The European Parents’ Association has
conducted a survey among national parents’ associations to be able to present
the view of the largest group of European educators, parents and responsibly participate
at the public consultation by the European Commission as part of the mid-term review
of the Erasmus+ programme. In the survey, we have asked questions about
content, procedure and future expectations, experiences of successful and
unsuccessful applicants alike, as well as organisations that have decided to
stay away from the programme and not apply.
Content
Only 14% of those answering the survey are
positive that the current programme covers all important fields in European
education, 43% think that some important funding areas are clearly missing. In
an open-ended question on other necessary eligible topics lifelong learning
programmes that are not restricted to either adult education or another
life-segment, non-institutional early education, validation of informally
acquired skills, children’s and parents’ mobility, parental empowerment,
teacher training by parents and school community development programmes were
mentioned. They may be considered by the programme’s creators covered, but grants
are not available for them as per the practice and advice of the national
agencies.
When listing reasons for rejection by those
who tried to apply, a general claim was that there seem to be no
acknowledgement of parents as educators by the national agencies’ evaluators,
parental trainings and empowerment activities are considered to be adult
education and not belonging to school, while teacher training needs are
acknowledged in school education. Evaluators often still do not acknowledge the
importance of parental involvement. The situation regarding parents’
eligibility for mobility grants has not changed, national agencies apply
different standard procedures as it was the case during the previous funding
period (especially in the case of Grundtvig).
71% think that Erasmus+ guidelines are
applied by national agencies in very different ways, and nobody thinks there
are clear guidelines that are applied consistently. 57% think that the
programme is too rigid to make it possible to react on changes of the environment
and circumstances, while 14% think it relatively rigid that makes planning
easier.
Nearly half of the answers reflect the view
that too high percentage of the funding is spent on innovation and more should
be spent on sustaining and upscaling successful projects. This is made more
difficult by the perception shared by everybody that it is not easy to find
information on current or previous EU-funded projects that could be built on or
upscaled. 1/3 of those answering the survey think that the current, decentralised
and uncoordinated system actually results in very similar or the same project
being financed by different national agencies. At the same time 59% found that
it has been easy to find partners.
Process
43% declared that they haven’t applied for
Erasmus+ funding so far, the vast majority of them did so because the national
agency told them parents’ associations were not eligible for funding. Some
declared that they haven’t had relevant activities, so there was no need for
it, but there were some who do not consider their knowledge of Erasmus+ enough
to apply.
67% of those who did try to apply were
successful with at least one project, all of them in Key Action 2 strategic
partnerships while some also tried Key Action 3 projects or mobility grants.
Those who tried to apply, all find the application process clear, the
submission technically easy, but some complained that most of the paperwork is
superfluous and needs redundant or irrelevant input.
With regards to process the biggest problem
is deadlines not set or neglected by the national agencies. All those answering
the survey declared that they have learnt about the results of the decision at
least 30 days after the project had to be started, while signing of contracts
have happened months after the project’s beginning. Nearly everybody has the
experience that initial requirements for paperwork during the project has
changed during the funding period. At the same time 67% think the necessary
paperwork is proportionate with the grant. The others are either not sure or
find paperwork too much.
Those successful with applications all have
projects that have finished, mostly in August 2016, some earlier. Only 43% have
received the final evaluation by the beginning of May 2017, in more than 8
months, and nobody received the final payment, including those receiving a
fully positive evaluation. On the long run, if this procedure is not revised
and changed so that the evaluation and payment period is reduced to a maximum
of 6 months, it will make grants un-manageable for civil society organisations.
Future
of Erasmus+
Only 15% think the programme is adequate as
it is, with regards to both the funding available and the proportion of
different strands. 2/3 of those answering think that funding should be radically
increased, and at the same time there is a need to shift the focus of the
programme for the benefit of more children and young people. The per capita
spending should be distributed so that the majority of European children and
young people actually benefit from a radical change in education, especially by
investing in un-institutional early years education, and creating a post-PISA
European formal education system that provides 21st century skills
for everybody who wants to use its services, by a shift from content-based
curricula and cognitive development, focusing on soft and transversal skills as
well as English as the common language of Europe, and aiming at educating
active citizens who are lifelong learners balanced by work-readiness. This
should include a shift from youth initiatives to education, and within
education a major shift from universities to other forms – institutions
offering other forms of tertiary education, non-formal and informal provisions
and validation schemes independent from training and education providers.
Erasmus+ should focus more on investing in children that primarily means
investing in the training of educators, both parents and teachers.
Parents are in doubt about the benefits of
the policy that invests most of the available funding in university students’
mobility. While 28% think student mobility helps fighting against xenophobia
and exclusion, 71% think it helps young people to learn about other cultures
and 24% believe students participating in mobility programmes acquire a higher
level of knowledge than those staying at home, 49% reported that Erasmus
students need extra effort to catch up with their studies after returning home.
43% think that it is mostly an investment in recreating an already existing
elite by grants available to small percentage of young people only.
As mentioned before, parents think there
should be funding available for children’s (individual) mobility as well as
parents’, and lifelong learning should also be given priority in the second
half of the programme’s funding period.
Whose
answers are these?
The European Parents’ Association, the
umbrella of national parents’ associations from 31 European countries, 27 of
the EU28 among them, all 31 eligible for Erasmus+ funding, represents 150
million European parents through its members. All respondents represent parents
of children over 16 years of age, 86% also represent 12-16 year olds’ parents
and 57% also cover parents of children aged 0-12.
No comments:
Post a Comment