European Commission DG EAC 25 February 2003 EU Commission Public consultation on New Programmes EVTA

Transcription

1 25 February 2003 To : Date : Name : Author: European Commission DG EAC 25 February 2003 EU Commission Public consultation on New Programmes EVTA Summary of contents In November 2002, EU Commission - Directorate General for Education and Culture launched a public consultation aiming at involving all those with an interest in EU education, training and youth Programmes in the preparation of the new generation of Programmes to start in In particular, EU Commission was interested in receiving suggestions related to three main topics, articulated in thirteen key questions: A. The type of actions to be supported through European Programmes after 2006; B. The geographical coverage of the new Programmes; C. The design and structure of the new Programmes. E.V.T.A. played a role in this consultation process: an internal consultation took place and part of the meeting of the Operational Group Exemplo of January was dedicated to this topic. In addition to this, written comments, proposals and contributions were collected from those who are in the E.V.T.A. network and have an interest in the matter. Written contributions Written comments and suggestions were sent by the following bodies: AFPA (F), ENAIP (I), IMELS (ES), AIKE International (SF), COLO (NL), VDAB (BNl). Informal contacts Informal consultations were taken in Italy. Contribution to this came from the Italian technical assistance bureau for Leonardo da Vinci (ISFOL) and from the Industrial Association of Veneto (INDUSTRIALI VENETO SIAV). Structure of the document EU Commission has made available on the web a form for answering to the consultation. This form is structured in 13 questions. The following document has the same structure. 1

2 1. What general or specific needs in the fields of education, training youth should be addressed by future European Union Programme action? Generally speaking, there is need to considerate the process of Lifelong learning within the context of a European society based on knowledge. New Programmes should enhance the role of education and training stimulating an impact on structures for initial education and training, developing effective systems for permanent education, improving the quality of continuing learning. A second general task of new Programmes should be the contribution to the establishment of a European identity, based on cultural and social elements rather than on economic convergences. A common core of values regarding education and training should be defined in order to coordinate LLL actions and training intervention for enterprises. Third of all, there is need for a stricter linkage between education, training and research. New Programmes should support co-operation between Institutions, enterprises, Universities and practitioners as to needs analysis and development policies. The enhancement of the links between operators is fundamental for the real possibility of integrate formal, non-formal and informal learning. Social partners should commit themselves and institutions should involve them in more constant and comprehensive way. More in detail, the concept of lifelong learning should be reinforced since it is a EU priority, which can be considered a unifying factor for all Member states. Three kind of needs should be considered: the need for a more comprehensive orientation activity available for all during the whole active life of Europeans; the need for validation of knowledge, which is essential to the recognition and accreditation of skills and competences, thus becoming a base for intra EU mobility; the need for integration of fragile and discriminated citizens in all economic and social environments of the Union; this could be done through a stricter cooperation with enterprises. Some needs already covered by current Programmes should be retained and reinforced. They are: the development of interculturality (through language learning and mobility), the support to quality in education and training;; the complementarity of the different kinds of education and training (initial, continuing, in-enterprise, onthe-job, compulsory, voluntarily.); the analysis of new professions; the attention to family as a place of education; the development of common qualifications and certification practices. As for the last point, there is no need to repeat what is already an objective of the Bruges process: new Programmes task could be the stabilization of systems and clarification of concepts. The experimental character of Programmes should be reinforced. More account should be taken of the opportunities for adults to have access to ICT. Virtual mobility should be considered at the same level as real mobility for students. 2

3 Mainstreaming activities (which are a combination of actions aiming at valorise, disseminate and transfer results into policies at each level) should be central in new Programmes. Good examples of actions in current Programmes and Initiatives (i.g. Leonardo da Vinci I strand for dissemination; Equal s Action 3 ) should be taken into account. In addition, transnational actions should be valorised in a wider way, linking them to quality criteria and securing the possibility of transfer of results in EU and national policies. Finally, mainstreaming actions should effect more visibly the planning and implementation of ESF interventions. 2 Which of the types of action supported by our current Programmes will still be appropriate for the period beyond 2006? Which if any - new ones should be added? Which if any should be dropped? Why? From a general point of view, there is need of an overall simplification of language and style describing actions and allowing access to Programmes. All Europeans should immediately understand what Programmes are about and how to apply. Of course, simplification should involve also procedures. Actions to be retained: 1. grants to support mobility and to reinforce the institutional arrangements underpinning its quality; with the modification that support should be granted also for the virtual mobility by using ICT; 2. support for transnational projects and education for improving language learning and teaching; 3. support for exchange of good practice and networking; 4. support for the process of transnational co-operation on a project basis, leading to products such as new information, training or teaching material; 5. dissemination arrangements for completed projects; Actions to be introduced: 1. Quality support in orientation and guidance; 2. Actions of analysis on social demand; 3. Generation of new employment activities; 4. Actions for knowledge managing and sharing; 5. Actions for developing the rights of European citizenship through social, training and professional experiences. Generally speaking, there is need to secure balance between general education activities and vocational training and higher education actions. Moreover, dissemination activities should promote the knowledge and the use of outputs and products. 3

4 3 How can the Programmes more effectively complement action at national, regional and local levels (e.g. mobility grants), as well as other EU programmes? How can the Programmes harness best practice in different countries, to achieve an outcome greater than the sum of all the parts? From a general point of view, the transfer of good practices is considered vital for the effectiveness of new Programmes. As a matter of fact, there is need to reinforce the potential impact of Programmes re-thinking the approach to mainstream innovation and good practices. Some ways to do this are: involvement of Institutions, national bodies related to education and training, enterprises, practitioners from the beginning of projects and not only in the dissemination phase; clear identification of mainstreaming objectives; preference to innovative actions planning outcomes transfer and re-use of good practices; support to valorisation of durable contributions; prevision of guidance for transfer of good practices. As for mainstreaming activities, the role of the Commission should be reinforced since a central management for dissemination actions seems capable of reaching measurable results in terms of structural innovation. There is need for more information on Programmes and on the impact they aim at. In order to do this, a more direct and strict relationship between the Commission and non institutional actors (like the knowledge networks and social actors) is advisable. More co-ordination between EU bodies is advisable as well (DG Education, Social Affaires, CEDEFOP, ). 4 How can the Programmes better encourage innovation and its transfer into mainstream activity? First of all, before we identify a procedure or a methodology to mainstream innovation, it is necessary to develop a way (schemes, models, approaches) to analyse results and define innovation itself. This with reference to the different situations in Member states and in perspective of the EU enlargement. Some ways to do this are: the implementation of transnational working groups; the preference to projects clearly showing elements of innovation in their plans and objectives; the use of knowledge networks. Support to debate and confrontation on innovation should be secured both via the use of ICT, and through the possibility of meeting and discussing. Second of all, the choice of a more concentrated structure for Programmes (rather than a melting pot conception) could help Programmes to really encourage innovation. Modalities of funding could be a third way: in other words, European funding could be linked to the character of structural innovation of action selected, while national cofunding could add value to innovation at local/national level. Again, a preliminary clarification of what the Commission, Member states and operators mean by innovation is necessary. 4

5 5 What types of action in education, training and youth are most relevant for co-operation with third countries (i.e. those beyond the 31 EU, EEA and Candidate countries)? Generally speaking, one should have in mind that co-operation with extra EU countries is finalised to the enhancement of EU s international action (political, cultural, humanitarian, regarding development and markets). As a consequence, it is advisable to keep a wide range of actions. Europe of the 31 should be the most important environment for Programmes. But, it is also advisable to continue co-operating with developed countries (i.e. USA and Canada), from which we can learn and to continue supporting underdeveloped States. Emphasis should be laid on the use of earlier results and experiences. Actions could include the exchange of educators and trainers, the co-operation via the use of ICTs (provided their use is not a barrier for anyone), and the accreditation of skills acquired in Programmes activities in the States of origin of non EU participants. It is also advisable to continue co-operation with third countries, involving underdeveloped countries and realizing experimental actions in their territories. The choice between intra EU and extra EU co-operation is effected also by the consistency of funds and budgets. Again, one possible way to increase that is to improve the coordination between DG EAC, DG Enterprise and DG Development, which, for the present being, is not that effective. 6 Current Programmes reflect the needs of Europe s own citizens or use education to build relations between the EU and third countries, even as a tool for development aid. Do we currently have the balance right between these two types of action? Should the EU promote more links between its own education and training institutions and the rest of the world, or should it concentrate on intra-european links? The answer to this question is linked to the answer to question 5. Extra EU links can be considered as the basis of EU international action. On the other hand, if one thinks about the enlargement process of the EU and the ambitious goals that the Union has set (to create a European area of lifelong learning (European Council of Feira 2000), to create a European area for higher education (Bologna process), to increase cooperation in vocational and educational training (Bruges and Copenhagen processes), it seems advisable for the EU to concentrate new Programmes focus on its objectives paying more attention on the needs of European systems and citizens. But this should not be exclusive and EU could use new Programmes to generalize good practices, providing some means for the transfer of them to the developing countries, choosing topics to be dealt with in function of our and their needs. 5

6 7 Should we retain separate programmes broadly targeting (1) EU, EEA and candidate countries, and (2) the rest of the world? Or should third countries be included in the main education, training and youth programmes? If so, how? From a general point of view, it might be interesting to integrate at least some of the now separate Programmes targeting the countries outside the EU into the main education, training and youth Programmes thus providing financing also to the third countries. But it seems advisable to realize this integration on the basis of the type of action. To be specific, some kinds of actions, like pilot projects in Leonardo da Vinci, could be extended to third countries, avoiding any budget restriction for non EU participants, thus enabling a more complete exchange of competence, of experience, of knowledge. On the other hand, mobility projects should be available only for the 31 countries, limiting the participation to the States primarily interested in the construction of a common European identity. Although targets should not be a cage for new Programmes their choice could be made using a combination of criteria: development, economy, knowledge. Moreover, one of the goals of new Programmes could be the elaboration of a strategy to integrate results of co-operation in our internal policies regarding education, training and youth, since knowledge sharing should not remain a mere formal exchange. 8 Is it better to have separate Programmes for education, training and youth which can reflect the specificity of the areas they deal with; or would it be better to have fewer Programme(s) covering the whole lifelong learning process, within which education, training and youth would each find its place? There are a few basic points regarding the design of new Programmes which seem of fundamental importance for their success. First of all, objectives should be identified very carefully avoiding confusion and overlapping. As a matter of fact, working in the education and training system can be a complex task and in order to activate all interested actors a clarification of general and specific objectives is necessary. Second of all, as a consequence of the clarification process mentioned above, Programmes should be more legible for actors involved and potential users. The increasing of Programmes legibility involves all the steps of their implementation: goals setting, application procedures, selection criteria, funding and implementation procedures, beneficiaries involvement, mainstreaming, Simplification is about the way Programmes work and are used; the starting point is not their number. Having this in mind, a reduction in number is possible, provided that the correlation between Programmes is effective. A way to secure this could be to have some pivotal values for structuring Programmes; examples of these values are: lifelong learning, the concept of European citizenship, knowledge managing and sharing. In order to contribute to the clear perception of goals and aims, Programmes could retain distinction between education, training and youth, but the focus should be on the type of measure and of action, rather than on target groups. 6

7 For instance, one Programme could be focussed on education, focussing on basic education, general secondary education and higher education, creating contribution to the Bologna process in terms of mobility schemes. A second Programme could be focussed on vocational training activities, paying attention to investment in youth and apprenticeship, reinforcing the links to employment of employed and unemployed persons and considering the needs of groups at risk. Finally, even though new Programmes will have separate frameworks for education and training, there is need for integration between education, vocational training and continuing vocational training. 9 What could be the most effective mode of organisation for future Programmes? By type of organisation? By type of activity? By groups of potential beneficiaries? In addition to what already mentioned in point 8, a strict separation of Programmes on the basis of target groups or type of organisation seems to be not advisable. It would be preferable to fund multi - level actions facing multi level problems, activating partnerships for their realisation. This approach has with no doubt some advantages, since it allows to deal with several problems and phenomena at the same time and can count on the contributions of different actors, bringing their specific experiences. Conversely, it can have also serious disadvantages if objectives are not clearly defined in advance, if partnerships are based on the number of partners or on strict eligibility criteria (public private) and not on skills, competence and experience, if innovation and experimentation are not at the centre of funded actions. A way of building up partnerships could be a clusterization of partners based on the problem dealt with and on partner s competence. Finally, the role of Institutions should be more active, as refers to mainstream innovation and good practices. 10 Some of the existing Programme actions are managed de-centrally via National Agencies in the participating countries. Other actions are managed centrally by the European Commission with the help of its Technical Assistance Office. What are the advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches? Can they be improved? Experiences are very different throughout Europe. In some cases, decentralization proved to be effective and to ease the overall management. In other cases, it caused a general slowing down of the implementation process. Moreover, the proximity of lobbies to decisional level negatively influenced the reaching of Programmes objectives. A combination of central and de-central management could be a solution: the Commission should be responsible for the general framework of Programmes (general objectives, strategies relating to EU policies about education, training and youth, European funding, mainstreaming and valorisation of results and outcomes), facilitating a more direct relationship with operators and citizens; while Member states should commit themselves in simplifying the implementation process and in giving a European political context to actions, even if they are realized at national or local level. Such a solution could imply a change in funding modalities. European and national funding could become independent and national funding could be a form of investment on European educational and training policies. In any case, there is a clear 7

8 perception that the Commission should contribute at a bigger rate to the Programmes realization. No matter the solution regarding management, the simplification process requires an effort to reduce the burocratic approach to Programmes implementation in order to facilitate the access to actions. 11 Are any potential participants in the Programme excluded because of the way it is designed or run? Are all the main stakeholders in education, training and youth suitably involved in the Programmes (at European, national, regional and local levels)? What are the barriers that keep out those who currently do not take part or are under-represented, such as SMEs and the social partners, and how can they be lifted? From a general point of view, two types of subjects seem to have played a lesser role in current Programmes: those who are not public institutions or traditional organizations whose lobbies operate in the decisional level (i.e. small and non profit organizations, non structured group of interest, citizens, ), and SMEs. SMEs have often perceived Programmes as too complicate and too far from labour market needs. In addition to this, the perception of the returns to educational and training activities in enterprises is always confused and benefits for business (if there are any) are foreseen at a too long term. It seems advisable to regulate in a more coherent and transparent way the participation of public bodies to Programmes: in principle, those who operate at the levels of action planning and project selection should be excluded from the implementation phase. Moreover, it must be considered that Institutions massive participation to European funding might be a mere substitution of national funding. To enhance the participation of SMEs measures should be taken to simplify the participation procedure (e.g. administration) and to make more funding available to those enterprises who are willing to participate, possibly using the de-taxation lever. Moreover, there is need for more transparency in the selection and decision process. The Commission should try to link in a clearer way Programmes objectives, results and outcomes of funded actions. Finally, it would be advisable to involve in a comprehensive way Entrepreneurs organizations in the goal setting activity for new Programmes. 12 How to build sufficient flexibility into the Programme design and the definition of its component actions to permit it to respond to the common policy challenges facing European countries in the coming years? A way to build flexibility into Programmes is considered the simplification of procedures for the access to actions and the simplification of their management. Moreover, the clear definition and delimitation of Programmes objectives should avoid the dispersion of resources in such a vast field like education, training and youth actions. In addition to this, a clear definition of responsibilities and roles (including the Commission s and Member states autonomy and European citizens rights) should ease the process. One way to increase Programmes effectiveness is esteemed the enhancement of national technical assistance bodies. Their competence and experience should be valorised. On the other hand, there is no need to create a plethora of institutional technical assistance bodies ; quality criteria, capacity to mainstream best practices 8

9 and innovation could be a basis to secure a useful turnover amongst technical assistance providers. 13 What have been the best and the worst features of the existing Programmes? What elements would you like to see reinforced, what introduced, and what dropped? How can the Programmes be made more user-friendly? If you have not taken part in our Programmes so far, why not? Generally speaking, former and current Programmes have empowered and enlarged the areas for European co-operation linked to education, training and youth, supporting mobility of students, trainees, teachers and trainers. As a consequence, Programmes succeeded in creating the basis for a European system of validation and recognition of educational and training credits, in promoting linguistic diversity and intercultural dialogue, in extending activities to third countries. Moreover, Programmes involved hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries, supporting a European dimension of education and training. As a matter of fact, the transnational co-operation in the Programmes facilitated the exchange of ideas and experiences leading to innovative solutions and enhancing mutual understanding. On the other hand, organizational complexity and limited budget have created significant obstacles for the participation of some target groups. In spite of the outstanding progress realized, it is still impossible to affirm that Programmes made an integrated European policy for education or an integrated European system for training available. In fields like the relationship between education, training, research, enterprises and work, co-operation is still far from having developed its great potential. Some more negative features to mention are: the excessive bureaucracy in the administration of the Programmes; the slow and too detailed monitoring of individual projects leading to a backward payment system that hinders the participation of those who cannot anticipate their own money into the project for a long time; the need for more coherence between EU and national policies on education, training and youth. Finally, the challenge for the education and training sectors is to make all Europeans a winner in their professional life. But making Europeans capable of strengthening constantly their skills and knowledge does not mean that they have to be considered as isolated individuals: one should never forget that they will live, work and operate in organizations. 9