FOCUS
130. The Commission has restructured
the activities which existed under the Erasmus and Socrates-Erasmus
programmes under six headings
(i) the extension of physical
mobility for teachers as well as students, incorporating questions
of recognition of qualifications and work done;
(ii) the extension of virtual
mobility;
(iii) the building up of academic
cooperation networks;
(iv) the promotion of language
skills and the understanding of different cultures;
(v) the pursuit of innovation
through Community pilot projects; and
(vi) the building up of Community
sources of reference.
The evidence which we took on these subjects is set
out, together with the Committee's conclusions, in paragraphs
133 to 167 below.
131. The Confederation of EU Rectors'
Conferences challenged the structure developed by Commission.
They argued (p 99) that pilot projects and reference activities
were naturally in the hands of the Commission, but that all the
rest of the trans-national activities should be derived from the
academic networks which were the fundamental instruments for fulfilling
the Commission objectives. Cooperation networks should not be
separated from strategic planning on physical and virtual mobility.
Language developments grew naturally alongside these projects.
The Institute of Physics, speaking for specialists, underlined
the importance of the transnational disciplinary contact (p 106).
(On the other hand, HEURO considered thematic networks not to
have worked (p 110).)
132. Professor Teichler largely endorsed
this view (Q 208), suggesting that the real objective of the Commission
was to get institutions to focus more closely on their own European
strategy, and to strengthen the impact of activities other than
student mobility by making other aspects of university exchange
and cooperation more effective.
(i) Physical Mobility
133. The Commission places physical
mobility first on its list of proposed activities. Witnesses (including
Professor Teichler, UKSOC, the CVCP, HEFCE, HEURO, UACES and the
Institute of Physics) agreed that student mobility was central,
lying at the heart of the programme.
(ii) Teacher Mobility
134. The Commission proposes that physical
mobility should cover target groups including teachers at the
different levels of the education and training systems.
135. The UK Socrates-Erasmus
Council suggested that student and teacher mobility were complementary,
since it was vital for the success and quality of student mobility
that academic staff should remain highly motivated and committed
to the programme (p 14). According to the CEURC, it was the network
links, forged at academic level, that kept the project going (p
99); and, according to Professor Sibson (Q 126) and Mr Reilly
(Q 7) exchanges were an obvious way to foster these vital links
which lay at the heart of the programme.
136. On the negative side, Miss Jones
of Bradford University stressed how difficult the staff mobility
scheme had been to operate in the past, since it was rare for
a teacher to be able to find five clear working days (Q 171).
137. The Committee notes the
agreement that the principle of mobility is crucial to the success
of new programmes. But we also consider that however welcome the
principle, the practicalities need to be addressed. Successful
outcomes depend on adequate funding and on more flexible structures.
138. The Committee recommends
that the physical mobility of students and academic staff be a
priority in the new programme. The Committee recommends that the
Commission maintain its existing programmes, but that the flexible
approach recommended above in relation to short courses and summer
schools be extended to meet the needs of teachers as well as other
mobile groups, such as mature students and postgraduates.
(iii) European Credit Transfer System
139. One of the great challenges of
Erasmus and Socrates-Erasmus has been to find ways
to ensure that the work done by Erasmus students during
the period of their study abroad is recognised and credited in
the home university. A system called the European Credit Transfer
system exists, and is used at present where possible. The Commission
now suggests the extension of the arrangements for mutual recognition
to the whole of the European area in the most systematic manner
possible.
140. Several witnesses suggested that
this was more problematic than might appear. Professor Teichler
(Q 234) and Dr Drake (Q 138) both underlined the practical difficulty
of incorporating recognition for the studies undertaken by Erasmus
students while still guaranteeing quality. The fundamental question
for the future of Socrates-Erasmus was whether the programme
was basically concerned to stimulate integrated academic studies
or whether it was "academic tourism."
141. We have already referred to the
problems of mismatch between students who regard their Erasmus
period as an add-on, and those for whom its recognition is critical
to the class awarded to their degree. We noted that this was a
particular disincentive in the English system with its tightly
structured and short degree course. Dr Drake (Q 152) referred
to the problems which arose if the host institution did not keep
to the rules, or let standards slip.
142. The Committee heard that there
were two ways in which Erasmus students might be guaranteed
the quality of their academic provision and offered recognition.
Mr Reilly (Q 26) and the CVCP (p 48) believed that the European
Credit Transfer system was the key. This scheme requires participating
departments:
(i) to organise courses so that
they comprised 60 course credit units per year;
(ii) to provide advance information
on courses to enable visiting students to prepare; and
(iii) to furnish returning students
with documentation relating to courses taken and credits awarded.[11]<ql>
Mr Reilly put it to the Committee (Q 26) that the
student must expect to have to stand and deliver, to do examinations
or assessments and bring these back to the home institution -
and the home institution must recognise them and count them in
the degree award. In that context the ECTS does appear to be the
key, because it imposes curricular transparency, academic recognition
and documented assessment of study.
143. The only witness who spoke against
the ECTS was Dr Drake for UACES (Q 138), who saw the European
Credit Transfer system as a Commission move to impose harmonisation.
She wanted to see more flexibility in forms of assessment; for
example, a student might be required to do a project supervised
in the host institution but assessed in the home institution.
She felt that the European Credit Transfer System did not fit
in with the practicalities of enticing a student to go abroad.
The system which had been used in the early days of Erasmus,
when recognition was ensured by integrated studies or shared courses
being devised by the network of participating universities, was
favoured by the CEURC as a way of ensuring that recognition was
based on academic rather than on administrative values (p 99).
144. The other way to guarantee quality
was to introduce diplomas. This was suggested to the Committee
by Lord Smith of Clifton (Q 174), who said that his university
had long ago introduced diplomas to go with a degree as an extra
award for study abroad. Northern Ireland had a credit transfer
scheme which had been built into the European scheme, and the
result was that Northern Irish universities had successfully got
science and engineering students taking up Erasmus places.
145. The Committee notes the
pressures for the programme to diversify. The result of diversification
would be that the period spent abroad would not necessarily be
integrated with the course at the student's home university. We
feel that this would be weakening one of the best aspects of the
programme and we reassert the importance of co-operation between
universities to give recognition the period of study abroad, whether
or not such recognition takes place within the framework of the
European Credit Transfer system.
(iv) Virtual Mobility
146. The Commission's proposal to place
a strong emphasis on virtual mobility was endorsed by the Minister.
She told the Committee that EU Ministers with responsibility for
Education and Social Affairs were in favour of using IT to provide
virtual mobility as a way of extending the benefits of Community
programmes (Q 235). The CVCP supported this approach (p 47). The
Committee received no evidence suggesting how virtual mobility
might be increased in higher education. CEURC suggested that virtual
mobility should be pursued within co-operation networks, across
sectors, levels and countries (p 100).
(v) Language Skills and the Understanding
of Different Cultures
147. The promotion of languages and
cultural skills is seen by the Commission as a supporting activity
of programmes on the grounds that languages are an essential part
of the exercise of European citizenship and that the European
education area will the richer for being multilingual. Over and
above the particular problems of the British in terms of foreign
language mastery, dealt with above, witnesses stressed the importance
of this commitment.
148. Lord Smith of Clifton (Q 174)
and Mr Reilly (p 15) drew attention to the Commission's existing
commitment to the promotion of minority languages, which could
have the effect of reducing funding for major language exchanges.
The Minister and the CVCP thought it important to recognise the
amount of teaching which was done in English, in countries such
as Denmark (see para 68 above). The priority of the programme
was mobility, rather than the fostering of minority languages.
It was therefore legitimate to target English language provision
within the programme, as well as targeting minority languages.
149. Lord Smith of Clifton (Q 175)
and CEURC (p 98) stressed the importance of teaching non-European
languages as well as European languages in universities, in order
to broaden cooperation activities at a global level.
150. Evidence has already been cited
of the need for incentive payments to universities to set up courses,
especially for non-linguists. In addition, the UK Socrates-Erasmus
Council suggested targeted cooperation schemes between Member
States (p 13).
151. Witnesses were divided as to whether
schemes and courses such as these should be set up within a flexible
institutional framework of European commitment (CEURC (p 98),
CVCP (p 48)), or whether they should be organised at Community
level (Dr Drake (Q 157)).
152. The Committee agrees that
the priority of the programme is mobility, rather than the fostering
of minority languages. We therefore consider it legitimate to
target English language provision within the programme, as well
as targeting minority languages.
153. The Committee recognises
the tension between giving priority to minority languages in the
programme and responding to embedded student preferences in exchanges.
However, we would like to see more language teaching built into
the programme, both to promote cultural exchange and to encourage
study in a foreign language.
154. The Committee therefore
recommends that the Commission build incentive payments for language
development into the new programme's funding.
155. We also recommend that,
while doing all it can to preserve the viability of minority languages,
the new programme should recognise and respond to the overwhelming
demand for English language courses. The growing trend to use
English as the lingua franca in the academic world should
not be ignored.
(vi) Institutional Contracts and Co-Operation
Networks
156. When the Erasmus programme
was initially set up, exchanges were arranged by interested academics,
who forged networks with academics in other EU universities at
the level of departments or faculties. For each such network,
one university department was funded as the coordinator. These
partnerships were known as Inter-University Cooperation Programmes
(ICPs) (Teichler-Maiworm, Preface).
157. In 1997, under the Socrates
programme, the Commission replaced the ICP system with a system
of institutional contracts, whereby each individual institution
made a bid to the Commission for funding to cover all its programme
activities, including the management of various forms of mobility
and projects for curriculum development. In making a bid, an institution
was encouraged to think through its European strategy, which it
defined in a European Mission Statement which accompanied the
bid. The Commission compensated for the loss of academic partnerships
by proposing the establishment of thematic networks, based in
general on disciplines.
158. The Commission now wishes to see
the strengthening of cooperation networks. This issue goes to
the heart of the question as to whether the new programme in higher
education will be driven (a) by academics, (b) by institutional
managers, or (c) by co-operation between the two.
159. Some witnesses favoured the change
to institutional contracts. Mr Reilly, for example, (Q 27) told
the Committee that universities had tended to get a better funding
as a result of the institutional contract system, because the
funding system was more efficient. Many witnesses drew attention
to the positive impact of introducing a system which required
institutions to develop, and submit, a European policy before
participating in the programme. The UK Socrates-Erasmus Council,
for example, thought the institutional contract had already focused
institutional thinking (p 14). Hilary Callan said that it was
easy to imagine the mission statement becoming "a point of
departure" in the future for an institution's own assessment
of the relative educational and resourcing priorities to be attached
to different European level commitments (p 95). Slightly concerned
that the predominance of the Commission programmes might stifle
other forms of European educational innovation, she urged university
teachers to play a critical part.
160. This contrasts with the period
before the introduction of the institutional contract, during
which, according to the ARIES evidence, the impression conveyed
by many institutions was that "Europe was seen as the preserve
of a group of enthusiasts" (p 87). The programmes had little
impact on middle or long term planning.
161. Professor Teichler (Q 208) said
that seeing the institutional contracts applied in practice had
overcome his initial reservations. He believed that the future
of Europe-wide cooperation depended on systematic co-operation
treaties between institutions, alongside substantial investment
in teacher mobility.
162. Miss Jones told the Committee
how difficult it had been to operate the changeover from ICPs
to ICs (Q 165). The biggest difficulty now was motivating academics,
she said. For UACES, Dr Drake agreed, outlining the risk of losing
the commitment of expertise which resided with academics and had
been a guarantee of the programme's quality (Q 161). She considered
that the problem of involving academics was linked with the problem
of insufficient funding to provide the common services for the
programme .
163. CEURC believed that the institutional
contract system was biased towards administrative needs rather
than academic imperatives (p 99). The CVCP agreed, and said that
the institutional contract, while potentially valuable, needed
to operate in ways which were sensitive to the culture and organisation
of universities (p 49).
164. CEURC suggested that the academic
network principle could be built back in (p 99). They suggested
that networks be built back into institutional contracts as the
fundamental form of co-operation. Network partnerships would be
included in the contract, and one institution given the coordinating
role of any given network. Procedures which focused on international
academic co-operation, and thereby on quality assurance and the
enhancement of the student experience, should form the foundation
of co-operation activities in the interests of pooling of expertise,
creativity and diversity.
165. The Committee notes that
the introduction of the institutional contract has sharpened the
European strategy of many higher education institutions, and to
that extent, the Committee considers the institutional contract
to have been a success.
166. However, the Committee notes
the concern of those directly concerned with implementing the
programmes, that the introduction of institutional contracts has
weakened the goodwill and commitment of university teachers and
researchers which were the great strengths of the earlier programme.
We acknowledge that activities needed to be thought of within
an overall strategy, but it is vital that European university
co-operation builds on the strength of academic freedom. The new
programme must maintain and encourage academic co-operation.
167. The Committee therefore
recommends that the Commission abandons the strategy of keeping
academic cooperation networks separate from the institutional
contracts. We recommend instead that academic cooperation should
be built in at the heart of each institutional contract.
THE
INVOLVEMENT
OF
OTHER
PARTNERS
168. In its Communication, the Commission
envisages a framework of responsibilities shared between the Community,
the Member State and the other partners involved. These partners
are defined as regional and local bodies and the voluntary sector,
as well as representatives of education (including parents), and
economic and social partners.
169. ARIES welcomed the Commission's
propositions, and said that it should be remembered that universities
are major players in economic life (p 90). For their locality
and region, they are a source of highly qualified labour, of high
level training, of research and development and of technology
transfer. They attract young people. They are a focus of cultural
life. Across the Community they generate jobs in the millions,
and economic activity in the billions.
170. Mr Clark (Q 43) noted that some
students were deterred from applying for Erasmus places
by the competitive job-market in the United Kingdom. If jobs are
scarce, students may think it more of a priority to find a job
than to spend an extra year studying abroad.
171. The Committee agrees with
the importance of seeing universities as local and regional poles
of development, and supports the Commission's endeavours to involve
other parties such as employers, parents and social and voluntary
organisations.
THE
MANAGEMENT
OF
THE
PROGRAMME
172. The final topic to which the Committee
turned its attention was the management of the programme. There
were two aspects of management which warranted investigation:
the first was the question of integrating the management of Socrates-Erasmus
with the management of other Community programmes; the second
was the question whether Socrates-Erasmus could itself
be more effectively managed if a different management structure
was in place.
(i) More Integrated Management of Community
Programmes
173. The Commission proposes that the
programme should have more streamlined management, and suggests
three practical steps to effect this:
(i) a common legal framework for
all programmes in the education, training and youth area;
(ii) more resources, with greater
complementarity with other Community policies; and
(iii) lighter management.
174. Generally, witnesses were in favour
of steps which would promote integration of Community programmes
in the areas of education, training and youth. For example, the
Minister spoke in favour of integration between education and
training (Q 235). Miss Jones urged that consideration should be
given to primary and secondary education, and not just higher
education, in the attempt to change cultural attitudes in Europe
(Q 202).
175. CEURC was in favour of a genuine
framework, rather than simple umbrella in which education, training
and youth programmes could interact (p 98). As a minimum, they
saw it as vital to fuse the activities which up till now had been
covered by Socrates and Leonardo (i.e. the education programme
and the training programme).
176. ARIES also argued for co-ordination
between the relevant Commission programmes (p 90). A focus
of their study was the extent of research carried out by the different
DGs of the Commission, much of which was unknown to most universities.
They also drew attention to the lack of communication and consistency
of approach between different DGs within the Commission.
(ii) More Effective Management Within the
Higher Education Programme
177. The Commission's suggestions for
more effective management include greater decentralisation to
national agencies, and multi-annual programmes.
178. Lord Smith of Clifton told the
Committee (p 63), that the problems are inherent in the way the
EU Socrates Advisory Committee operates. The Committee
is managed so as to pre-empt useful input, or the airing of particular
concerns. Meetings are normally summoned at very short notice
and papers are tabled late.
179. Miss Jones noted there had been
very little help from the Brussels technical assistance agency
to help manage the transfer from ICPs to the institutional contract,
but fortunately there had been help from the national agency (Q
200). HEURO drew attention to delays which had occurred in the
announcement of key information, and the counter-productive cutting
of the technical assistance agency (p 112).
180. Mr Reilly (Q 23) and Professor
King (Q 121) commented on the time it took under the existing
programme to process applications. This resulted in many students
dropping out. In addition, ARIES was concerned that selection
criteria and procedures were no longer opaque (p 89). The CVCP
pointed out that administrative and reporting functions must not
create such a burden that managing grants outweighed the benefits
of participation (p 49).
181. In general, witnesses supported
the proposal to increase the role of the national agency, and
to decrease the role of the Commission. Such decentralisation
would be an improvement in the view of the CVCP (p 49) and all
the university witnesses, with the caveat from Lord Smith that
decentralisation as a cost cutting exercise would not necessarily
help (p 64). The Minister (Q 235) said the government thought
more decentralisation and simpler procedures would widen access.
182. The Commission's suggestion for
upgrading the national agencies role was also welcomed. The Minister
approved (Q 236) as did HEURO (p 111) and the CVCP (p 49). Professor
Sibson (Q 130) though the job could be done on the present resources
if the agency (run by Mr Reilly) no longer had to invest resources
in acting as a post box for Brussels.
183. The Committee welcomes the
Commission's intention of integrating the new higher education
programme with other Community programmes in the fields of education,
training and youth.
184. The Committee welcomes the
Commission's proposals to decentralise the management system.
In the Committee's view, an increased role for the national agency
would increase the efficiency and flexibility of the programme,
thus widening access to students currently unable to participate,
and would help to encourage students not to drop their Erasmus
places.
185. As our enquiry progressed
it became increasingly clear to us that in terms of UK education
policy, Europe can no longer be seen as an add-on. The European
dimension of our own national education strategy can not be ignored.
RECOMMENDATION
186. The Committee believes that the
matters considered in this Report raise important questions to
which the attention of the House should be drawn, and we make
this Report to the House for debate.
11 Teichler-Maiworm 8.2.1. Back
