framework for stakeholders for cooperation on the substantial problems identified in the area of sport, such as doping and low participation rates in sport activities. The measures planned are expected to have a great leverage effect and a high EU added value.
Option 4: As for Option 3.
5. Efficiency/cost-effectiveness, in terms of:
Criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 - Explanation of given ratings:
Status quo No action Policy option 3: Strengthening the current programmes Policy option 4:
A single Programme for education, training, youth and sports
-
A)Implementation costs (taking account of simplification measures); N/A + ++ Option 1: As there is room for improvements of effectiveness related to the structure of the current programmes and as well to their management structures/costs, the cost- effectiveness of this option is average.
Option 2: Although implementation costs of this option would be negligible, the effectiveness of this option is so low that an assessment of cost-effectiveness is futile and very difficult.
Option 3: This option involves a relatively high level of cost-effectiveness concerning implementation costs, as the effectiveness is increased compared to the baseline. However, as the current fragmented management structure is to a large extent maintained (apart from the integration of the external cooperation programmes), there is still room for improvement.
Option 4: Since the simplification of management structure improves economies of scale and thus considerable savings, the cost-effectiveness of its implementation very high.
-
B)EU budget N/A + ++ Option 1: Considering the fragmentation of EU action, the baseline offers only an average level of cost-effectiveness in terms of the EU budget.
Option 2: Although implementation costs of this option would be negligible, the effectiveness of this option is so low that an assessment of cost-effectiveness is futile and very difficult.
Option 3: Considering the increased focus on actions of high added value and the mobilisation of a critical mass due to increased volumes of those actions, the cost- effectiveness in terms of EU budget is considered as high.
Option 4: On top of benefits under Option 3, the exploitation of synergies between Youth
Criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 - Explanation of given ratings:
Status quo No action Policy option 3: Strengthening the current programmes Policy option 4:
A single Programme for education, training, youth and sports
and Lifelong Learning, and between the LLP (Erasmus) and the current EU programmes for international cooperation in higher education, will allow simplification of management and economies of scale in the delivery mechanisms, resulting in a higher cost-effectiveness in terms of the EU budget.
6. Coherence (with strategic -- + ++ Option 1: The baseline offers certain incoherence with EU policy objectives and MS actions.
objectives, etc.):
Option 2: Coherence would suffer significantly: it would be left to MS to decide how they implement the EU2020 and ET 2020 strategic objectives and priorities. Furthermore, the feasibility of this option would be very limited, as it would go against the views of most stakeholders.
Option 3: Would allow for stronger coherence with EU policy priorities and MS actions.
Option 4: As for Option 3. Furthermore, the internal coherence would be considerably strengthened through integration of the four programmes and reduction of overlaps, and it addresses the Commission's strategy to simplify the structures of EU programmes.
Conclusion: On the basis of the above comparison, Option 4 comes out clearly as the best option; a detailed description of this option is provided in the next section.
7. - DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED OPTION
The Lifelong Learning Programme, the current international cooperation programmes in higher education such as Erasmus Mundus, Tempus, Alfa and EduLink and the Youth in Action Programme all provide support for structures which deliver either formal or non formal learning, and do so through a variety of activities, projects, etc, which can be summed up in three key types of actions:
· support for learning mobility of individuals;
· support for institutional cooperation for innovation and good practices; and
· support for policy reform.
The existing actions on sport have focused primarily on policy dialogue and, more recently, cooperation projects in the framework of the on-going preparatory actions.
The integration of all the current, fragmented EU programmes into a common, simplified and transparent architecture will allow the new programme to create enhanced synergies between both formal and non-formal education at all levels, reinforcing therefore the lifelong learning perspective, as well as with other policies. An integrated programme, focusing on a limited number of key transversal actions, would structurally deepen the scope for systemic impact and high returns on investment through a concentration of activities with European added value. It will also include an important international dimension, reinforcing Europe as an excellence destination, as a promoter of modernisation of systems and institutions and as an important player in the field of education worldwide, while promoting teaching and research on European integration. The programme will also support activities in the field of sport which will benefit from the continuity of existing management structures and know-how.
As detailed in the impact assessment report related to education and training within the current LLP, the future programme should be implemented through three key types of actions, namely: learning mobility of individuals, cooperation for innovation and good practices, and support to policy reform.
accommodated with the current level of resources. For the currently existing programmes, 1 FTE (full- time equivalent) manages around EUR 20 millions. With the merge of the programmes and the envisaged improvements, it could manage 32 millions. For each of the foreseen actions, the following principles should apply:
1. - Learning mobility of individuals
· The mobility action will aim at supporting the mobility of learners and learning providers (including to and from non EU countries) in order to undertake periods of study, training, teaching, placement, volunteering or youth activity at a partner institution/organisation abroad.
· Education and training institutions and youth organisations will apply for mobility grants to the National Agency
4 in their country. NAs will give mobility grants only via institutions and no
longer to individual staff or students. The grant will cover the actual mobility grants as well as support to the institution for organising high quality mobility.
· To qualify for mobility grants, the organisation will have to prove that the conditions for high quality mobility are in place.
· For mobility between institutions in a participating and in a third country, the grant will be managed by the institution in the participating country for both incoming and outgoing mobility.
No National Agencies will be set up in third countries.
Benefits:
o National Agencies will become the "one-stop shop" for EU mobility, easy to understand and access.
o National Agencies will manage only contracts with institutions (as opposed to individual persons now).
o Beneficiary institutions will have to improve the quality of mobility, as this will become a condition for participation.
2. - Institutional cooperation for innovation and good practices
· Depending on the sector, cooperation of business, regional authorities and other relevant actors may be a condition for participation. Cooperation across sectors will be strongly favoured. Participation of third country partners will be encouraged.
· Management should be shared between national agencies and EU level, with possible outsourcing of management to an executive agency.
Benefits:
o Easy access thanks to harmonisation of actions that address the same target public (e.g. universities) but are now managed by different bodies with different rules and tools
o Participation of organisations from third countries will ensure that E&T in EU can benefit maximum from innovation and good practices in the wider world. Intense cooperation with business will help institutions develop teaching and training for the skills and competences that are needed on the job market.
3. - Support for policy reform
· The policy support action will aim at 1) developing and steering policy and innovation top down;
-
2)developing and experimenting EU tools to support policy; and 3) providing for international comparison and exchange of best practice.
· The policy support action will finance OMC activities and policy initiatives such as the Bologna and Copenhagen processes, the Youth Strategy as well as support tools such as ECTS, ECVET, Youthpass, EU wide networks etc.
· Financial support will be provided via service contracts or grants. Both service contracts and grants can be given to consortia/partnerships and individual organisations.
· Management will be centralised at EU level, with possible outsourcing of management to an executive agency.
Providing leverage through an innovative financial instrument for Masters' students
8. - MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Monitoring and evaluation should be a core element of a future programme which should emphasise EU added value and performance. Therefore, in order to ensure the EU added value of the programme, throughout the entire period of programming, the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, should regularly monitor and evaluate the performance and results against the objectives.
Regarding monitoring, the intention is to publish an annual activity report which will include both statistics and qualitative assessment, based in particular on performance indicators. A generic common framework of indicators is provided in Annex to the Impact Assessment on Lifelong Learning. Both reports from the beneficiaries and extensive surveys will be used to assess the impact at three levels: individuals (increase in skills), the institutions (internationalisation) and the systems (improvement of the quality, including the implementation of recognition and transparency EU tools).
In addition to the continuous monitoring, the Commission shall arrange for regular independent external evaluations in order to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the programme. The evaluations should also contribute to the assessment of the programme's EU added value and contribution towards the general and specific objectives. A mid term evaluation, including also the results of the ex post evaluations of the current programmes, should be carried out at EU level. Member States shall submit to the Commission reports on the implementation and the impact of the programme, at least twice (in 2016 and 2019).
| 23 nov '11 |
COM(2011)788 - "Erasmus for all" The Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport |
| publication date | 25-11-2011 |
|---|---|
| reference | 17188/11 ADD 6 |
