Response to the European Commission's
(DG Education and Culture) Public Consultation
"The Future Development of the European Union Education, Training and Youth Programmes
after 2006".

Foreword

ESIB the National Unions of Students in Europe is the umbrella organization for 50 National Unions of
Students from 37 European countries and through these members represents over 11 million students. ESIB was founded in 1982 to promote the educational, economic, cultural, social and political interests of
students in Europe.

This consultation has been carried out through the democratic structures by the national student
representatives from across Europe. Members have been invited to comment on the individual questions
within the Consultation via email and through our web based discussion forum. The results have been
brought together through the ESIB Student Mobility Working Group, which has been addressing the issues
relating to student mobility for several years. This document was then sent out to the members prior to the 5th European Student Convention held in association with the Greek Presidency of the EU and funded
partly by the European Commission under the Socrates program, this Student Convention was held on the topic of ³How to achieve genuine student mobility² in Athens 21-23 February. The Consultation document was discussed by the members in a plenary session and was also amended following the results of the discussions held in the workshops and plenary sessions of the Convention to ensure that this Consultation document is the truly representative document of the views of the students of Europe.

ESIB welcomes the opening up of the discussion surrounding the creation of the new generation of
programmes in education to the public and all relevant stakeholders in this field. ESIB appreciates the
possibility of participating in the open consultation process and is looking forward to participating in the
planning of the SOCRATES III programme also in the future. Students are the biggest stakeholder of the
mobility programmes and thus we feel that we have a lot to contribute to the development process.

Introduction

On 14 February 2002 the ministers in charge of education and training in EU countries and the European
Commission set themselves goals to be achieved by 2010 OEfor the benefit of citizens and the European
Union as a whole¹. If the accomplishment of these goals is the state of affairs that Europe is aiming at, we feel that step-by-step progression must be done in wide co-operation with relevant stakeholders. From our perspective, we support the accomplishment of the ambitious goals, but we also emphasise that the proceeding must take student perspective into consideration. Students are the experts in student related matters we deal with student issues every day.

From our point of view, the supportive and complementary actions in certain areas of education and
training by the EU (set in Articles 149 and 150 of the Treaty) are measures which enable the
accomplishment of the goals set for the new generation of Community programmes 2007 2013. These
measures include:

• the promotion of the mobility of students/learners and teachers;
• the improvement of the recognition of degrees, qualifications and competencies for educational and professional purposes;
• the stimulation of language learning;
• the development of co-operation between schools and higher education institutions;
• the development of open and distance learning.

This ESIB Response to the Consultation will focus primarily on the student mobility issues, namely
ERASMUS and TEMPUS programme, although it will also tackle other issues dealt with under the
Socrates program. Our aim is to bring out the student perspective towards internationalisation of higher
education.

The Erasmus student exchange scheme has been to certain extent a success in this field, having sent over a million students abroad during the past 15 years. The structural approach to mobility has had very real benefits but more should be done to facilitate mobility of students and workers in the future. This can only be truly achieved if the other barriers, economic, social and political, are tackled as well.

We have seen initiatives in the field of the recognition of qualifications through the creation of a NARIC
network and specific tools such as ECTS and the Diploma Supplement, but whilst these initiatives have
been a major step forward there needs to be much greater enforcement of this, there are still many cases where mobility is prevented by the lack of recognition of qualifications between countries. There needs to be much greater co-operation between countries and universities in this field of recognition to ensure that the Lisbon Convention on Recognition is fully implemented.

Increasing mobility inside the same higher education institution, on the national and international level is
one of the most central possibilities offered by the Bologna process. Bologna process should not have an
adverse impact on mobility as it is seen in the SOCRATES programme. The impact of the two-cycle
structure needs to be monitored and evaluated on a regular basis.

Summary of ESIB's answer to the open consultation of the European Commission

(A1) A1. What general or specific needs in the fields of education, training and youth should be addressed by future European Union programme action?

Internationalization of Higher Education in Europe proposes new challenges for SOCRATES and
its development. Internationalization of Higher Education is at least so far by and large based on
student mobility. The quality and quantity of exchange programmes and students going abroad is
the key to make Higher Education in Europe international and through this develop universities.
More emphasis should be based on language training. Language courses should be available in
elementary schools, in home HEI and in the HEI where the exchange period is conducted. Under
the SOCRATES programme commission should be able to fund projects and seminars concerning
co-operation in the field of higher education in Europe, as it is now.

(A2) . 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?

Student, teacher and staff mobility, which are conducted under Erasmus should aim at
internationalisation of Higher Education. Other acts under Erasmus should support the mobility of
persons. Socrates should be a general educational programme, but mobility should be an integral
and the most essential part of the programme. E-learning will be a valuable tool in ensuring
greater access to traditional education and mobility, but should not be seen as a replacement for it.

(A3) How can our programmes more effectively complement action at national, regional and local levels
(e.g. mobility grants), as well as other EU programmes?

Economic costs of the exchange are the biggest barrier to mobility. Grants should cover all costs
that studying abroad for a short period brings to students. The problem of non-mobile groups
should be tackled by conducting a research on the reasons and groups not participating in
exchanges and taking concrete action based on the results. Erasmus Student Charter and French
presidency¹s mobility action plan should be implemented so that all students going abroad receive
housing, tutoring etc. and become real members of the higher education institution and student
community. Including NGO¹s in the implementation process would make it more efficient through
improved cooperation and information flow to and from beneficiaries.

(B1) . What types of action in education, training and youth are most relevant for cooperation
with third countries" (i.e. those beyond the 31 EU, EEA and candidate
countries)?

Investment through infrastructural grants for Higher Education Institutions has to remain.
Involvement of students and teachers as equal partners in the programme has to become a reality
in practice. Role of National TEMPUS Agencies has to be clearly defined and strengthened.

(B2) Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci essentially reflect the needs of Europe¹s own citizens; but Tempus
(and other Community activities) 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?

At the moment Europe is mainly concentrating on the creation of intra-EU links. More attention
should be brought to building links between all European states, as well as building links between
Europe and the world.

(B3) 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?

Until the countries participating in TEMPUS reach the level needed to enter the SOCRATES
programme, they need to have a separate programme that covers their specific needs concerning
the development of their Higher Education system. Information about small programmes, such as
ALBAN, should be made clearer for example through gathering the small programmes under a
wider umbrella programme.

C.1 Up to now we have had separate programmes for education, training and youth work. Is it better to
keep these separate programmes, 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 se
education, training and youth would each find its place?

Keeping the programmes separated makes them clearly defined and easily definable to
the potential participants as well as to broader public. However there should be more
transversal initiatives that would allow partners from different areas to focus on develop
policies on issues of common interest.

C.2 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?

Future programmes should be organized by type of activity. However, it has to be
recognized that sometimes this leads to problems concerning information flow.

C.3 Some of the existing programme actions, such as individual mobility grants, are managed de-centrally via National Agencies in the participating countries. Other actions, such as large multinational projects, 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?

It is simply logical to have the pan European projects administrated by the pan European
office and national aspects, such as individual grants managed by the national agencies.
The Commission should ensure that when it decentralises actions from its own staff onto
the National Agencies that they are provided with sufficient funds to cover the increase in
administration that results from this. Evaluation of the programme should be done on
more regular basis through a more regular consultation meetings or surveys and
questionnaires with the relevant stakeholders with an important stress on the social
partners.

C.4 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?

The Socrates program tackles the issues of education policy through structural support
and support for various policy initiatives but these policy initiatives should fully include
the relevant social partners. The general impression among the possible beneficiaries,
both the organizations and the individuals, is that the procedure is too complicated and
too long.

C.5 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?

ESIB is thankful for the opportunity to participate in this open consultation process, but
feels that NGO¹s should play an even bigger role in the programme design. Stakeholders
should be brought together to discuss the problems and possibilities of the programmes
on regular basis.

ESIB's ANSWER TO THE OPEN CONSULTATION OF THE EUROPEAN COMISSION

1. The type of action to be supported through European programmes in the
period after 2006. 

A1. What general or specific needs in the fields of education, training and youth should be
addressed by future European Union programme action?

• Academic value should be the key component of study period abroad
• Internationalization of Higher Education in Europe proposes new challenges for SOCRATES
and its development
• Internationalization of Higher Education is at least so far by and large based on student
mobility. The quality and quantity of exchange programmes and students going abroad is the
key to make Higher Education in Europe international and through this develop higher
education institutions (HEIs).
• More emphasis should be based on language training. Language courses should be available
in elementary school, in home HEI and in the HEI where the exchange period is conducted
• Under the SOCRATES programme the Commission should be able to fund projects and
seminars concerning co-operation in the field of higher education in Europe, as it does at the
moment.

Student mobility is one of the key issues that the Commission should address in future EU
programme action. It is something that has been done through the Erasmus mobility scheme and
should continue to happen in the future. However, this mobility needs to be much more structured.
Students should not simply see Erasmus or other mobility schemes as an extended language
course or holiday, it should be used as an integral part of their course, experiencing the different
pedagogical styles, content, facilities and experts that can enhance the period of study and help
create a European aspect to our higher education systems. This Erasmus study should, of course,
also include a language element to the course but should also include aspects of European identity
and citizenship so that the student can be able to experience the different culture fully rather than
just attend another HEI and mix with people from their own country and never get to experience
what it is truly like to live and study abroad.

The Erasmus scheme should be seen as an excellent opportunity to study in another country, learn
a language, experience another culture and benefit from studying their course in a different
institution with all that that encompasses rather than just being seen as a subsidised holiday. This
would necessarily require that the student on Erasmus participates fully in the assessments
procedures so that their work can be evaluated and incorporated into their degree result. Erasmus
students should be given the opportunity to participate fully in the courses of their choice at the
institution where they study.

Internationalization of Higher Education in Europe proposes new challenges for SOCRATES and
its development. Internationalization of Higher Education has at least so far been based primarily
on student mobility. The quality and quantity of exchange programmes and students going abroad
is the key to make Higher Education in Europe international and through this develop HEIs.

Students and teachers bring back new ideas and different working methods to their home
institutions after spending a period of time abroad and the value of this should not be
underestimated. Experience in different teaching methods and different curricula can only improve
the environment at the home institution. Also if students and teachers spend academic time abroad
they will be more open to developing courses for international students in their own home
institutions and taking care of the needs of such students. This way the quality of exchange is very
much improved and only through constant improvement of quality the quantity will be increased
as well.

The importance of language tuition is key to ensuring the greater Europeanization of education
systems. ESIB believes that there must be more emphasis placed on learning a second and third
language as part of the National curricula at a much earlier age. However, there will also be cases
where this language needs to be brushed up or indeed an additional language learnt by a student in
order to enable them to study abroad. This provision of language courses should be provided at the
home institution before the student leaves for their course but there should also be resources made
available throughout the whole study period abroad and should be an essential element of the
programme. This language course should be accompanied by courses in the cultural and historical
situation in the country where the student is going. This citizenship and history study will ensure
much greater understanding of the country of their studies. This issue is also related to the
importance of ensuring that student mobility is taught primarily in the native language of the
country hosting the mobility. Whilst greater use of English, German or French might enable
greater mobility in some cases, this mobility should not be seen as an opportunity for enforcing
cultural imperialism through the back door.

Under the Education action there should be the ability for the Commission to fund projects and
seminars, as it currently does under its existing Accompanying Measures budget line, relating to
issues within the Bologna Process and the Lisbon Process. The Commission has a unique role
within these processes and the ability to facilitate greater involvement from the key actors within
the field for projects that help investigate the issues, develop policies and involve the citizens of
Europe.

A2. 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?

• Student, teacher and staff mobility, that are conducted under Erasmus, should aim at
internationalization of Higher Education
• Socrates should be a general educational programme, but mobility should be an integral and
the most essential part of the programme
• All actions under Erasmus, also those concentrating on institutional cooperation, should
support mobility of persons
• There should be more structual support for other forms of mobility as part of higher education
such as internships within the polytechnic sector
• E-learning will be a valuable tool in ensuring greater access to traditional education and
mobility, but should not be seen as a replacement for it
• Special attention has to be brought to resolving the issue of now existing technology gap
between regions in and beyond Europe

As outlined above the issue of student mobility is a key issue that should continue to be addressed
through its Erasmus programme that should not only be continued but expanded to ensure genuine
student mobility. The next section, A3, will outline some changes to the current Erasmus
programme in terms of the way that grants are allocated and also some other policy initiatives that
will enable much greater mobility.

Student mobility will be greater promoted by ensuring that teacher mobility continues as well. It is
through the actual experiences that the teachers gain by teaching abroad that they will be more
likely to encourage with greater enthusiasm their students to study abroad. Teacher mobility will
also ensure that different pedagogical styles and the sharing of best practices in teaching and
learning will spread throughout Europe as well as the Europeanization of Education.

That as well as academic mobility more effort should be made to facilitate mobilty of the non-
University sector within Higher Education, this should include greater structural support for
internships more commonly associated with non-acadmic mobility that still relates to their HE
course. It should be seen whether it would be appropriate to include this form of mobility into the
Erasmus scheme.

E-learning will be an issue of the future that will need to be addressed, however there will need to
be close monitoring of the future of e-learning. It is currently seen as the answer to all the potential
problems that currently face education, whether being perceived as enabling access or being seen
as a cheap way of delivering education to a large number of people. Whilst there is a grain of truth
in some of these claims, it is not the entire situation by any means. There must remain the
importance of the value of physical mobility and having real contact with the teachers and the
support structures associated with traditional HEIs and education systems. E-Learning has some
benefits in the context of higher education, however Virtual Mobility does not exist as it is the
education rather than the student which is moving.

E-learning will be a valuable tool in some cases such as facilitating lifelong learning and ensuring
greater access to traditional education but should not be seen as a replacement for it. It will also
play a role as an addition to traditional learning through access to information and other aspects.
When it comes to the question of e-learning, in the future, the issue of quality and quality
assurance will become a centre point of discussion. A need for discussing the quality issues and
finding necessary tools is fairly obvious.

Since e-learning will be further developed, it is necessary that the question of access of individuals
to infrastructures is resolved not to create a technology gap between different regions in and
beyond Europe. Further more, it should be noted that e-learning stipulates the necessity to devise
new teaching and learning paradigms and that investment into hardware has to be met by
investment into teacher and student training, and design of teaching modules to help to make elearning
a beneficial learning arrangement.

A3. How can our programmes more effectively complement action at national, regional and
local levels (e.g. mobility grants), as well as other EU programmes?

• Economic costs are the biggest barrier to mobility. Grants should cover all additional costs
that studying abroad for a short period bring to students.
• The problem of non-mobile groups should be tackled by conducting a research on the reasons
and groups not going to exchange and using the information as a basis for development of a
European Fund that would provide grants that are targeted to these specific groups
• Erasmus Student Charter and French presidency¹s action plan should be implemented so that
all students going abroad receive housing, tutoring etc. and become real members of the
higher education institution and student community
• Including NGO¹s in the implementation process would make it more efficient through
improved cooperation and information flow from and to potential
beneficiaries

In terms of the Erasmus programme one of the biggest potential barriers to student mobility is the
economic costs, whether actual or perceived. There should be two aims to the Erasmus mobility
grant. The first aim should be to remove the additional costs that the students will face by studying
in another country. These costs will include anything from the actual cost of the travel abroad and
return costs, additional costs for accommodation if they are required to retain their accommodation
in their home country or higher costs of rent due to it being a short stay. This will therefore mean
that the grant will need to be based on several factors depending on the country of origin and also
the relative costs of the country that they are going to. This grant should also not be purely based
on the country that the student will study because different regions and cities have different costs
as well, for example for a student studying in the UK it will be much more expensive to study in
London than Bradford. This should mean that the student mobility grant should be administered on
a national level taking into account regional differences. This grant should be done on an equal
basis with students from the same higher education institution going to study in the same higher
education institution in another country should receive the same grant regardless of their
background.

The second aim of the Erasmus grant should be to encourage students from those backgrounds that
do not usually study abroad to be able to do so. There should be a separate fund that is used to
provide grants that are targeted to these specific groups, this could include students with
disabilities, from ethnic minorities or lower socio-economic backgrounds, or in other words the
grant would act as a positive encouragement for these groups to study abroad. Since these groups
can differ on a country by country basis and different governments have different priorities then
this grant should be administered by the National Agency. This grant for those from nontraditional
backgrounds should of course be based on research into why these students do not
study abroad and whether they would be more likely to do so if they received a grant. It should
however be available only to those from ³disadvantaged² backgrounds and not be used as a way of
encouraging countries to set priorities based on course of study or other issues.

Erasmus students that study at another HEI are often not included in the democratic structures of
either their student union or higher education institution and more should be done to ensure that
this issue is addressed in the future. It is important that these students are fully integrated into
higher education institution life as soon as they arrive at the higher education institution, indeed
beforehand in terms of accommodation and course selection. It is too often the case that Erasmus
students are isolated from the student body and as much as possible should be done to ensure that
they benefit from the ³student experience² of the host higher education institution. When the
students arrive at the institution they should be fully welcomed into student life and this should
start with a welcome meeting with the other Erasmus students where they are given an
introduction to the higher education institution, student life and so on. Students¹ unions play an
important role in designing and carrying out such programmes together with the higher education
institution administration and should be seen as points of reference for foreign students.

Nevertheless, students¹ unions should receive funding for this kind of services.
In terms of the tools to help mobility it would be useful for greater co-ordination at the European level. The Bologna Process aims to create a European Higher Education Area by 2010 and encouraging student
mobility is one of the keys to this. Student mobility will only become truly accessible if there is much
greater recognition of the qualifications and study periods between the countries. If a student that studies abroad will have to retake the year when they get back to their own higher education institution or not have their Masters recognised when studying abroad and having to retake a Masters before being accepted towards a Doctoral study then there will never be true mobility. The Commission has already taken the initiative in this respect with several initiatives such as ECTS and the Diploma Supplement and the creation of a network of NARICs. There needs to be a European Recognition body that brings together all the actors in the field in a more structured way, this should include NARICs (and ENICs since Bologna is wider than just the Socrates countries), Quality Assurance Agencies (through ENQA), ESIB (as the student representative organization at the European level), EUA and EURASHE (as representatives of the
Institutions) and also the trade unions (ETUCE, EUROCADRES). This body should be assisted by the
introduction of a European Ombudsman for Recognition to oversee difficulties between countries and deal
with cases where recognition has been a problem.

2. The geographical coverage of the programs which countries should be
involved in which actions?

a. Europe United through Education The Socrates program currently covers 30 countries
(15 EU members, 3 EEA and 12 accession countries, and soon to include Turkey) and
within the next two years most of these members will be part of the EU. The Tempus
program covers the West Balkan countries as well as former USSR countries. As we have
seen Education is key to fostering cultural understanding and breaking down the barriers
between European countries. The Tempus program should be seen as the first stage
towards becoming a Socrates country. Tempus should be seen as a programme through
which the countries in these regions can reach the level of development as other
European countries and when this is achieved they must be able to access the
SOCRATES programme on individual basis. The aim should be by 2010 to include these
Tempus countries to the Socrates program with the creation of a National Socrates
Agency and inclusion into the programs such as the Erasmus scheme.

b. Balanced Mobility More effort should be made to ensure that these programmes are
truly about equality with members participating on a balanced basis as much as possible.
In reality this means that issues such as in the case of the Erasmus program some
countries receiving significantly more students than they send and equally vice versa the
countries that send far more than they receive needs to be tackled. The more extreme
example of this trend is the difference between East and Western Europe. Prejudice
concerning quality and recognition still exists and should be efficiently addressed by a
better information flow and finding an in depth answer to what the East offers in an
academic sense beside a unique cultural experience. We should be promoting genuine
equality amongst the members of Socrates program not fostering a situation where some
countries are either more or less equal than others.

c. Belarus Because of the political situation in Belarus, Higher Education as a whole,
students and teachers and the institutions have been leaving for a long time in isolation.
Although because of the specific political situation Belarus can not participate in the
TEMPUS programme level of awareness should be raised. Institutions in Europe and
student organizations can work together with the Belarus institutions and student
organization in developing projects and trainings toward the improvement of the
democracy. ESIB has been working with the Belarus Student Association (BSA) for
some time giving them very much needed information on developments in HE in Europe
and securing them space to present the situation in Belarus to their fellow student
organizations. ESIB members have also been involved in monitoring the election
procedures and supplying the training in areas such as democracy development and
student representation in decision making. Specific action plan simply is very much
needed and must be developed.

B.1. 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)?

• Investment through infrastructural grants for Higher Education Institutions
has to remain
• Involvement of students and teachers as equal partners in the programme
has to become a reality in practice
• Role of National TEMPUS Agencies has to be clearly defined and
enforced

For a number of the third countries within Europe the very basics needed to
develop the higher education are still not fulfilled. Infrastructure is still
incomparable to EU standards. It is very important to encourage the national
governments to invest into their HE since it is through creation of knowledge
based society that these countries will successfully finish the transition and
reach stability in both economical and political sense. Although the
development of HE and investment to education should be priority to the
national governments in these countries this sector due to a large number of
reforms needed in all sectors of society is often neglected thus investment
through infrastructure grants for HEIs from the TEMPUS programme should
remain.

Infrastructure certainly influences the quality of education, but its main factors
are the teachers and students. It has to be clear that in order to develop Higher
Education all stakeholders must be included in the decision making process
and seen as partners who can truly contribute to the development. Students
have been the driving force in the creation of true democratic society and must
be recognized as equal partners in the process.

The students have in the first phase of the programme been rather neglected
and to a certain extent still are. Regardless of many recommendations,
students have been left out of the projects supported through the programme
and have not been able for a long time to apply their own projects. Although
there has been some progress in trying to include students to the programme
situation is still far from perfect. To ensure that students are seen as equal
partners certain steps have to be taken.

Their work must be supported through the availability of project grants that
focus on the development of student policies in the areas important to the
situation in their respective countries.

At this moment the approval of the project grants takes a full year, in many
cases even much more than a year, and is administrated from Central office in
Brussels, which makes it almost impossible to create projects that will
influence the relevant topics in educational society. In order to truly facilitate
development of the student structures as partners in the decision making and
development process the time of the approval of the projects has to be
shortened and more efficient.

Student Individual Mobility Grants shouldn't be restricted to student leaders
and connection to projects; also the length of the study period should be
prolonged to one semester at least.

Attention should also be brought to the fact that mobility has to be done in
both ways from the non SOCRATES countries to SOCRATES and vice versa
since this is the only way to really create strong links between countries
involved and truly understanding each others culture. The understanding of
the cultures is the only way the prejudice that exist can be broken and Europe
united.

A way of recognizing the study period spent in the "third countries" has to be
found in order to foster the mobility to these countries.

Teachers as an integrated part of society have a significant role to play in the
democratization process. Training for teachers in areas such as development
of curricula and teaching methods is of up most importance, and must be
made more available.

The TEMPUS National Agencies role has to be more visible to the partners in
the country and clearly defined. It has to be said that many of the stakeholders
in the country aren't aware of the existence of the TEMPUS National offices.

They should more actively promote the programme and offer help with the
applying process that is in the moment quite complicated. Their role as the
information centres is crucial for the success of TEMPUS programme
therefore it has to be their primary responsibility and it must be fulfilled.

B.2 Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci essentially reflect the needs of Europe¹s own citizens; but
Tempus (and other Community activities) 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?

• At the moment Europe is mainly concentrating on creation of intra EU links and
ESIB believes that more attention should be brought to building links between all
European states, as well as building links between Europe and the world.
• Cooperation programme with Africa and other areas that Socrates does not yet have
cooperation with should be launched.

True mobility and cooperation within the programmes across Europe and with other
continents will, in time, move Europe away from the image of a fortress, as it is
perceived today, and towards a wide-open and unprejudiced entity.
The EU has to build strong links between its states, but must not close up inside itself.
Europe is much larger than the European Union of today and to achieve the truly united
Europe and to make the process as easy as possible strong links between the countries
currently outside EU must be created.

Prejudices exist in the countries within EU about the non-EU countries, but also the other
way around. The gap that in this moment exists should not be widened further. The lack
of information is a problem that worsens the effect of the gap in both directions. The EU
countries lack information on Higher Education and Social Security systems in non-EU
countries and on the other hand the non-EU countries lack information on EU processes.
ESIB does believe that the increase of participation in mobility programmes can lead to a
more realistic view of the situation across Europe. The programmes should open to more
extensive movement throughout Europe without limitations.

Moving in that direction will make way towards a common Europe without boundaries,
enriched by cultural differences and open for the free movement of all people.
However we have to be aware that Europe as a whole is increasing the gap
between itself and the global south. ESIB believes that this is an issue that
is of utmost importance and should be taken into consideration at all
times. Cooperation programmes still exist only with some parts of the
world, while Africa and many developing countries are left aside.

SOCRATES must eventually become global, and all regions must be
included in educational cooperation with EU countries.

Erasmus World is an initiative heading towards opening Europe, but still
isn't enough. At this moment Erasmus world is open only to the master
degree students and only to students coming to Europe. With time
Erasmus World must be opened to all students, meaning it has to include
Batchelor degree students and has to become open for European students
going for a study periods in under developed countries. Only through
inclusion of European students going abroad we can truly create a society
without prejudice, xenophobia, one based on understanding and
cooperation, able to answer the needs of third countries in globalised
world. We must be aware at all times that the final goal is SOCRATES
WORLD that includes all regions in the world on equal basis. Let's be
realistic and try the impossible.

Sustainability, representatively, inclusion, integration and democracy have to be the
hallmarks of the development of a common European future.

B.3 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?

• Until the TEMPUS countries reach the level needed to become SOCRATES countries
separate programmes are needed
• Information about small programmes, such as ALBAN, should be made clearer for
example through gathering them under a wider umbrella programme

Tempus should be seen as a programme that aims to create the basis needed for the countries
involved to become fully integrated to the SOCRATES programme. Until the countries
involved in TEMPUS reach the level needed to become eligible SOCRATES countries the
separate programmes should remain. Countries should be integrated to SOCRATES on
individually based on a assessment of Higher Education and society of the respective country.
Many small programmes are coordinated through the commission and barely any information
about the programme exists in the National Agencies. It can be hard for applicants to even
understand the diversity of programmes. Information about these programmes should be made
clearer for example gathering them together under one umbrella and providing information
also in the national level.

3. The design and structure of the new generation of the programs.

C.1 Up to now we have had separate programmes for education, training and youth work. Is it
better to keep these separate programmes, 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 se education, training and youth would each find its place?

Keeping the programmes separated makes them clearly defined and easily definable to
the potential participants as well as to broader public. This way it is easier to know what
the programme deals with. It is our opinion that even in this moment programmes are too
bureaucratic and that one programme would only increase the bureaucracy and even more
complicate the procedures of applying and approving projects.

However there should be more transversal initiatives that would allow partners from
different areas to focus on develop policies on issues of common interest.

C.2 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?

Future programmes should be organized by type of activity. When the goals of certain
type of activity are set, it is easier to organize it if the programme can work in several
fields of education, if that is needed. Often the goals can be reached only by offering
possibilities for teachers, students, staff and/or institutional cooperation.

However, it has to be recognized that sometimes this leads to problems concerning
information flow. Information about training possibilities does not necessarily reach the
students in higher education, and programmes coordinated by the commission do not
reach national or local actors. The information should be brought as close to the potential
beneficiaries as possible.

C.3 Some of the existing programme actions, such as individual mobility grants, are managed
de-centrally via National Agencies in the participating countries. Other actions, such as large
multinational projects, 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?

It is simply logical to have the pan European projects administrated by the pan European
office and national aspects, such as individual grants managed by the national agencies.
This is to advantage to both the applicants and the approvers since it is obvious that the
pan European office is more aware of the developments on the European level and NAs
more aware of the national situations in their respective countries.

However the communication and tighter connection between the central office and the
National Agencies is needed in order to establish an effective information channel since
the central European office should be more aware of the national situations since they do
affect the overall European situation. The meetings between the NAs as a place of
exchange of experience and sharing of best practices is very much needed and should be
intensified and ESIB should to be invited along with the other key actors and
stakeholders in the field of Education, namely EUA and EURASHE.

The Commission should ensure that when it decentralises actions from its own staff onto
the National Agencies that they are provided with sufficient funds to cover the increase in
administration that results from this. It should not be seen as a cost cutting exercise but
making the procedures more efficient for those receiving the grant.

Evaluation of the programme should be done on more regular basis through a more
regular consultation meetings or surveys and questionnaires with the relevant
stakeholders with an important stress on the social partners.

C.4 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?

The Socrates program tackles the issues of education policy through structural support
and support for various policy initiatives but these policy initiatives should fully include
the relevant social partners, such as students, schools and universities, trade unions and
other actors and this support should include much greater recognition of them as partners
in the field of policy making and also in the field of financial support so that these
organizations are able to give real and effective input. This process has started with the
Call for Associations under the Socrates program in the second half of 2002. This process
of supporting these organizations must be continued if there is to be inclusive and
rounded policies and should clearly only be given to the most representative
organizations in their field.

The general impression among the possible beneficiaries, both the organizations and the
individuals, is that the procedure is too complicated and too long. The long approval
period makes it complicated for social partner organizations to have a genuine impact
because of the on going changes in the society. A more efficient way of approving
applications has to be found, including giving clearer deadlines when applying in terms
of receiving notification from the Commission. One of the most important ways in doing
this is setting clear deadlines the applicants and for the Commission and National
Agencies as well. There should also be a more clear feedback and management process
between the Commission and projects that they support during the project itself, this
should not be over-bureaucratic but aid the reporting procedure.

Student representatives must be included in all decision making levels. This in reality
means that student representatives must be included in national boards of National
Agencies in their respective countries, both in ERASMUS and TEMPUS.

C.5 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?

ESIB is thankful for the opportunity to participate in this open consultation process, but
feels that NGO¹s should play an even bigger role in the programme design. Stakeholders
should be brought together to discuss the problems and possibilities of the programmes
on regular basis. Students, teachers and staff are the experts of educational programmes
and could make the design more flexible.