17th REPORT: PROPOSED EUROPEAN UNION INTEGRATED
ACTION PROGRAMME FOR LIFE-LONG LEARNING
Letter from Bill Rammell MP, Minister
of State for Life-long Learning, Further and Higher Education,
Department for Education and Skills to the Chairman
I am writing to you with regard to the Lords
Committee Inquiry into the Proposed EU Integrated Action Programme
for Life-long Learning. I enclose a copy of the Government Response
to the report produced by the inquiry, (Annex A).
I would like to congratulate your Committee
on running a thorough inquiry and producing an excellent report.
I certainly think the report will do much to help design and implement
an EU Life-long Learning Programme which can bring increased benefits
to participants. We have considered and will continue to consider
carefully the Committee's recommendations and push for them to
be taken forward where we think it is appropriate. The Government
Response comments on all recommendations in the report and lays
out how we plan to take forward a number of the recommendations.
We will look closely at how to address important
issues emphasised in the Committee's report such as simplifying
programme bureaucracy and administration, increasing Erasmus participation
and using the opportunity presented by the new programme to develop
a more coherent strategy that supports and adds value to national
policies.
While I agree with the Committee that successful
policy towards language learning is essential for the success
of the new programme, I cannot agree with the necessity for an
appraisal of language policy. The government's national languages
strategy for England was published in December 2002. This strategy
recognises the need to transform the nation's capability in languages
and promotes the learning of languages for all pupils throughout
key stage 2 in the belief that if pupils start learning languages
earlier more of them will be enthused and want to continue learning
languages beyond the age of 14 and into adulthood. I believe that
this policy on language learning, given sufficient time to bed
in, will improve UK participation in the programme as well as
bringing broader benefits.
I look forward to continuing the excellent cooperation
with the Committee which I know my predecessors have established.
6 June 2005
Annex A
Government Response
COMPETENCE AND
SUBSIDIARITY
1. We conclude that the Commission's
role in relation to these programmes is an appropriate one, and
carried out with due respect for national competence. Nevertheless,
we recommend that the Member States in Council should continue
to ensure that the Commission's plans and actions in developing
this Proposal are appropriate, proportionate and fully consistent
with the principle of subsidiarity.
The Government agrees with the Committee's views.
The Government will of course continue to work to ensure the programme
is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity both at Member
State and Devolved Administration level.
2. We recommend that the Programme should
be seen as a long-term investment in building European capacity
to prepare future generations for the challenges of globalisation
and to enable the present working generation to improve and extend
their skills.
The Government agrees with this recommendation.
ERASMUS
3. We conclude that the priority given
in the Proposal to the Erasmus programme is understandable and
valid in principle. But we share the doubts expressed in evidence
that the target to increase Erasmus student mobility to 3 million
by 2011 is attainable. We therefore recommend that the Commission
should reassess that target and give serious consideration not
only to the effect that the concentration on Erasmus may have
on other programmes, but also on the need to ensure that students
and institutions taking part in Erasmus are adequately funded
and supported.
The three million figure is a cumulative target
since the start of the programme and will build on the total of
one million which was achieved in 2002. Nevertheless, the proposed
overall target for Erasmus in the new programme is very ambitious
and the target clearly represents a significant challenge for
the UK. It should however be seen in the context of growth in
the overall numbers of UK students in higher education. The Government
recognises the need to engage with all stakeholders in working
towards such targets but does think that, if the current targets
remain, they will be challenging for all involved. It is important
to recognise that an unachievable or unrealistic target will have
the effect of diverting resources from other areas of the programme
where there is an established but unsatisfied demand such as Grundtvig.
This is a point that we have made and will continue to make in
negotiations.
4. In doing so, we also recommend that
the Commission should pay particular attention to the adequacy
of the provision for the costs borne by institutions in organising
Erasmus mobility.
The Government would endorse the Committee's
recommendation. Evidence from the sector suggests that the funding
for institutions under the programme is limited and does not reflect
the resource needed to manage the initiative effectively. The
Government will raise this issue with the Commission through the
Socrates sub-committee for higher education.
5. We further recommend that the Commission
should examine whether the present Erasmus programme is sufficiently
inclusive and whether more ought to be done through extra funding
or more flexible rules to provide for more short-term mobility
and to tailor programmes in other ways more closely to the reasonable
needs of older and part-time students and those with work or family
responsibilities.
The Government is committed to ensuring the
fullest access to all forms of educational experience. It recognises
that every effort must be made to ensure social inclusion in the
programme. It notes that special provision is already made for
students with severe disabilities, that there is no age barrier
to participation to Erasmus and indeed that a number of older
students have participated. It notes that intensive programmes
which are part of the Erasmus action give an opportunity for short
study periods and that Grundtvig offers lifelong learning opportunities
for those not in full time higher education. It will continue
to press for the programme to be flexible and open, but recognises
at the same time the importance of ensuring effective study periods
for students in higher education, which can lead to the award
of credits and full academic recognition.
The Government also believes that simplified
and more flexible procedures, better dissemination and possibly
the use of ICT and distance learning could contribute to greater
inclusivity in the new programme by enabling participation of
a wider range of learning partners.
6. We note that the present funding
arrangements for Erasmus are based on an apparent assumption that
roughly equivalent numbers of students would be exchanged between
participating countries, which is clearly disadvantageous to the
United Kingdom and some other participating countries. We recommend
that the Commission should reconsider the theoretical assumptions
which have led to this practice and bring forward proposals for
a more equitable basis for funding.
There are three major elements of Erasmus funding:
— for teacher mobility; and
— for the organisation of mobility.
Allocations to member states for the first two
categories are based on a formula which relates to the number
of students in higher education and numbers in the age range and
for teachers, to the number of teachers. Therefore these two elements
are not based on the number of outgoing or incoming students.
The organisation of mobility funding is allocated on the basis
of delivered mobility. The actual exchange of students is a matter
determined by the higher education institutions through their
bilateral agreements with partners and the general principle on
which institutions seek to work is one of reciprocity.
7. We note the concern that has been
raised with us that inconsistencies in the present European Credit
Transfer System (ECTS) tend to put students at a disadvantage
when carrying out Erasmus-funded study periods in other participating
countries and to deter students from taking part in Erasmus. We
recommend that the Commission should investigate these claims
and report to Council on whether they are well-founded and, if
so, what should be done about it.
The recognition of time spent on Erasmus study
periods is an important factor in encouraging students to participate
in the programme. The European Credit Transfer Scheme (ECTS) has
the potential to assist with this. The Government recognises that
the ECTS is continuing to evolve as it is being adopted as the
basic credit system in a number of countries, in conjunction with
national qualifications frameworks. At the same time, the UK has
stressed the importance in a credit based system of an emphasis
on learning outcomes in relation to workload. It is persuaded
that this is increasingly recognised as a key component of ECTS
as manifested in documents for the project Tuning Educational
Structures in Europe and the Framework for Qualifications of the
European Higher Education Area adopted at the Bergen meeting of
Ministers.
In England work is currently being taken forward
by the HE sector, specifically the Quality Assurance Agency, on
the development of national credit arrangements to underpin the
HE qualifications framework.
As the ECTS is more consistently applied by
universities there should be increasing transparency in terms
of curriculum content, level and workload which should assist
students and academic staff in participating in the Erasmus programme.
LEONARDO DA
VINCI
8. We recommend that the Commission
should examine the rules for the Leonardo programme to ensure
that they are sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of part-time
and older students and those with family responsibilities, as
well as disadvantaged groups and those living in remoter areas.
The Government agrees that the Leonardo programme
should be as inclusive as possible and that the needs of the groups
mentioned are important. When reviewing the procedures the Commission
should take this into consideration. Currently additional funding
is available for those with most need, such as for disabled participants
in the Leonardo programme and funding can also be given for carers
and helpers where support is needed for disabled participants.
It is important that potential participants are made aware of
possible additional support.
9. The Commission should also examine
whether the funding levels for the administration of Leonardo
projects are adequate, especially for smaller colleges and non-profit
organisations, and consider what else might be done to support
such organisations and make their task easier.
The level of funding for management does make
it difficult for smaller organisations which are less able to
absorb the costs, so an amount which covers the actual expenditure
would be welcome. One of the issues currently under discussion
is the level of staff costs; for example costs are calculated
from a table of average costs rather than actual costs which would
be more realistic. The administration requirements since the new
Financial Regulations were introduced have added to the burden.
This adds to the costs of running a project, especially for smaller
organisations that are at most need of funding. We will study
the Commission's revised version of the Financial Regulations
carefully.
10. We also recommend that more consideration
should be given by the Commission to improving ways of disseminating
good practice and spreading awareness of the positive benefits,
especially for employers, of taking part in the Leonardo programme.
A new joint network has been set up from the
current Leonardo and Socrates programmes which will look at how
to make the results better known and implemented across Europe.
The group will be known as the Information, Communication and
Valorisation Network; the results from this should help to improve
dissemination for both the current programme and the new programme.
The new programme places greater emphasis on dissemination and
utilisation of results from projects. The Transversal sub-programme
will also focus on the dissemination and exploitation of results
of actions supported under the programme and previous related
programmes, and exchange of good practice.
The Welsh Assembly Government will be holding
a Presidency event in November on the dissemination and exploitation
of the results of Commission-funded projects, particularly in
the fields of education, training and lifelong learning.
The Government would also couple this recommendation
with the need to engage employers generally with the new Lifelong
Learning programme and with the Erasmus and Grundtvig actions.
It is generally concerned that the social partners should be more
actively involved in the programme and commends the UK Socrates-Erasmus
Council in having invited the CBI and the TUC to nominate members
to the Council. At the same time, it hopes that representatives
on such bodies will ensure dissemination of information within
their organisations.
11. We further recommend that the Commission
should examine the suggestion made to us that the match funding
requirements of this programme place an unfair burden on smaller
tightly-funded organisations, and especially voluntary bodies,
and that they ought to be changed.
Guidance on match funding is provided in the
Administrative and Financial Handbook which is agreed and sent
out at Commission level. As a general principle, EU funding is
awarded on the basis that beneficiaries provide a contribution
to match the funding available through the EU programme. How this
works depends on the individual programme, for example: for the
Comenius Programme it is deemed to be the cost of staff time;
for Leonardo da Vinci where the community support is less than
100 per cent the promoter needs to arrange co-financing which
must be covered from other non-Community sources; for the Erasmus
programme match funding is not used.
In some areas we agree that funding levels could
be made more realistic in particular for the amounts provided
for linguistic and cultural preparation and for staff time to
manage the project. In many cases, the budget allows for 50 per
cent of a staff unit when in real terms the project would require
100 per cent of the staff time. We will continue to look into
this as part of the implementation of the new programme.
GRUNDTVIG
12. We recommend that the Commission
should give more consideration to demographic trends in Europe,
as well as the inclusiveness and life-long learning aims of the
overall programme. These factors suggest to us that more than
the proposed 3 per cent of the programme budget should be allocated
to Grundtvig and we recommend that the Commission should re-examine
the rationale for that allocation.
The Government regards adult education as a
key priority and agrees that the Grundtvig programme should be
used as a means of addressing the demographic challenges facing
Europe. The Government is in agreement with the Committee that
the proposed 3 per cent minimum allocation for Grundtvig is not
sufficient and should be increased and also believes that there
should be more flexibility in the different types of mobility
that are permitted for adult learners in order to increase potential
beneficiaries.
13. In framing the new packages for
both Leonardo and Grundtvig we also recommend that the Commission
should consider whether more innovative use of ICT and suitable
distance-learning packages might help to overcome obstacles to
participation, as well as encouraging improved computer capability
for older participants.
The UK Government views innovative use of ICT
and distance learning packages as key priorities and agrees with
the Committee's recommendation in this area.
The Government believes that the introduction
of the Transversal Programme could help with this issue. The Transversal
Programme will have a strong emphasis on innovative approaches
to ICT. It covers learners' needs at all stages of life—not
just school or higher education—as the other sub-programmes
cover; it will allow a lifelong approach and a vehicle for the
development of innovative ICT-based content in a more integrated
way.
The Government has also pursued a number of
new initiatives in line with this recommendation. MyGuide, which
will be introduced shortly in England, aims to develop and market
a search and interaction facility that will help people to overcome
the barriers they face in using online services due to disabilities,
lack of confidence, skills or motivation. MyGuide tools will also
help to reduce the barriers faced by older people and help with
inclusion in the internet society at a time when a majority of
services, including Government services, are going online. A further
initiative, UK online centres, has been established since March
1999, with the aim of bridging the gap between those in society
who have access to ICT and the internet and those who do not.
There are now 6,000 UK online centres in England, diverse in their
size and type but typically rooted in communities, with over 2,000
strategically placed in the most deprived wards.
COMENIUS
14. We recommend that the Commission
should look more closely at what needs to be done to encourage
greater awareness and participation in Comenius and to remove
unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles which impede effective participation
and place unfair burdens on the dedicated organisers of these
programmes, especially in smaller schools.
The UK Government is committed to reducing bureaucracy;
it wants to ensure access to EU programmes whilst also ensuring
financial propriety.
Currently, EU Financial Regulations impose standard
processes on applicants and institutions even where the level
of funding is comparatively small. The Government will carefully
review the revised version of the regulations.
VALUE OF
THE PRESENT
PROGRAMMES
15. We recommend that the Commission
should consult with Member States and interested parties about
the best way of devising a more systematic qualitative as well
as quantitative analysis of the benefits and shortcomings of all
the programmes for both the individuals and the institutions taking
part, as well as for the wider benefits for the EU and other participating
countries.
The proposals for the Integrated Programme will
continue to be considered within the Education Council working
group attended by representatives of all Member States. Considering
the more than three fold increase in expenditure on the proposed
programme the Government agrees that there is a need for the new
programme to be objectives-focussed and for there to be a strong
evaluation structure in place. It does not believe that the current
objectives and indicators proposed by the Commission would give
a full enough picture of the programme. The Government's negotiating
line has been that the management committee of the programme should
formulate a table of specific measurable objectives which the
programme would be evaluated against.
The Government believes that to assess the programme's
wider impact, evaluators should have full regard to the Lisbon
indicator framework which an expert working group has developed
under the auspices of the Open Method of Co-ordination. The evaluation
could test the added value of mobility in achieving a range of
concrete benefits, such as better educational attainment, as defined
by the indicators working group. The evaluation would not start
from an assumption that publicly-funded international mobility
is good in itself.
16. We further recommend that this analysis
should be designed to inform future national strategies, as well
as contributing to more effective dialogue between the Commission
and participating countries about possible improvements whenever
the programme is reviewed. But we believe it is essential that
it should not add unduly to the bureaucratic burden on participants,
especially from small organisations.
The Government is concerned to ensure that there
is no increase in what can at times already be a heavy compliance
and reporting burden on institutions and National Agencies.
The Government agrees that the proposed new
programme is an opportunity to enhance and build on current work
on the Department's International Strategy: this work will support
and add value to national policies. The Government believes this
will help raise the profile of the EU programmes and provide a
basis for discussions when reviewing the new programme once implemented.
The Government has already learned some lessons
from the interim evaluation of the programmes and more evidence
is likely to emerge from the evaluation to be carried out in 2007.
This will form a useful base for more detailed analysis and discussion
about the form of the programme, and the Government will press
the Commission to make more active use of this information in
its future implementation plans.
The Government will also continue to use the
current mechanisms in place to inform national strategies. This
is achieved at the national level by key players sitting on adjudication
panels and advisory groups, feedback from projects to government
and National Agencies on good practice and subsequent celebrating
of success via websites and also International Education Week
and International School Awards. Similar arrangements are also
in place at the local level to promote good practice to policy
makers.
17. We also recommend that, having devised
this system, the Commission should make sure that the results
are widely disseminated in an easily-understandable format to
Member State Governments, national agencies and both actual and
potential participants in the programmes.
The Government is committed to providing full,
open and clear information to the public institutions, students
and all participants in the programmes. It will work with the
Devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales and with the National
Agencies to facilitate the widest dissemination of the information.
INTEGRATION
18. We conclude that the proposals to
transfer vocational training at the higher education level from
the Leonardo to the Erasmus programme and to set up a single programme
committee to oversee the whole programme should contribute positively
to the overall coherence of the programmes and the harmonisation
and simplification of the procedures. We recommend, however, that
the Commission should explain in greater detail how these changes
are intended to work.
The Government agrees that the new proposals
will increase the integration of the sub-programmes and welcomes
this. The new programme proposals incorporate several existing
programmes and initiatives which cover a wide range of different
age groups and profiles. This better reflects the links between
the areas and the progressive nature of lifelong learning. It
provides a comprehensive programme across an individual's life
cycle for accessing and benefiting from skills training across
Europe; in particular it addresses the retraining needs of adults
and older workers in the labour market.
The proposal should increase coherence and synergies
between the sub-programmes. Consultation with UK stakeholders
on the new Integrated Lifelong Learning Programme in 2003 and
late last year indicated a strong preference for an increased
level of integration.
A single programme committee would increase
cohesion on process, selection criteria and budget. As well as
adding to the coherence of the new structure, the government hopes
that a single approach would speed up administrative decisions.
The new Transversal Programme will ensure best
practice is spread effectively and data is properly disseminated
between the sub-programmes. It will provide policy makers and
programme participants with a vehicle to share innovative ideas
and expertise more widely. The sub-programmes will provide appropriate
material on current educational practices.
Transferring the higher education level of Leonardo
to Erasmus makes sense and will drive a stronger focus on skills
into higher education application of the programme. Care must
be taken to ensure that this skills element retains a significant
profile within Erasmus. Having a single programme committee will
make delivery of the Lisbon targets and outcomes more likely as
it will bring together a strategic forum of all the key players
across the lifelong learning spectrum and should build in better
accountability in relation to national skills strategies. Definitions
and analysis of innovation and best practice will be better bedded
into the evaluation of programmes than at present.
19. We also recommend that these changes
should be subjected to a stringent mid-term review in which the
views of all relevant stakeholders are consulted and full taken
into account.
The Government agrees that this would be essential
and is pushing this in negotiations.
TRANSVERSAL PROGRAMME
20. Here again, therefore, we recommend
that the Commission should provide a more detailed explanation
than we have seen so far of how this programme is intended to
work in practice which should be subjected to careful examination
by the Member States in Council.
The Government has welcomed the introduction
of the Transversal Programme. It is an important addition to the
current programmes and provides a necessary means of overseeing
the sub-programmes. If the new programme is to be truly integrated
then it is vital to have something which enables a critical mass
of activity to develop on essential issues like ICT and dissemination.
We agree that more information should be provided by the Commission
on how this programme will work in practice.
21. We further recommend that the Commission
should study and make recommendations to Council on how the Transversal
programme might incorporate and disseminate the experience gained
by successful distance-learning providers, such as the Open University
in the United Kingdom, in designing innovative learning packages
that would help to make the benefits of the programme more widely
available to those with limited or no mobility.
The Government believes that the use of ICT
and e-learning is essential for distance learning, and is well
provided for in the new Lifelong Learning programme. The Transversal
Programme has a strong emphasis on ICT, and proposes four key
activities—including the operational objective for the development
of innovative ICT-based content, services, pedagogies and practice
for lifelong learning. Making use of the experience gained by
successful distance-learning providers would be helpful and relevant.
22. Here too, we also recommend that
the programme should be subjected to a stringent mid-term review
in which the views of all relevant stakeholders are consulted
and fully taken into account.
The Government agrees with this approach.
SIMPLIFICATION
23. We recommend that every effort should
be made by the Commission to apply the principle of proportionality
to all funding applications and other administrative and financial
procedures under this programme, especially to enable small scale
grass-roots projects to flourish and to encourage smaller organisations
to believe that they have a realistic chance of taking part in
these programmes.
The Commission Explanatory Memorandum for the
Lifelong Learning programme acknowledges that more does need to
be done to achieve simplification and proportionality. Simplification
of the procedures and increased application of the principle of
proportionality for the new programme is a key priority of the
Government.
24. We also recommend that more adequate
funding should be earmarked to cover the staff costs for organising,
managing and supporting mobility projects, and the additional
travel costs of those in remoter areas. The Commission should
also investigate other ways of making the funding rules more flexible
and better-tailored to the circumstances of potential participants
without eroding proper accountability.
The Government recognises that different requirements
apply to the different chapters of the programme. In relation
to Erasmus, there is a category of funding known as Organisation
of Mobility Funding, which is designed to contribute to the costs
of organising, managing and supporting mobility. The Erasmus student
mobility grants have been allocated in a way which is designed
to simplify administration in the institution. The Government
would be concerned to ensure that any changes to the allocation
of the student mobility funding should not complicate the process
within institutions and should not incur additional costs for
the National Agency. It is however prepared to explore different
options with the Agencies concerned and the Commission.
The UK Government supports this recommendation
and recognises that the lack of funding for staff costs is the
main disincentive for UK schools to participate in Comenius. This
is one of the areas to be considered by the UK Steering Group
described under Recommendation 29.
Under Mobility in Leonardo, beneficiaries are
able to claim the full travel costs of participating in the programme.
25. We further recommend that the Commission,
working with national agencies, should strive to ease the burden
on smaller participating organisations by introducing more user-friendly
software, help lines, training seminars and arrangements for sharing
advice from experienced participants.
The Government agrees that more could be done
to ease the burden on smaller participating organisations. Agencies
like LEAs and the Learning and Skills Councils which work with
the voluntary and community sector and include independent training
providers could have a role to play in this.
The implementation of the Commission's new IT
system, "Symmetry", has been delayed at least until
the introduction of the new programme but following its introduction
it is expected to improved the application process and management
of projects.
The Commission has recently set up Stakeholder
Consultation Groups with representatives from programme Committees,
National Agencies, European Associations, Social Partners and
experts. The aim will be to assist in the arrangements for implementation
of the new Lifelong Learning Programme. Tasks will include looking
at the coverage, priorities and implementation details for the
new programme. The UK has nominated a range of people covering
all of the groups.
The Government also agrees that the levels of
funding should be reviewed for the new programme with the objective
of increasing simplicity and transparency. There should be equal
treatment for all participants across the programme.
FUNDING
26. We recommend that these factors
(the proposed threefold increase in budget and the ambitious targets
from the Commission) should be borne carefully in mind as the
proposed budget comes to be examined and we fully support the
Government's intention to probe these estimates for value for
money.
Proposals for the new programme are for a budget
of 13.6 billion euros over the seven year period 2007-13. This
represents an increase of some 3.5 times current expenditure.
This includes the following minimum allocations for the sub-programmes:
Erasmus: 40 per cent; Leonardo: 25 per cent; Comenius: 10 per
cent; Grundtvig: 3 per cent.
There has not yet been any discussion in the
Education Council of the budget proposed for the new programme
and it will not be discussed until the overall EU budget negotiations
for 2007-13 are completed.
The line which the Government has taken in negotiations
and publicly to date is that all negotiations on the size of the
programme must be seen in the context of the Government's overall
priority of a budget for the next Financial Perspective stabilised
at no more than 1 per cent EU GNI, other UK priorities and reforms,
and the principles of sound financial management. Negotiations
on the programme budget will take place once the overall EU budget
has been agreed. The Government agrees that it is important that
reform is demonstrated.
27. We also recommend that the Commission
should consider whether, in an understandable desire to increase
participation, the proposed funds may be spread too thinly and
fail to improve some of the funding deficiencies which have prevented
the present programmes from being fully effective and reaching
more disadvantaged people.
The Government agrees that the Commission should
consider this further and undertake an analysis of funding levels
across the programme.
ROLE OF
THE BRITISH
GOVERNMENT
28. We recommend that the United Kingdom
Government should consider carefully the preceding recommendations
and urge the Commission in negotiations during the coming months
to amend or clarify the existing Proposal to give effect to those
recommendations. We regard the United Kingdom Government as having
a special responsibility to take the lead in supporting those
recommendations and ensuring a satisfactory outcome during the
forthcoming United Kingdom Presidency of the EU.
The Government will consider all the recommendations
made by the Committee during the ongoing negotiations on the proposals
for the new programme.
29. We recommend that the Government
should publish as soon as possible a clear statement of the priority
which they attach to EU education and training programmes and
outline in more detail their current thinking about the new programme.
The Department published its international strategy
"Putting the World into World-Class Education—An
international strategy for education, skills and children's services"
in November 2004. It identifies three broad areas for action:
equipping our children, young people and adults for life in a
global society and work in a global economy; engaging with our
international partners, in particular Africa, to achieve their
goals and ours; maximising the contribution of the education and
training sector and university research to overseas trade and
outward investment.
Key actions to support the strategy and help
with the implementation of the EU programmes include Global
Gateway; which is a one-stop website funded by the DfES and
administrated by the British Council enabling those involved in
education across the world to engage in creative partnerships;
and International Education Week (IEW), which is
an annual DfES event celebrating the benefits of an international
dimension at all levels of education.
The Government is considering actively how best
to take forward the link between the International Strategy and
the importance it attaches to the EU programmes, as well as the
proposed new programme. The overarching advisory group which has
been set up to advise on the implementation of the International
Strategy will play a key role in this.
The DfES has set up a UK Steering Group on the
new programmes (including Youth) which will examine all the issues
raised by this Report. The Steering Group will advise on the marketing
and implementation of the programme and how to maximise UK take
up. The group will include external stakeholders representing
the different sectors of education in the country and will advise
on a range of issues such as national bottlenecks and how to overcome
barriers to participation. This group is separate to the steering
groups and committees for Socrates, Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci
which are involved in advising on these points in the current
generation of programmes.
The new programme will for instance be one important
means of providing UK students with opportunities that ensure
an international dimension becomes a significant and real part
of their learning experience and so that they are better prepared
for work in the global economy.
Once the negotiations on the new programme have
been completed, the Government will provide a statement on how
it will contribute to the implementation of the DfES international
strategy.
In Scotland various strategy documents also
refer to the importance of international education—starting
with "An International Outlook—Educating Young Scots
About the World" (2001), the Scottish Executive European
Strategy and International Strategies (2004) and the International
Development Strategy (2005).
The Partnership Agreement for A Better Scotland—the
programme of government agreed following the 2003 Scottish election
makes the following commitment:
"We will work with our excellent academic
institutions to promote research links, education and student
exchanges to raise Scotland's profile and increase opportunities
for our young people and build global networks with Scottish institutions
at their heart."
30. We further recommend that the Government
should then embark on an urgent consultation with representatives
of all sectors of education in this country, as well as with Local
Education Authorities, the Learning Skills Councils and the Regional
Development Agencies and other interested bodies, with a view
to drawing up a clear public strategy for maximising the opportunities
presented by the new programme, eliminating unnecessary barriers
and identifying how those consulted might best contribute to that
strategy.
The Government has carried out various consultations
on the new programme proposals. The Government invited comments
from a wide range of organisations in the UK on the Commission's
Consultation document and the UK Government's response to the
document was sent to the Commission in February 2003.
The response indicated that the programmes should
focus more clearly on the achievement of the Lisbon priorities,
promote social inclusion and operate on a flexible decentralised
basis. The Commission's subsequent proposals for new programme
have largely taken this on board.
In addition, the Government organised a meeting
in December 2004 to consult and inform the main organisations
that would be involved in the new programme.
The Devolved Administrations have also been
consulted regularly by DfES about the Commission's proposals.
These consultations were about the content of
the new programme but the Government agrees that it needs to involve
all sectors of education in developing a strategy for making best
use of the opportunities the programme will now offer. As noted
above (Recommendation 25) the Government has nominated UK representatives
to the Stakeholder Groups the Commission proposes to set up. As
described in Recommendation 29 the DfES has also set up its own
UK Steering Group which will advise on these issues.
BARRIERS TO
UNITED KINGDOM
INVOLVEMENT
31. We recommend that the Government
should carry out a systematic investigation, in consultation with
educational institutions and other relevant bodies, into the reasons
why United Kingdom participation in some of the present programmes,
notably Erasmus, is decreasing and why the United Kingdom is no
longer the first choice of destination for incoming Erasmus students
from other participating countries.
PARTICIPATION IN
ERASMUS
One of the objectives of the DfES's International
Strategy is to ensure UK students are better informed about and
equipped to take advantage of opportunities available to them
to prepare them for work in the global economy. Participation
in outward mobility programmes is a key part of this.
The Higher Education Funding Council for England
published a study on behalf of a number of sponsoring organisations
which investigated UK outward international mobility including
participation in Erasmus and other programmes. The main conclusions
of the study were that the main reasons for the decline in Erasmus
participation were language barriers and financial issues. The
Government is committed to working with the National Agency, the
Devolved Administrations and other institutions in seeking to
increase UK outward student mobility.
It considers that a key reason for the decline
of the number of incoming Erasmus students relates to the relatively
low number of outgoing students in so much as institutions will
seek to bring their exchanges more into balance. The Government's
main objective therefore is to increase the number of UK students
going out.
Measures taken recently have included allowing
students going abroad for a full year not to have to pay any tuition
fees for that year; wider circulation of the annual "European
Choice" booklet which advertises Erasmus; and increased promotional
activity following the launch of the new Socrates programme. The
Government have also amended the student support regulations to
allow Erasmus students a higher rate of student loan.
However, the Government recognises that we need
to do more to encourage higher participation. The Government will
engage with all relevant stakeholders to devise strategies to
improve the mobility of UK students.
INCOMING ERASMUS
STUDENTS
While it is true that the UK is now in third
place for incoming Erasmus students, the UK does continue to remain
the first choice for many EU students—16,688 students from
partner states came to the UK through Erasmus in 2002-03, but
there was a total of 90,580 EU students overall in the UK in that
year—and the flow of international students to the UK continues
to increase. Indeed, the UK continues to remain a popular destination
for foreign students in what is a growing and more diverse market.
For instance, the number of non-EU students
studying full-time in the UK in 2002-03 rose by 23 per cent on
the previous academic year. Around 43,000 non-EU international
students have applied to UK colleges and universities for 2004
entry.
The Government recognises that it is important
that universities recognise that, as more institutions in other
countries run courses in English, this may increase competition
and UK institutions will need to adapt accordingly. In a rapidly
growing global market, UK institutions will need to look at the
quality of what they are offering.
32. We also recommend that the Government
should investigate, in consultation with educational institutions
and other relevant bodies, why United Kingdom under-spends on
some of the current EU education and training programmes are more
than those of other participating countries.
The UK underspends in decentralised Comenius
and Leonardo are above the European average. However, schools
have a tendency to underspend on grants if less mobility has taken
place during the project year than originally planned. The British
Council has increased the subsistence allowance to 100 per cent
on the 2004 contract to encourage schools to support teacher mobility.
As noted elsewhere a contribution towards supply costs would have
an immediate impact on participation in Comenius.
Grundtvig is currently oversubscribed in the
UK which reflects the key UK priority of improving our performance
in adult basic skills.
There was a 10 per cent increase in the number
of UK schools participating in Comenius in 2004 and a 16 per cent
increase in 2005. Following enlargement, the former pre-accession
countries now benefit from bigger budgets. Consequently far fewer
European partnerships are lost through European matching.
Language projects include pupil exchanges and
therefore absorb the highest proportion of the Comenius budget.
While this project category has increased in popularity in other
Member States, numbers in the UK have shown a steady decline in
recent years. Concerns around child protection legislation and
the need for risk assessments have proved to be a disincentive
to schools to organise pupil mobility.
In many other Member States, Socrates provides
the only source of funding for international activity in education.
UK institutions can access a variety of nationally funded programmes
with less bureaucratic procedures and often customised to suit
local priorities (such as Teachers International Professional
Development Programme) and the take up of EU funded programmes
has to be seen in this context.
33. We further recommend that this investigation
should pay particular attention to claims we have had in evidence
that the current funding provision by the Commission is inadequate.
The Government should establish to what extent that is due to
institutional factors in the United Kingdom education system,
as distinct from the rules and levels of funding set by the Commission.
The Government agrees that the Commission should
pay particular attention to the adequacy of the provision for
the costs borne by institutions in organising Erasmus mobility.
In the case of both the Leonardo da Vinci and
Comenius programmes the problems of funding supply cover have
already been noted in several other places. In FE colleges the
difficulty is that LSC funding cannot be used to cross subsidise
non LSC funded work. This is not an issue about inadequate funding
from the EC but about rules on the use of LSC funding. It links
to the point below.
The mechanism for investigating these bottlenecks
and suggesting remedial action is the UK Steering Group described
in Recommendation 29.
34. The Government should also pay particular
attention to the lack of supply cover for British teachers wishing
to take part in Comenius programmes and any other factors peculiar
to the United Kingdom which tend to discourage overall participation
or exclude certain groups of potential beneficiaries.
The Government is aware of the difficulty relating
to supply cover, and as noted earlier (Recommendation 29) it has
set up a UK Steering Group which is responsible for advising on
the implementation of the programme, and the question of maximising
take up is one of the questions with which it will deal.
The UK is not the only country to suffer from
the difficulty of financing supply cover, and UK members of the
programme committees will continue to press the Commission for
a change in its own rules to allow sufficient flexibility to take
into account differing national situations.
35. We welcome the Government's assurances
that they are committed to overcome the dead-weight of bureaucracy
as a significant deterrent to participation in these programmes
and to ensure that the programmes are genuinely inclusive. But
it is clear to us from the evidence that the success of these
programmes in the United Kingdom depends far too much on the dedication,
hard work and resourcefulness of beleaguered individual enthusiasts.
We recommend that the Government should ensure that they are given
much more encouragement and support and demonstrate how they intend
to do so.
In relation to the Erasmus programme the Government
recognises that Higher Education Institutions are autonomous.
We will, nevertheless, encourage institutions to recognise the
important role of European/International Offices and the Academic
Programme Coordinators. Ministers will discuss this with Vice-chancellors
and through UUK. At the same time, the Government will continue
to give full and effective support to the National Agencies in
their work of supporting institutions, promoting the programme
and encouraging participation.
The Government recognises the hard work and
commitment of many individuals in making participation in the
EU programmes a reality. In advancing the Department's International
Strategy it has set up an overarching advisory group, and the
question of how such effort can best be rewarded and recognised
will be one of the questions it addresses.
In addition, if the EU Financial Regulations
are simplified, promoters should find the administration less
bureaucratic and this should mean that the burden will fall less
on those committed individuals.
LANGUAGES
36. We conclude that the United Kingdom
is already falling badly behind in language-learning capability.
This will seriously limit British ability to take part fully in
and benefit from the new EU programmes, especially Erasmus. But
it has far wider implications for the employability and cultural
awareness of the coming generation and will severely hamper the
country's ability to protect and promote our interests abroad
and to compete successfully in the Single Market and elsewhere.
37. We believe the problem will worsen
as the new programme targets increasing proportions of the younger
population. The United Kingdom will not be able to get anything
like full value from the expanded EU programme proposed. While
more funding for preparatory language training is a possible short-term
solution, it will not address the more strategic deep-seated British
linguistic deficiency which requires long-term commitment and
investment to sustain improvement.
38. While we welcome the Government's
intention to give more emphasis to early language-training in
schools it will clearly be many years, stretching beyond the termination
of the proposed new EU programme, before that has any effect on
the capacity of young British adults to take advantage of EU-funded
education and training schemes. It is also likely to lead to a
shortfall in the number of language teachers needed to provide
early language-teaching in schools and, in our view, the reduction
in compulsory language learning at secondary level will only make
matters worse.
39. We recommend that the Government
should carry out an urgent reappraisal of language teaching policy,
not only for the implications it will have for United Kingdom
participation in the new EU programme but much more widely.
Through the publication of its National Languages
Strategy for England, "Languages for All: Languages for Life"
in December 2002, the English Government sets out how it plans
to transform the nation's capability in languages. To oversee
the implementation of the strategy, the Department has appointed
the first ever post of National Director for Languages. The Department
believes that given sufficient time to bed in, this strategy will
improve participation in the programme as well as bringing broader
benefits.
One of the strategy's three overarching objectives
is to improve the teaching and learning of languages, which includes
the introduction of a primary entitlement to learn languages.
By 2010, every child throughout Key Stage 2 should have the opportunity
to study a foreign language and develop their interest in the
culture of other nations. In providing the entitlement, the Government
recognises that pupils should have access to high quality teaching
and learning opportunities, making use of native speakers and
e-learning. By age 11 they should also have the opportunity to
reach a recognised level of competence on the Common European
Framework and for that achievement to be recognised through a
national scheme.
To deliver the primary entitlement the Department
is building a trained workforce. Currently the focus is on providing
language training for new primary teachers, existing teachers
and teaching assistants. In addition, primary schools are encouraged
to work with fellow primary and secondary schools, and where they
exist, language colleges to support their programmes, share expertise
and resources.
To track the extent to which languages are being
taught in primary schools, research was carried out in 2002-03
and reported that 44 per cent of all primary schools were delivering
some form of language teaching. This was an increase on earlier
research conducted in 2001 which reported that one in five primary
schools were delivering language programmes.
In September 2005, the Government will publish
a Key Stage 2 MFL Framework to support the planning and teaching
of languages. It will also cover transition issues between Key
Stage 2 and 3.
Language learning continues to be compulsory
at Key Stage 3. The Secondary Strategy's MFL programme for Key
Stage 3, implemented since 2003, was designed to contribute to
the raising of standards in MFL. The programme consists of a Framework
of objectives for teaching modern foreign languages, and training
and guidance materials. The programme was designed not just to
improve the teaching of languages but also to help create confident
language learners, and provide a sound basis for pupils to continue
their language learning at KS4. The programme encourages teachers
to draw on existing good practice and work together to become
more effective so that pupils improve in what and how they learn.
Ofsted have noted that the use of the Strategy's MFL Framework
has helped teaching and the approach it encourages is having a
positive effect on the attitudes of pupils, particularly boys.
More recent feedback from Ofsted to the Secondary Strategy about
its impact in schools suggests that pupils' attainment is improving
in schools that make full use of the Framework for teaching MFL.
Through its Green Paper "14-19: Extending
opportunities, raising standards", the Government consulted
extensively on its proposals to create more choice and flexibility
at Key Stage 4. The response to the consultation confirmed the
Government's view that schools should no longer be required to
teach modern foreign languages to all pupils but that all schools
should be required to ensure that any pupil wishing to study a
modern foreign language should be able to do so. The changes to
the way the National Curriculum is organised at Key Stage 4 enables
14-16 year olds to study a curriculum which better meets their
needs and aspirations and future employability. Whilst the compulsion
to learn languages has been replaced by a statutory entitlement
to learn languages at Key Stage 4 from September 2004, schools
are still required to offer language learning programmes to all
pupils who want to study them.
Secondary schools are now able to consider vocational
language qualifications as alternatives to GCSE as vocationally-related
qualifications listed for use pre-16 in the National Qualifications
Framework as they now attract achievement and attainment points
for performance tables.
The Department has funded CILT, the National
Centre for Languages to develop "Languages Work", a
website and materials which offer advice and information for young
people on the true value of languages in the workplace, enabling
them to make informed choices.
The National Languages Strategy is consistent
with Government's policy of choice and personalised learning.
If pupils start learning languages at an early age, the Government
believes that more people will be enthused and want to continue
learning languages beyond the age of 14 and into adulthood.
DfES officials are working closely with the
LSC and HEFCE to increase opportunities for language learning
post-school. Although the number of specialist language degree
students has fallen in recent years there has been significant
growth of language learning, either as part of another degree
or as an additional course at University.
To fulfil another of the strategy's overarching
objectives, the Department is also introducing a national, voluntary
recognition scheme—the Languages Ladder. The scheme will
complement existing qualification frameworks and the Common European
Framework and give people of all ages credit for their language
skills. It was launched in May 2005 and will be available in eight
languages from autumn 2005.
The Department's international strategy for
education, skills and children's services, "Putting the World
into World-Class Education", published in 2004, re-emphasised
the messages outlined in its National Languages Strategy. Goal
1 of the international strategy—"Equipping our children,
young people and adults for life in a global society and work
in a global economy"—incorporated the need "to
transform our capability to speak and use other languages".
The international strategy details progress to date in achievement
of this goal.
In Scotland, language learning and teaching
is based on the 2001 Ministerial Action Group report, Citizens
of a Multilingual World. The current programme for Government
guarantees the opportunity to learn a modern European language,
starting in primary school, and a recent survey shows that over
95 per cent of upper primary pupils were studying a modern language.
Current support for languages in Scotland includes developing
an on-line Modern Foreign Languages Environment (MFLE). This will
support modern language teachers, providing on-line professional
development, examples of good practice, and resources. Also, in
the Partnership Agreement for a Better Scotland, the Scottish
Executive has made a commitment to introduce a national language
strategy to guide the development and support of Scotland's languages,
including British Sign Language and ethnic community languages.
Local authorities and other public bodies will be responsible
for drawing up a languages plan which reflects the communities
they serve.
The Government recognises the need to encourage
students in all subject areas to participate in Erasmus and particularly
those without a language background. It will explore with the
National Agency ways of further developing participation in the
programme for non-language students.
The higher education element of the DfES's modern
foreign languages strategy is about increasing the numbers of
students in higher education who are taking an active part in
learning modern languages. A number of actions are in train. For
example we are working with key partners such as CILT and the
Subject Centre on considering the options for action to support
our aim of increasing both the supply and demand for foreign languages
in HE.
UNITED KINGDOM
BUSINESS ENGAGEMENT
40. We recommend that the Government
should encourage the United Kingdom business sector to pay more
attention to the new Programme and the opportunities it may offer
for British business and to become more actively engaged in helping
the Government to develop their strategy towards the Programme,
especially for the Leonardo and Grundtvig programmes.
The Government recognises the importance of
business participation in the programmes. While there is always
scope for improvement, the European Commission has confirmed that
the UK is out-performing other comparable Member States when it
comes to industry involvement in Leonardo. It is difficult to
be precise about business involvement in the current programmes
as statistics show information about lead organisations rather
than the full range of partners. However, the Government knows
that in the case of the Leonardo programme, some 20 per cent of
2004 projects were led by businesses and many more included active
business partners. With the exception of trainer exchanges, most
Leonardo projects involve a work placement in a business environment.
All projects will therefore have at least one business partner.
Grundtvig should not be seen as a vocational
training programme like Leonardo. With a focus on active citizenship
and social inclusion, Grundtvig has aims that are both broader
and more ambitious than promoting the employability of adults.
Nevertheless, in terms of progression to further employment, 59
per cent of projects in 2003-04 believed that the adult learners
involved had derived significant benefit.
Some 11 per cent of projects were looking at
methods for providing credit for competencies acquired outside
of formal education, whilst 44 per cent were looking at guidance,
counselling and other support services. Basic Skills was the main
thematic area for 42 per cent of projects. The link between involvement
with learning partnerships and increased employability is clear.
As with the Leonardo programme the statistics
may disguise the involvement of partner, as opposed to lead, organisations.
British businesses have also taken an active
interest in the Lingua and Minerva actions of Socrates and have
been directly involved in a number of projects (approximately
20 per cent).
Comenius has been a powerful tool for increasing
the interest of local businesses in school communities such as
Cardonald College, Glasgow and Peebles High School, Scottish Borders.
The Government has been keen also to encourage
the participation of employer representatives in shaping the Leonardo
programme, with the CBI and the TUC having seats on the EU Leonardo
Programme Committee. Representatives from CBI and TUC also sit
on the Management Board of CEDEFOP (European Centre for the Development
of Vocational Training).
The steering group advising on the implementation
of the new programme (see recommendation 30) offers a mechanism
for actively pursuing these possibilities and offering practical
advice and assistance.
41. At local level, we recommend that
the Government should encourage businesses to liaise with the
Regional Development Agencies and sector skills councils, as well
as with individual local education institutions, in developing
projects under this programme that are relevant to British business
needs and will be of benefit to individual businesses and their
employees.
The Government believes that more can and is
being done through the Regional Development Agencies in England
and corresponding arrangements in Scotland and Wales, and through
the Sector Skills Councils which link to businesses on a regional
basis and have developed sector specific strategies. The Sector
Skills Development Agency (SSDA) is now looking at its remit in
the context of the International Strategy and what role it could
play.
The SSDA is now looking at how to engage employers
more closely with the European programmes and the Lisbon agenda.
42. We also recommend that the Government
take more active steps to promote the potential benefits of the
programme, and especially the new Leonardo and Grundtvig
programmes to British business, not only for the training and
motivation of individual employees, but also more widely through
the corporate relationships and improved understanding of European
processes and market opportunities which active involvement in
these programmes should bring.
There is a need to further convince employers
and employers' organisations of the benefits of the programmes
in preparing potential employees for their working life. The Government—in
conjunction with the devolved administrations—is conducting
an active programme of promotion of the programmes through our
National Agencies so that British business can be aware of the
benefits to employers and employees alike in participating in
European programmes.
UNITED KINGDOM
NATIONAL AGENCY
ARRANGEMENTS
43. We recommend that the present agency
arrangements for administering the programmes in the United Kingdom
should be retained, but that consideration should be given to
forming a single over-arching advisory council, on the lines of
the present separate United Kingdom Socrates-Erasmus and Leonardo
Advisory Councils, designed so that interested bodies can contribute
effectively to the formation of a comprehensive national strategy
and review progress while leaving programme administration in
the hands of the relevant agencies.
The current arrangements are designed to maximise
the effectiveness of UK participation in the current programmes
whilst also balancing costs and efficiency. Having appropriate
National Agencies enables links between NAs and specific end-user
groups to be optimised. We believe that an overarching UK structure
will be necessary to consider the strategic overview and bigger
picture for an integrated programme. However, the Government also
feels that each specialist area will need to bring together the
key stakeholders to consider specific issues relating to their
areas and to take account of differences in policies and priorities
applying in different parts of the UK.
| 
