ESIB View on the Proposal of an
Integrated Programme in the Field of
Lifelong Learning by the European Commission

ESIB – The National Unions of Students in Europe was founded in 1982 to promote the
educational, economic, cultural, social and political interests of students in Europe. ESIB, through
its 50 members from 37 countries, currently represents more than 10 million students in Europe.

General

ESIB warmly welcomes the idea of establishing an integrated programme in the field of lifelong
learning. Gathering educational programmes under a similar structure seems very reasonable. ESIB
thinks very positively of the aims to reinforce the strengths and address the perceived
discontinuities and lack of synergy resulting from the current rather fragmented programme design.
It is also very good to put the administrative and accounting requirements in proportion to the size
of the grant. It is also good to leave the actual text of the decision so loose that it doesn’t tie the
hands of those implementing the programme too tightly.

ESIB would like to note that of the three parts of the proposal it is only the actual decision that will
be adopted. The partly good intentions expressed in the explanatory memorandum and the
legislative financial statement may remain unrealised if they’re not brought to the level of the actual
decision text. One has to note that the legislative financial statement is at times very hard to follow.
One of the biggest problems of the proposal is that it leaves the question of further development of
the proposal completely open. ESIB thinks that the possibilities of relevant stakeholders to
genuinely take part in further discussions and decision-making regarding the programme needs to
be guaranteed.

Premise of the programme

The proposal clearly says that the new programme is built up to support the European Union to
achieve the ambitious Lisbon goals. The proposal also says that the integrated programme aims for
a substantial increase in volume and in effectiveness compared to its predecessors. ESIB takes a
rather reserved stance towards these very high numerical goals, but at the same time acknowledges
the value of more and more students from less well-off backgrounds and different situations in life
getting a possibility to be mobile. If the limit of one million Erasmus-students was reached in
approximately 15 years it seems like a very ambitious aim to reach the limit of three million by
2011 notwithstanding the possible financial increases and the expansion of the definition of the
Erasmus-student to cover mobile students in master’s programmes as well.

ESIB is highly sceptical of the fact that merely raising the numbers of mobile students would
actually come to the benefit of those not being mobile at the moment, especially if the amount of
the Erasmus-grant is raised only at the end of the programme period and only with the proposed
sum. To truly increase the equality of mobility requires not only to raise the amount of the Erasmusgrant
sooner than proposed but also to raise it more than proposed so that students from less welloff
backgrounds would also get a genuine possibility for mobility.

Mobility should always be a possibility for a student, never a requirement for a high-quality degree.
Mobility numbers cannot grow in a healthy way if quality of mobility is not taken care of. Besides
the increases in mobility numbers, significant emphasis will have to be given not only to the
economic support already mentioned but also to language training, full recognition and availability
of supportive and counselling services.

The Commission proposes that actions would be administered more on national level with the help
of the network of National Agencies. One can ask whether the Commission really plans to move
responsibilities to the national level. The amount of the employers on central level is to be doubled,
big pilot projects still remain in the hands of the Commission and the growing tasks of the National
Agencies basically have to do with only the increases in the mobility figures. If, however, more
responsibilities are to be transferred to the National Agencies, the Commission has to provide the
National Agencies with good financial support to fulfil these tasks. Clear guidance and task division
is also needed.

ESIB finds it rather surprising that there are plans to incorporate Erasmus Mundus as an additional
programme within the Integrated Programme from 2009 onwards. These programmes have very
different starting points and incorporating Erasmus Mundus to the integrated programme is hardly
unproblematic. Despite the fact that the proposal leaves the details of the possible incorporation
completely open, ESIB sees that bringing Erasmus Mundus under the same structure might offer a
lot of possibilities to the development of both programmes. It is better that in the future the
Commission administers both programmes under the same structure: one more general and aimed at
a wider public and the other very elitist and aimed at a very limited amount of people.

Perhaps in the future the elitist character of Erasmus Mundus, and the way it treats education as
merely a factor for competitiveness disregarding the social function, grows smaller. Hopefully the
integrated programme will benefit from the well written principles of supportive actions to mobility
that exists in Erasmus Mundus. It is also very desirable that the differences between the level of
grants in these two programmes can and will be addressed in the future.

ESIB would like to see students finally given a genuine possibility to take part in the development
of the integrated programme. It is fundamental that student participation is guaranteed in the
programme administration. A minimum requirement is to give all representative organisations of all
student groups concerned an observer status in the different programme committees that are being
planned.

The Erasmus programme

Including the higher education student placements in enterprises (formerly in Leonardo da Vinci) to
Erasmus is a very welcome change that will, however, have to be implemented with care and
detailed planning. A student placement in enterprises (internship) that is closely related to one’ s
studies will have to be recognised as part of studies. This would ease out the differences between
fields of education and would also perhaps increase the mobility of the traditionally non-mobile
groups.

ESIB welcomes most joyously the plans to raise the amount of the Erasmus-grant to 250 EUR a
month, which still is a very modest grant compared to the Erasmus Mundus monthly grant of 1600
EUR minimum. One has to remember that a person’ s financial background is still the most
significant obstacle to mobility. ESIB hopes that the Erasmus-grant can be raised to the proposed
amount in the beginning of the programme period and not in the end as it is mentioned in the
proposal. If the grant is kept at a lower level but the amount of grants available is increased, the
Commission is not supporting quality mobility but instead is increasing quantity at the expense of
quality.

The financial situation of teacher mobility has been disastrous for a long time. Any increases in the
finances in this field are welcome. Teacher mobility is a significant part of the capacity building of
higher education institutions. It is good to remember that during teacher mobility periods, other
types of co-operation between institutions is often planned and realised, e.g. student mobility and
research co-operation.

Problems of recognition are still among the most relevant obstacles of mobility. It is simply not
enough to require in the decision text that full recognition needs to be guaranteed. This has been
required in the decision of the second phase of Socrates already, but the recognition problems still
remain unsolved. Institutions need to be given such a framework and such tools that enable
unproblematic information-sharing that respects the principles of openness and transparency.

ESIB fully supports the idea of awarding support to the home and host higher education institutions
or enterprises for actions to ensure quality at all stages of mobility arrangements, including
language preparation.

A new element has been brought to the level of definitions. The so called ‘joint masters’ definition
has clearly and more or less literally been brought to the text from the Erasmus Mundus decision.
Also, individuals participating in mobility, the so called Erasmus students, have been defined not
only in the traditional way they’ re already defined in the decision of the second phase of Socrates,
but also as ‘students enrolled on Joint Masters programmes in a country other than the one in which
they gained their Bachelors degree’ . It is very alarming that the second part of the definition of an
Erasmus student lacks the reference of waiver of tuition fees that the first part of the definition
includes. In the name of equality for all students, ESIB considers referring to free education in the
text of the actual decision very justifiable also when it comes to the ‘joint masters’ .

It is more or less clear that the text of the programme proposal allows the incorporation of Erasmus
Mundus to the programme at a later stage. ESIB wants to remind that all joint masters supported in
the integrated programme must provide students with a degree that has a clear status in the
European system of recognised degrees. ESIB hopes that as many stakeholders as possible express
their interest in hearing the plans of the Commission regarding the possible incorporation of
Erasmus Mundus to the integrated programme as soon as possible.