Feasibility of a long-term School Education Staff Mobility Action

Transcription

Study of the
Feasibility of a long-term School
Education Staff Mobility Action
Final report - 1st May 2013
Lifelong Learning
Programme
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) C ertain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers
or these calls may be billed.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013
© European Union, 2013
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Publications Office of the European Union
2013 — 180 pp. — 21 x 29,7 cm
ISBN 978-92-79-27999-7
doi: 10.2766/42102
Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................ i
Introduction ............................................................................................................ i
Methodology .......................................................................................................... ii
Findings................................................................................................................. iii
Demand, motivation and benefits ............................................................................. iii
Obstacles and measures to overcome them ............................................................... iv
Conclusions and recommendations............................................................................ v
1
Introduction .......................................................... 1
2
Demand, motivation and benefits .......................... 5
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.4
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
4
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
4.2.6
4.2.7
4.2.8
Background............................................................................................... 1
Purpose, aims and objectives of the study .................................................... 2
Scope of the study ..................................................................................... 2
Methodology ............................................................................................. 3
Demand from individuals ............................................................................ 5
Scale ........................................................................................................ 5
Geographical patterns .............................................................................. 10
Types of host destinations and activities ..................................................... 12
Subject area ........................................................................................... 14
Demand from institutions.......................................................................... 16
Sending .................................................................................................. 16
Hosting................................................................................................... 16
Motivation and benefits ............................................................................ 17
Individuals .............................................................................................. 17
Institutions ............................................................................................. 19
Duration of mobility ................................................................................. 22
Conclusions on demand, motivation and benefits ......................................... 23
Identifying obstacles ........................................... 24
Introduction ............................................................................................ 24
School education staff and schools ............................................................. 24
National/regional/local perspectives ........................................................... 27
Overcoming obstacles to long-term mobility........ 29
Existing mobility activity and opportunities .................................................
Introduction ............................................................................................
EU mobility schemes ................................................................................
National mobility activity ..........................................................................
Opportunities for long-term mobility ..........................................................
Resolving the key issues ...........................................................................
National legal frameworks .........................................................................
Providing replacement teachers .................................................................
Role of existing partnerships .....................................................................
Management structures and processes .......................................................
Institutional approaches ...........................................................................
Language barriers and subject areas ..........................................................
Taking account of personal circumstances ...................................................
Range of eligible activities and organisations ...............................................
29
29
29
31
32
36
37
37
38
39
40
40
42
43
May 2013
5
A future mobility action ....................................... 45
6
Conclusions and recommendations ...................... 59
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.6.1
5.6.2
5.7
5.7.1
5.7.2
6.1
6.2
Introduction ............................................................................................
Scale ......................................................................................................
Eligibility.................................................................................................
Duration of mobility .................................................................................
Management and structures ......................................................................
Costs and financial support .......................................................................
Potential operational modalities .................................................................
Costs of support ......................................................................................
Requirements for participating actors .........................................................
Participation ............................................................................................
Support ..................................................................................................
45
45
46
47
48
50
50
54
56
56
58
Conclusions ............................................................................................. 59
Recommendations ................................................................................... 59
May 2013
Executive Summary
Introduction
Teacher mobility can play a significant role in enhancing the quality of teacher training and
increasing the motivation of teachers. It subsequently contributes to the achievement of
wider policy aims such as increasing the quality of education, reducing early school leaving,
increasing the skill level of the population and ensuring that high quality education is
provided for all children.
There is evidence of the benefits from a range of studies, including those on the EU
Comenius programme 1, research for the European Parliament 2 and national studies 3.
Mobility of school education staff not only brings direct benefits to schools and individual
staff members but also contributes to increased internationalisation, stronger links with
organisations and stakeholders outside school and enhanced professional development. 4
The importance of mobility amongst teachers is highlighted by a number of key EU policies:
the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council 2000 emphasised that investing in people is
crucial to Europe’s place in the knowledge economy and called on Member States to remove
obstacles to teachers’ mobility and to attract high-quality teachers. In 2009, the Council
Conclusions on the professional development of teachers and school leaders 5 highlighted the
need to actively promote the opportunities for teachers and other school staff, including
school leaders to take part in transnational mobility schemes. Ensuring the mobility of
school staff is one of the central components of initial and continuing teacher training
programmes, and of continuing professional development 6. The importance of teacher
mobility is also highlighted as a key element of the strategic framework for European
cooperation in education and training (ET 2020) 7. Indeed one of the strategic objectives
identified for European education systems is making lifelong learning and mobility a reality.
Moreover, the Council Conclusions of May 2009 recommended “a gradual expansion of
mobility for teachers and trainers with a view to making periods of learning abroad the rule
rather than the exception.”
This policy framework has significant implications for the on-going implementation of
current European programmes and the design of future European programmes that provide
opportunities for mobility. In this context, the development of a long-term mobility action
for school education staff has the potential to contribute to key policy objectives and to
build on and complement examples of current EU and national schemes supporting the
short-term mobility of teaching staff. It is this long-term component of mobility that is
the main focus of this study.
The purpose of the study was to:
1
2
3
http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/reports/doc/comeniusreport_en.pdf
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=23931
http://www.cimo.fi/instancedata/prime_product_julkaisu/cimo/embeds/cimowwwstructure/15628_teacher_mobilit
y_summary_2007.pdf
4
See the recent ‘Rethinking Education’ strategy at http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/rethinking_en.htm
5
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st15/st15098.en09.pdf
6
Commission
Communication
on
Improving
the
Quality
of
Teacher
Education,
http://ec.europa.eu/education/com392_en.pdf
7
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:119:0002:0010:EN:PDF
May 2013
i
1. Assess the demand from, the motivation of and the benefits for the main stakeholder
groups as regards the participation in transnational mobility lasting a longer period of
time;
2. Identify and explore obstacles at individual, organisational, national and European level
to the transnational long-term mobility of school education staff;
including the
identification of appropriate measures to overcome the recognised obstacles;
3. Provide recommendations on the design and implementation arrangements for a
possible EU long-term school education staff mobility action, indicating different options.
The primary focus of the study was on ‘learning mobility’, a concept that is increasingly
becoming embedded in EU policy 8. It is defined in a recent report reviewing mobility in the
EU as 9 “A period of time spent in another country than one’s own, consciously organised for
the purpose of acquiring knowledge, skills and competences. The stay may be organized in
a formal or non-formal context”.
Methodology
Research was conducted between January and November 2012, using a variety of
quantitative and qualitative methods as follows:
 An online survey of school education staff (9,124 responses in total, of which 7,211 were
completed fully);
 Telephone consultations with 78 people 10;
 Two focus groups in Brussels: one for stakeholders (with 10 participants) and one for
teachers (with 12 participants); and
 In-depth research on five relevant long-term mobility schemes.
The research evidence collected is considered robust and strong enough to support the
conclusions drawn. In particular, the following strengths may be highlighted:
-
The results of the online survey provide very valuable evidence of potential demand.
The high number of responses means reliable conclusions may be drawn from the
data.
-
In terms of the follow-on interviews with respondents to the online survey, because
a large number volunteered, it was possible to construct a finely tailored sample to
ensure the most pertinent issues were explored in more depth.
-
Consultations with EU level organisations and 21 Comenius National Agencies (NAs)
provided a range of valuable strategic perspectives, helping to add information on
national contexts and obstacles.
-
Exploration of a small number of relevant national and international mobility
initiatives has provided detailed evidence on issues and challenges at the level of
specific schemes, and helped to highlight transferable lessons.
-
The two focus groups provided valuable evidence to complement and validate the
other sources of evidence and to inform development of implementation options. In
8
Including Key Action 1 of the proposed new ‘Erasmus for All’ Programme – see COM 2011(787) final, 23.11.2011
“Erasmus for All: The EU programme for education, training, youth and sport”.
9
European Commission (2012): “Study on mobility developments in school education, vocational education and
training, adult education and youth exchanges”, ICON-INSTITUTE GmbH and KO KG Consulting Group.
10
Including representatives from European associations, trade unions, National Agencies and teachers
May 2013
ii
particular these discussions reinforced the benefits and value of long-term mobility in
this field and addressed a range of practical issues.
However, it proved challenging to build a substantial portfolio of the views of national
ministries in particular and to provide a detailed analysis of the obstacles that the legal
frameworks within individual countries may impose on any new EU scheme.
Findings
Demand, motivation and benefits
In terms of the overall level of demand, there is likely to be strong interest from school
education staff to participate in mobility opportunities lasting longer than six weeks offered
through an EU scheme. The evidence suggests strong interest representing a wide range of
countries, institutions and individuals. The resilience of this demand (i.e. the extent to
which interest is translated into actual participation) is assessed as reasonably robust;
indicating that the scale of applications would be in the range 3,000 to 6,000.
The profiles of potential participants suggest only minor differences, with strong interest
amongst both genders, all age groups, by length of experience, and by type/level of
institution (highest amongst staff from vocational/technical secondary schools and lowest
amongst staff working in special needs education). Comparatively, staff involved in intercultural education, counsellors/carers advisers and trainers are the most interested in
undertaking long-term mobility, and head teachers/school leaders/directors the least.
In terms of geographical spread, evidence of demand was recorded from 34 countries,
the largest numbers form Italy, Spain and Portugal. However other countries were also well
represented, including the Czech Republic, France, Finland, Germany and Sweden for
example. As to demand by destination country two-thirds of potential participants prefer the
UK and Ireland, but there is also significant interest in undertaking long-term mobility in
France, Germany, Finland, Sweden and Spain. Denmark, Switzerland, the Netherlands and
Italy also attract a high level of interest, although interest in the EU12 11 as a mobility
destination is comparatively weak.
In terms of the types of activity that potential participants in long-term mobility would
prefer to undertake school education staff are interested primarily in teaching, but are also
interested in job shadowing, and undertaking research. Staff working with pupils with
special educational needs was the only group that preferred job shadowing to working
professionally (teaching etc.). This is reflected in the significant level of interest in
destination organisations and institutions other than schools – including teacher
training institutions, vocational education institutions, education/school authorities, higher
education institutions and research institutions.
Demand is likely to be strong across a range of subject areas, not only from language
teacher and trainers: subjects well represented in the demand profile include sciences,
maths, history, geography and ICT. Even given the prominence of enhancing language skills
as a motivation, this is also a significant motivating factor for non-language teachers. There
is evidence of a significant minority of education staff (besides language teachers) with
competences in more than one language (formally or informally), and who are interested in
long-term mobility.
11
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and,
Slovenia.
May 2013
iii
In terms of motivation, potential participants rate the personal benefits of long-term
mobility as improved language skills; learning about new teaching and learning methods;
enhanced professional skills; and better intercultural understanding very highly. They also
rate a range of benefits for school staff in general, including establishing long-term
relationships with schools in other countries; better inter-cultural understanding; learning
about new ways to approach specific challenges and learning about new teaching and
learning methods. Personal and wider benefits are therefore considered complementary and
equally strong. While the evidence suggests school heads/leaders are more cautious
compared with education staff, the vast majority still agree that long-term mobility would
definitely benefit their staff. There are differences between the perspectives of sending and
hosting organisations (senders may focus on enhanced career progression for their staff and
learning about new teaching and learning methods; while hosts focus on better intercultural understanding). This highlights the need to ensure a broadly symmetrical
relationship (between hosts, individuals and sending organisations) and to embed ‘planning
for impact’ in mobility processes. The value of establishing long-term relationships with
schools in other countries is widely acknowledged in both perspectives, and
internationalisation is widely seen as a key benefit of long-term mobility.
In terms of duration, periods of between three and six months are likely to be the most
popular and convenient for individuals and educational institutions, although there would
also be demand for periods of up to a year. In this context, a high degree of flexibility will
be required to ensure the learning and practical needs of all actors are met. School terms
will be the main unit of measurement rather than months.
Obstacles and measures to overcome them
The main obstacles to long-term mobility that face individuals concern personal
circumstances
(where
potential
participants
have
dependents);
and
the
financial/administrative costs of taking part. Language barriers do not figure as prominently
amongst individuals’ concerns. Key issues include ensuring individual participants are no
worse off financially (including in terms of pension rights) and the potential lack of a
substitute during a participant’s absence.
Educational institutions face significant barriers, although these vary between sending
and hosting parties: for senders concerns focus on the need for support and information
from managing bodies; potential disruption to pupils (also linked to the need to provide a
substitute teacher), legal and social protraction issues and difficulties finding school with
which to link up. By contrast, potential hosts main concerns are mainly around the quality of
the individual hosted; dealing with practicalities and language barriers.
In terms of national contexts the diversity of legal frameworks, systems and policies in
different countries provides an added layer of complexity where any trans-national mobility
is concerned. This challenge is magnified for long-term mobility and in some countries these
impose seemingly insurmountable barriers (e.g. limitation on teachers going abroad during
term-time).
The challenge of overcoming these obstacles should not be underestimated. This will
require actions at EU, national, regional and local levels and at the level of educational
institutions and potential individual participants themselves. For the critical issues, the
evidence suggests:
 It is likely a successful scheme will need to include the retention of teachers’ salaries; and
the availability of financial contributions (from outwith school budgets if possible) to meet
the costs of managing mobility and replacing teachers;
May 2013
iv
 The issue of potential language barriers is a concern to many, but the evidence suggests
these can be overcome in a variety of ways and need not pose an insurmountable barrier
to long-term mobility. In addition, developments such as CLIL, increasing focus on
internationalisation in schools and the increasing prevalence of language competences
among younger teachers over the longer-term can only help to reduce the significance of
this issue;
 In terms of personal circumstances, potential participants face a variety of challenges and
options and each individual situation is likely to be unique. Access to any new scheme
should be open to all. However, no programme can be designed to address this diversity
and the level of interest and motivation suggests that, given the appropriate levels of
support and information, people from a variety of backgrounds will be able to access the
opportunities offered, at some stage in their careers;
 Interest in a wide range of potential destinations and activities beyond teaching (teacher
training, job shadowing, research projects etc.) offers a valuable degree of flexibility,
which should serve to extend opportunities to as many participants as possible.
A number of existing international and national schemes relevant to long-term mobility
of school education staff offer transferable lessons which can contribute towards ensuring
the quality of any new EU scheme, including:
 The importance of providing support and practical help (to encourage participation and
build the confidence of individuals and schools);
 The need for a strong collaborative approach, building trust and confidence, underpinned
by strong and transparent frameworks, agreements, expectations and guidance.
 The need to stimulate and maintain demand, for example through sharing experiences,
best practices and illustrative narratives;
 The power of fostering communities of practice, including tracking and nurturing alumni;
 The importance of flexibility, where the institutions and individual participants are able to
agree on many of the key variables (destination, subject, duration etc.) to match their
needs;
 Where feasible, reciprocity can offer a number of key advantages in terms of outcomes
and also in addressing common obstacles.
Institutions (schools) and individuals, working in collaboration with a range of potential host
organisations and institutions, are best placed to identify solutions to many of the detailed
issues that may prevent demand for long-term mobility being converted into real activity
(for example concerning practical arrangements, partner-searching and quality assurance).
This strongly suggests that an institutional approach would be more effective than a
project-based approach or individuals primarily acting alone 12.
Conclusions and recommendations
In conclusion:
 A future action on long-term mobility of school education staff is feasible and would bring
a range of benefits to individuals, institutions and in terms of key policy goals including
enhancing the quality of teaching, increasing the international outlook of schools and
supporting continuing professional development.
 The evidence supports the need for action at EU level, rather than through Member States
acting alone or bi-laterally, in particular if long-term mobility is to be supported on the
scale and scope required to have any impact.
12
Where schools as institutions are more capable of generating and channelling wider educational and societal
impacts.
May 2013
v
Our recommendations concerning a future EU mobility action are as follows:
1. An EU scheme should be adopted to support the long-term mobility of school
education staff;
2. It should be based on an institutional approach, in line with the draft Regulation
for ‘Erasmus for All’, which will deliver a number of benefits compared with individual
or project-based approaches, including flexibility and scope for tailoring to specific
needs, shared administrative and management costs, and synergies with other
related activity that shares common objectives relating to the quality of teaching and
learning and internationalisation. This approach offers specific advantages for longterm mobility, namely stability, embedding of a long-term view and long-term
planning, and flexibility to find solutions to a range of practical obstacles;
3. Long-term mobility activity supported by the scheme should be based on transnational collaboration between institutions, be defined by clear processes,
information and guidance, and include satisfactory provision for preparatory
activity (to ensure quality and successful outcomes). Inter-institutional relationships
should be long-term, with EU support on a two-year cycle at least;
4. The action should permit a significant degree of flexibility with respect to levels of
school and types of teacher, subjects and destination, provided potential impact can
be demonstrated by applicant institutions;
5. Adopting an approach based on trans-national clusters of schools with some form of
reciprocity, will help improve cost-effectiveness, compared with alternative
approaches. Although this implies increased management costs, where these lighten
the administrative burden on individuals and provide for thorough planning and
preparation, this should be justified by improved mobility outcomes, and also
increase the appeal of the programme to head teachers;
6. A future action should be de-centralised and existing National Agency
infrastructure used where possible, although a more centralised approach to the
partner-searching and partnership building component should be considered
(building on the success of eTwinning for example). This would capitalize on existing
knowledge and expertise;
7. Eligible mobility activity should include preparatory meetings, periods abroad of a
minimum of six weeks and maximum of 12 months. Periods of three to six months
should be promoted as the norm. A distinction should be made between discrete and
cumulative mobility periods, where for example a number of stays are undertaken
over a two or three year period, which together amount to one year.
In preparing the long-term
Commission should:
-
-
13
term
education
staff
mobility
action,
the
European
Include the characteristics listed above and integrate the action within the
framework of the proposed new Erasmus for All programme;
Target a minimum of 300 participants (depending on the available budget);
Consider how the new action can be given a distinctive brand and presented as such
to the sector and to potential participants. It would need to be promoted actively and
strongly to reach as many potential participants as possible, even were it to be an
integrated part of the wider Erasmus for All programme from 2014;
Make a contribution to management costs of participating institutions via a lump sum
of up to €1,000 per head to cover the necessary co-ordination, administration and
preparation activities (which may include a contribution towards meeting the costs of
procuring a replacement teacher 13). In most cases the assumption should be that
Bearing in mind that the current financial regulation does not allow grants to be used for salaries.
May 2013
vi
-
participating teachers would retain their home salary during any mobility, although
this may not be feasible in all Member States to begin with;
Together with Member States and other stakeholders, further explore the
implications of the future mobility scheme outlined to address issues concerning
retention of salaries and legal frameworks for permitting leave of absence. While it is
not considered that this has an impact on the study findings at this stage, should a
proposed scheme be pursued by DG EAC beyond this feasibility phase, it will be
important to engage with national ministries on all the relevant issues.
The reach and impact of the action will depend on the commitment of National
Authorities, which should therefore:
-
Review relevant legal frameworks, rule and regulations with a view to removing any
obstacles to long-term mobility of school education staff where possible;
Work to ensure recognition of qualifications and validation of formal, non-formal and
informal learning as a result of long-term mobility;
Promote and encourage take-up of long-term mobility opportunities, including as
part of school internationalisation strategies.
May 2013
vii
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
ECORYS was commissioned by the European Commission’s DG Education and Culture to
undertake a study on:
The Feasibility of a Long-Term School Education Staff Mobility Action
Teacher mobility plays a significant role in enhancing the quality of teacher training and
increasing the motivation of teachers. It subsequently contributes to the achievement of
wider policy aims such as increasing the quality of education, reducing early school leaving,
increasing the skill level of the population and ensuring that high quality education is
provided for all children.
There is evidence of the benefits from a range of studies, including those on the EU
Comenius programme 14, research for the European Parliament 15 and national studies 16 for
example. Mobility of school education staff not only brings direct benefits to schools and
individual staff members but also contributes to increased internationalisation, stronger
links with organisations and stakeholders outside school, enhanced professional
development and supporting the teaching profession for better learning outcomes 17.
The importance of mobility amongst teachers is highlighted by a number of key EU policies:
the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council of 23rd and 24th March 2000 emphasised
that investing in people was crucial to Europe’s place in the knowledge economy and called
on Member States to remove obstacles to teachers’ mobility and to attract high-quality
teachers.
In 2009, the Council Conclusions on the professional development of teachers and school
leaders 18 highlighted the need to actively promote the opportunities for teachers and other
school staff to take part in transnational mobility schemes, including school leaders.
Ensuring the mobility of school staff is one of the central components of initial and
continuing teacher training programmes, and of continuing professional development 19.
The importance of teacher mobility is also highlighted as a key element of the strategic
framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020) 20. Indeed one of
the strategic objectives identified for European education systems is making lifelong
learning and mobility a reality. Moreover, the Council Conclusion of May 2009 recommended
“a gradual expansion of mobility for teachers and trainers with a view to making periods of
learning abroad the rule rather than the exception.”
This policy framework has significant implications for the on-going implementation of
current European programmes and the design of future European programmes that provide
14
15
16
http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/reports/doc/comeniusreport_en.pdf
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=23931
http://www.cimo.fi/instancedata/prime_product_julkaisu/cimo/embeds/cimowwwstructure/15628_teacher_mobilit
y_summary_2007.pdf
17
See the recent ‘Rethinking Education’ strategy at http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/rethinking_en.htm
18
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st15/st15098.en09.pdf
19
Commission
Communication
on
Improving
the
Quality
of
Teacher
Education,
http://ec.europa.eu/education/com392_en.pdf
20
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:119:0002:0010:EN:PDF
May 2013
1
opportunities for mobility. In this context, the development of a long-term mobility action
for school education staff has the potential to contribute to key policy objectives and to
build on and complement examples of current EU and national schemes supporting the
short-term mobility of teaching staff. It is this long-term component of mobility that was
the focus of this study (defined here as lasting longer than six weeks).
Mobility, including teacher mobility, has been a familiar part of EU support in the field of
education and training (mainly through the Comenius programme). This, and other
programmes that have been part of the overall Lifelong Learning programme 2007-1013,
will be replaced by a new EU support framework from 2014 onwards. Any new EU action to
provide increased support for long-term mobility of school education staff would be
implemented as part of this new framework. The proposals for an ‘Erasmus for All’
programme outlined in November 2011 21 are therefore of particular relevance to the study.
These proposals attach great importance to mobility, and Key Action 1 (KA1) “Learning
mobility” would include staff mobility, which will encompass teachers, trainers, school
leaders and youth workers. The objective of this support is to "...promote excellence in
teaching, developing innovative and successful teaching/learning methods and foster quality
in institutions
1.2 Purpose, aims and objectives of the study
The specific objective of the study was to assess the feasibility of long-term mobility of
school education staff, through three main sub-objectives (SO), as follows:
 SO1: assessing the demand, the motivation and benefits of the main stakeholder groups
in relation to the participation in transnational mobility lasting a longer period of time;
 SO2: updating information about and identification of any new obstacles at individual,
organisational, national and European level to the transnational long-term mobility of
school education staff in countries participating in the Lifelong Learning Programme,
indicating any country specific obstacles; the analysis should include also identification of
appropriate measures necessary to overcome the recognised obstacles;
 SO3: providing recommendations on the design and implementation arrangements for a
possible EU long-term school education staff mobility action, indicating different options.
1.3 Scope of the study
The study encompassed all countries participating in the EU Lifelong Learning Programme 22,
including pre-primary up to the end of upper secondary level education (ISCED 0-3) 23,
including vocational schools. The perspectives of the three main stakeholder groups,
(defined as potential participants 24, school head teachers/schools and state school
authorities at local and national level), were taken into account. The potential for receiving
organisations other than schools to participate in a mobility action was also considered
(including local education authorities, regional/national education authorities, teacher
training institutions, research institutions, higher education institutions, civil society
organisations and commercial organisations).
21
COM 2011 (788) final, 23.11.2011: Proposal for a Regulation establishing “Erasmus for All”, the Union
programme for education, training, youth and sport.
22
Eligible countries are the 27 EU Member States, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Turkey. Participation by
Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Swiss Confederation is defined in the annual call for
proposals.
23
International Standard Classification of Education (http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Pages/internationalstandard-classification-of-education.aspx)
24
School education staff defined as those in employment as such.
May 2013
2
The primary focus of the study was on ‘learning mobility’, a concept that is increasingly
becoming embedded in EU policy 25 and is for example defined in a recent report reviewing
mobility in the EU as 26. “A period of time spent in another country than one’s own,
consciously organised for the purpose of acquiring knowledge, skills and competences. The
stay may be organized in a formal or non-formal context”. This differentiates this type of
mobility from labour and other forms of mobility.
1.4 Methodology
A set of questions, structured around the three sub-objectives were used to guide the
research. These are presented in Annex 1. Research was conducted between January and
November 2012, using a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods as follows:
 An online survey of school education staff (9,124 responses in total, of which 7,211 were
completed fully);
 Telephone consultations with 78 people 27;
 Two focus groups in Brussels: one for stakeholders (with 10 participants) and one for
teachers (with 12 participants); and
 In-depth research on five relevant long-term mobility schemes.
The research tools used (survey tools, interview topic guides and workshop materials) are
provided at Annex 2.
The research evidence collected is considered robust and strong enough to support the
conclusions drawn. In particular, the following strengths may be highlighted:
The results of the online survey provide very valuable evidence of potential demand. The
high number of responses means reliable conclusions may be drawn from the data. This is
particularly important to complement the largely qualitative evidence from other sources
(consultations). In particular the survey sample appears broadly representative of the
population at large (school education staff) in terms of gender, age, years of experience and
types of institutions (primary, secondary and vocational). In addition, responses
represented a broad range of different family circumstances 28 and a wide range of
subjects 29. Respondents from secondary schools were the most numerous (49%), but
primary schools (26%) and vocational secondary schools are also well represented (14%).
Some 10% were head or deputy head teachers. There were relatively high response rates
from several countries (22% from Italy, 18% from Spain and 9% from Portugal), with the
remainder spread across the other countries. Because of the large number of responses,
relatively small percentage shares for some countries nevertheless translate into significant
numbers 30. More detailed information on sample representativeness may be found in the full
version of the survey results at Annex 3 (Questions 1-21).
In terms of the follow-on interviews with respondents to the online survey, because a large
number volunteered it was possible to construct a finely tailored sample to ensure the most
25
Including Key Action 1 of the proposed new ‘Erasmus for All’ Programme – see COM 2011(787) final,
23.11.2011 “Erasmus for All: The EU programme for education, training, youth and sport”.
26
European Commission (2012): “Study on mobility developments in school education, vocational education and
training, adult education and youth exchanges”, ICON-INSTITUTE GmbH and KO KG Consulting Group.
27
Including representatives from European associations, trade unions, National Agencies and teachers
28
In line with the age profile, most are living with a partner/spouse (67%), 40% with dependent children.
29
About half of respondents were teachers of foreign languages but other subjects that are well represented
include sciences (18%), maths (18%), history (13%), geography (11%) and ICT/new technologies (11%).
30
More than 100 responses were received from Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France,
Germany, Hungary, Malta, Slovakia, Sweden, Turkey and the UK.
May 2013
3
pertinent issues were explored in more depth. In particular, this evidence has provided
valuable intelligence on personal motivation and circumstances at the level of the individual.
Consultations with EU level organisations and 21 Comenius National Agencies (NAs) have
provided a range of valuable strategic perspectives, helping to add information on national
contexts and obstacles.
Exploration of a small number of relevant national and international mobility initiatives has
provided detailed evidence on issues and challenges at the level of specific schemes, helped
to highlight transferable lessons and allowed consideration of the role of bi- or multi-lateral
approaches compared with a potential EU-wide action.
The two focus groups provided valuable evidence to complement and validate the other
sources of evidence and to inform development of implementation options. In particular
these discussions reinforced the benefits and value of long-term mobility in this field and
addressed a range of practical issues.
In terms of limitations, the survey was administered via a range of intermediary routes
(through Comenius National Agencies, eTwinning and other EU level organisations) which
may bring a degree of optimism bias to the results. In common with all such surveys it is
difficult to say with any certainty if the views recorded reflect those of the global population
of school education staff. However, given the relatively large number of responses, even if
an allowance were to be made for any positive bias, the results remain largely
unambiguous, especially in terms of the ‘headline’ figures.
In addition, it proved challenging to build a substantial portfolio of the views of national
ministries in particular and to provide a detailed analysis of the obstacles that the legal
frameworks within individual countries may impose on any new EU scheme.
In overall conclusion, the evidence base provides a sound and appropriate basis for drawing
the conclusions and recommendations presented.
The findings of the study are presented in the following sections, integrating the results of
the desk review, online survey, follow-up interviews with teachers, consultations with EU
and national level stakeholders, in-depth study of key schemes 31 and the feedback from the
two focus groups.
31
Summary fiches of this material are also provided at Annex 6.
May 2013
4
2 Demand, motivation and benefits
2.1 Demand from individuals
Compiling evidence of the likely extent of total aggregate demand from potential
participants is an essential component of assessing the feasibility of a long-term mobility
action for school education staff. This also includes any differences between the attitudes of
individuals as potential participants and of those in school leadership roles (with the latter
representing their own views, but with the assumption that they are also partial proxies for
school authorities). In addition to the overall level of potential demand, factors such as age,
school level, gender, country and so on are also clearly of interest.
2.1.1 Scale
Firstly, in terms of total likely demand from school education staff, the online survey
provides evidence of strong demand: overall, 88% of respondents believe that mobility of
longer than six weeks would definitely or probably benefit school education staff; and 64%
are definitely and 17% probably interested in taking part in long-term mobility themselves
(see Tables 3.1 and 3.2, below).
Table 2.1 Q22: Even if you are not personally interested in participating, do you
think that a mobility period of over six weeks would benefit school education
staff?
Response
Total
%
Would definitely be of benefit
Would probably be of benefit
Might be of benefit
Would probably not be of benefit
Would definitely not be of benefit
Don't know, not applicable
Total respondents: 8251
5840
1419
752
81
30
129
71 %
17 %
9%
1%
0%
2%
Table 2.2 Q23: How interested would you be personally in taking part in a
mobility scheme for school education staff?
Response
Total
%
Would definitely be interested in taking part
5241
64 %
Would probably be interested in taking part
1423
17 %
Might be interested in taking part
1063
13 %
Probably not interested in taking part
253
3%
Definitely not interested in taking part
138
2%
133
2%
May 2013
5
This echoes the findings of the impact study on the Comenius In-Service Training (IST)
component of the EU Lifelong Learning Programme 32, where three-quarters of-participants
expressed interest in taking part in a long-term EU teacher exchange programme (should
such an opportunity be offered by the future programme).
Our survey results also indicate that 92% of respondents strongly or moderately support
proposals to establish a new EU-level scheme to support long term mobility of school
education, 70% strongly (Table 3.3, below).
Table 2.3 Q43: What is your general view of proposals to establish a new EU-level
scheme to support long term mobility of school education staff?
Response
Total
%
Strongly support
5170
70 %
Moderately support
1618
22 %
Neither support nor disapprove
405
5%
Moderately disapprove
65
1%
Strongly disapprove
30
0%
Don’t know/not applicable
127
2%
There is therefore strong evidence of both interest in and approval of the general principle
of long-term mobility for school education staff, and personal interest in participating. The
relatively high response rate means that as a starting proposition, in terms of absolute
numbers, there are at least 5,200 school education staff who are potentially very interested
in taking part in a long-term mobility scheme themselves and perhaps as many as 7,700 33.
The issue is then the resilience of this demand, in the face of the various obstacles and
challenges faced (which will be discussed later). At least part of the answer to that question
will of course lie in the way any new scheme is designed and what measures it includes to
mitigate any significant 'softening' of demand.
It is also important to consider the nature of the demand evidenced by the survey, in
particular according to age and personal circumstances (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2, below).
Importantly, this analysis also highlights any reduction in interest between mobility in
general and mobility lasting six weeks or more.
32
Study of the impact of Comenius In-Service Training Activities (Kassel 2010) and Study of the impact of
Comenius Assistantships GES (Kassel 2010)
33
Taking those who are definitely, probably or might be interested in taking part personally
May 2013
6
Figure 2.1 Q23 and Q24: How interested would you be personally in taking part in
a mobility scheme for school education staff, in general and long-term (by age
group)?
Figure 2.2 Q24: How interested would you be personally in in taking part in a mobility
scheme for school education staff, where the placement lasted for longer than six weeks
(by personal circumstances)? 34
From the survey results, in terms of mobility in general:
 Overall, there is no significant variation in the degree of interest from different age
groups: 62-65% are definitely interested and 16-19% are probably interested in taking
part themselves, although younger people are more likely to be definitely rather than
probably interested 35;
 Women and men show similar levels of interest in mobility (63% and 64% definitely
interested, respectively);
 Less experienced education staff appear the most interested (67% of those with fewer
than five years experience are definitely interested, compared with 61% for those with
34
Note that about two-thirds of respondents live with a partner and/or children.
Perhaps reflecting the likelihood of their more immediate availability, compared with those with family
commitments
35
May 2013
7
more than 20 years experience). This is in line with the general view that emerged from
stakeholders (that demand is likely to be strongest from young teachers), but this
evidence also suggested that there would be demand from those who are nearing
retirement.
 Staff with personal experience of mobility are more likely to be definitely interested
(75%), although 51% of those with no previous relevant experience are nevertheless
definitely interested.
 Those from vocational or technical secondary schools are most interested in taking part
(69% definitely interested) and those from establishments for learners with special needs
the least (although 50% of respondents here were still definitely interested).
Turning specifically to the prospect of longer term mobility (more than six weeks), the
survey results indicate:
 In terms of gender, slightly more men than women would definitively be interested in
taking part in long-term mobility, although this does not necessarily represent a
statistically significant difference (46% for women as against 52% for men) 36.
 Across all age groups, the decrease in level of interest when the question relates
specifically to longer-term mobility is around 15 percentage points;
 The same pattern applies to years of experience, except the decrease in interest is
slightly smaller for those with fewer than five years experience (about 13 percentage
points compared with 16 for the other groups);
 In terms of types of institution, interest in longer term mobility mirrors comparative
interest in mobility in general; i.e. highest amongst staff from vocational/technical
secondary schools (53%) and lowest for establishments for learners with special needs
(40%). The decrease in level of interest between mobility in general and longer term
mobility is notably less for staff in the field of special needs education.
 There is a small difference in the level of interest expressed in longer term mobility by
respondents based in schools with established relationship with other schools abroad
and/or staff with previous personal experience of mobility compared with no previous
experience (around 50% definitely interested for the former category and 47% for the
latter) 37.
 In terms of types of jobs, staff involved in inter-cultural education, counsellors/career
advisers and trainers are comparatively more interested than teachers in definitely taking
part in long-term mobility, while head teachers/school leaders/directors are the least
interested in definitely taking part (52%) – see Table 3.4, below.
36
As already noted, women were slightly more likely to fill in the survey than their global share of teaching posts
would suggest (75% of respondents were female, while the teaching population in general is made up of 60%
women).
37
Although respondents with mobility experience had overwhelmingly taken part for a period of less than one
month.
May 2013
8
Table 2.4 Degree of personal interest in undertaking long-term mobility, by professional status
Which of the following
categories most closely
matches your professional
status?
Teacher
Head Teacher/School
Leader/Director/
Deputy Head Teacher/ Deputy
School Leader
Trainer
Administrative or other nonteaching staff
Education manager
Counsellor or careers advisor
Educator/mediator/learning
facilitator or assistant
Staff involved in inter-cultural
education
Staff working with pupils with
special educational needs
Other, please specify
Total
Definitely
interested
Probably
interested
Might be
interested
Probably not
interested
Definitely not
interested
Don't know,
n/a
Count
3042
223
%
49%
39%
Count
1241
122
%
20%
21%
Count
1069
96
%
17%
17%
Count
520
72
%
8%
12%
Count
284
35
%
5%
6%
Count
75
30
%
1%
5%
109
40%
52
19%
51
19%
40
15%
18
7%
2
1%
291
36
54%
27%
89
17
16%
13%
94
18
17%
14%
33
10
6%
8%
24
8
4%
6%
11
42
2%
32%
22
27
26
39%
42%
35%
9
15
13
16%
23%
18%
11
16
12
20%
25%
16%
7
3
11
13%
5%
15%
6
2
7
11%
3%
9%
1
1
5
2%
2%
7%
14
56%
3
12%
2
8%
1
4%
5
20%
0
0%
48
49%
15
15%
18
18%
9
9%
7
7%
1
1%
81
3919
45%
47%
38
1614
21%
20%
30
1417
17%
17%
8
714
4%
9%
17
413
9%
5%
6
174
3%
2%
May 2013
9
The results of consultations with NAs and other stakeholders support the survey evidence,
indicating widespread agreement on the potential demand for a new long-term mobility
initiative at the EU level, based partly on the current level of demand for Comenius
assistantships and ISTs, and from schools already participating in Comenius.
2.1.2 Geographical patterns
In terms of the geographical distribution of likely demand for long-term mobility,
respondents from 34 countries were recorded, the largest numbers from Italy (21%), Spain
(18%) and Portugal (9%). The reasons for this are not clear: this may reflect population
size, particular strong levels of interest from these particular countries, or may also be
influenced by the way the survey was distributed 38 and hence the numbers of individuals
reached. Certainly, a range of contextual factors may be an influence: the impact of the
economic crisis and/or high levels of teacher unemployment in certain countries for
example. Given the large number of responses overall however, many countries other than
the three mentioned above are nevertheless well represented (400-500 each from the
Czech Republic, France, Finland, Germany and Sweden for example). While treating
response rates as an indication of demand by host country with caution, our analysis does
suggest there is little difference in propensity for longer-term mobility between countries
(since the rates mirror the response rates from the different countries). Large differences in
the interest in such an exchange programme were also observed in the findings of the
previous impact study on Comenius IST scheme: while 85% or more of IST-participants
from Bulgaria, Turkey, Romania, Spain, Hungary Italy and Norway supported the
implementation of such an opportunity, the respective proportion was less than 60% in the
Slovak Republic, Denmark, United Kingdom, Austria and the Netherlands 39.
In terms of likely demand by host country, the survey data shows the greatest degree of
interest in spending time in the UK (with almost two-thirds of respondents expressing this
preference) and Ireland, followed by a group comprising France, Germany, Finland, Sweden
and Spain. Norway, Denmark, Switzerland the Netherlands and Italy also attract a high
level of interest (about a quarter of respondents interested), but interest in the New
Member States is typically less than 10% (the highest is for Poland). The reasons given
most frequently to explain these choices are:
 Desire to explore differences between host schools and their own schools (60%);
 Ability to speak the language 40 (59%); and
 Interest in a specific area of teaching and learning practice in that country (42%).
For 20% of respondents, the motivation was to return to a country where they had
previously visited as part of mobility activity, which suggests the value attached to the
benefits of mobility and perhaps indicates the potential importance of follow-on or repeat
mobility (where series of discrete activities take place within a longer-term ‘relationship’).
The table below shows the most popular combinations that emerge from the survey data:
38
National Agencies played a central role in this respect and it is likely that some promoted or disseminated the
survey more strongly than others.
39
Comenius Assistantships GES (Kassel 2010) http://ec.europa.eu/education/moreinformation/doc/2010/comeniusreport_en.pdf
40
Not as a mother tongue no clear indication
May 2013
10
Table 2.5 Preferred destinations
Respondent’s location
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Turkey
United Kingdom
Most popular destination
Finland
UK/Germany
UK
UK
Italy
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
France
UK
France
UK
UK
Denmark/UK/Sweden/Ireland
Portugal
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
France
Second most popular
Spain/ Sweden
Spain/Switzerland
Germany
Belgium
n/a 41
Sweden/Finland/Austria
Ireland
Norway/Ireland
Ireland
Spain
Germany
UK
Ireland
UK
n/a
Italy
n/a
Spain /UK
France
France
Finland
Belgium
Ireland
Spain
Spain
Spain
This data demonstrates the popularity of the UK as a destination, as well as the influence of
a range of other linguistic and cultural factors.
Turning from the potential demand expressed by education staff themselves to exploring a
more strategic perspective, the consultation evidence indicates a degree of divergence
between NAs who believe that a significant number of teachers would like to participate in
the proposed scheme (including Spain, Italy, France, Belgium and the Czech Republic) and
those (for example including Cyprus, Portugal, Norway and Lithuania) who felt it may be
impractical for teachers to undertake long term mobility, internationalisation of the
education system is not a major national priority and take-up might be hampered by the
lack of a widespread culture of mobility in general in their country. At least in the case of
Portugal, this seems to contradict the strong evidence of demand from individual teachers
(as evidenced by the high rate of online survey responses from that country and high level
of interest in participating in long-term mobility). The Swedish NA felt that this scheme may
work better (than current schemes) for Swedish teachers, as there is currently limited
demand for the Comenius Assistantships programme from newly qualified teachers, but if
there were another opportunity to participate in a mobility programme later in their career 42
then that would be useful.
41
i.e. no clear indication
Evidence presented in Section 3.3, below, considers the issue of career stage in more detail, based on feedback
from individuals
42
May 2013
11
2.1.3 Types of host destinations and activities
Assessing the extent of interest in mobility that includes destinations other than schools was
an important consideration. The results of the online survey indicate that the majority of
respondents would be most interested in a placement in a secondary school (63%), followed
by primary schools (33%) - see Table 3.6, below. However there also appears to be
significant interest in placements in teacher training institutions (36%), local,
regional/national education authorities also attracted interest (28%), higher education
institutions (23%) and research institutions (18%). Interest in placement in commercial
organisations attracted relatively little interest (4%).
Table 2.6 Q27: What type of organisation would you be most interested in a
placement in?
Response
Total
%
Pre-primary school
521
8%
Primary school
2205
33 %
Secondary school (lower or upper) 43
4225
63 %
Higher education institution
1577
23 %
Teacher training institution
2447
36 %
Research institution
1204
18 %
Local education authority
943
14 %
Regional/national education authority (e.g.
national ministry)
Commercial organisation
916
14 %
264
4%
Civil society organisation
530
8%
279
4%
Consultations with Comenius National Agencies (NAs) on this issue are consistent with the
views of teachers as presented above: while the main focus should be on schools, NAs see
advantages in opening out the options to include placements in regional authorities and
teacher training institutions in particular.
Indeed one of the most important aspects of assessing the feasibility of a new EU action is
to explore the types of activity potential participants would prefer to undertake during
long-term mobility. Here, the survey evidence suggests high levels of interest in working
professionally 44 (70%), followed by teacher training (56%) and job shadowing (51%). There
are differences according to age: the youngest respondents are more interested in work
placements and less in job shadowing compared with older respondents (76% of 20-29 year
olds are interested in work placements compared with 64% of those aged over 50). Younger
people are also more interested in social work as a potential mobility activity (23%,
43
44
Including vocational or technical secondary schools
Teaching, curriculum development etc.
May 2013
12
compared with 9-13% for the other age groups), and in teacher training (61% of 20-29
year olds interested compared with 53% for those aged 50+).
In terms of differences between the preferences of those working in different types of
educational settings, these are not significant overall: all rank these same three activities
highly. However the detailed survey data (Table 3.7, below) indicates that those working in
special needs establishments prefer job shadowing over work placements (67% compared
with 54%). Those based in secondary schools show the strongest interest in teacher
training (58% interested compared with 48-53% for pre-primary and primary teachers).
Those from special needs schools are least interested in research (19%, compared with
32% of secondary teachers). Where respondents preferred ‘other’ activities, these were
frequently either a combination, or identified very specific project activities (e.g. in school
library, theatre or parental engagement).
Table 2.7 Preferences for activity by organisation of respondents (%)
Response
WP
JS
RES
SW
MGT
TT
PM
SD
OTH
Pre-primary school
66
45
27
16
9
48
4
6
2
Primary school
69
49
26
11
12
53
6
5
3
Secondary school (lower or
upper)
Vocational /technical
secondary school
Establishment for special
learning needs
Total Respondents 6743
73
51
32
12
10
58
9
6
2
65
52
29
11
14
57
10
8
3
54
67
19
14
19
48
10
6
4
WP
JS
RES
SW
MGT
TT
PM
SD
Other
Working professionally
Job shadowing
Research
Social Work
Management
Teacher training
Policy making
Service delivery/administration
OTH
Clearly, there is a relationship between types of organisations and types of activity: for
example, overall, some 30% would be interested in research activity during a placement,
which corresponds with the finding that 23% of individuals would be interested in a mobility
period in a higher education institution and 18% in a research institution. This raises the
possibility of a wide range of appropriate and relevant mobility options for individuals and
organisations, as illustrated in the table below, where ‘core’ activities are shadowed.
May 2013
13
Table 2.8 Potential range of mobility activity in terms of organisations and activity types
Activity
Organisation type
SCH
HE
TT
Working professionally
(teaching, curriculum
development, pastoral
care)
Job shadowing
X
X
X
Research
X
Social work
X
Management
X
X
Teacher training
X
RI
EA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CSO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Policy making
X
Service
delivery/administration
X
SCH
HE
TT
RI
EA
CO
CSO
CO
Schools: pre-primary school; primary, secondary)
Education authority
2.1.4 Subject area
One of the elements to be considered concerns the likely demand from teachers by subject
area, (to assess the feasibility of extending mobility beyond the customary focus on
languages). Respondents to the survey comprised 49% foreign language teachers. Other
subjects taught by respondents include language and literature (21%), mathematics (18%),
science 45 (18%), history (13%), geography (11%) and new technologies/ICT (11%). The
figure below illustrates a high level of interest across a wide range of subject areas:
45
Taking biology, chemistry and physics together
May 2013
14
Figure 2.3 Q24: How interested would you be personally in taking part in a mobility scheme for
school education staff, where the placement lasted for longer than six weeks? By subject
Respondents from five subject areas showed higher levels of interest in longer-term mobility
than language teachers: economy and business, vocational subjects, geography, history
and physics. Of those respondents working in economy and business 72% were definitely
interested compared with 65% of those working in the area of foreign languages. The figure
below compares language and non-language teachers:
May 2013
15
Figure 2.4 Q24: How interested would you be personally in taking part in a
mobility scheme for school education staff, where the placement lasted for longer
than six weeks? Languages vs other subjects
2.2 Demand from institutions
2.2.1 Sending
So far, the findings presented have concerned individuals as potential participants. It is also
important to assess the attitudes of educational institutions, including head teachers; and to
gauge the extent to which demand might be driven by schools themselves (rather than
individual teachers alone). The survey evidence indicates strong support for longer term
mobility for school staff amongst head teachers, with 64% agreeing it would definitively be
of benefit, although this is slightly less than the comparable figure across all respondents
(71%), as shown below:
Figure 2.5 Q22: Even if you are not personally interested in participating, do you
think that a mobility period of over six weeks would be of interest? By occupation
group
Nonetheless, while these findings may reflect a more cautious approach by head teachers
(potential linked to some of the obstacles will be discussed later in this report), in principle
at least there appears to be a relatively high degree of approval amongst this key group.
2.2.2 Hosting
The survey data also suggests that there is a willingness on the part of individuals to
receive education staff taking part in mobility in their own educational setting: 47% of
May 2013
16
respondents would definitely be prepared to host education staff from another country and
27% would probably be prepared to do so; and a significant number would be prepared to
host someone for a year. The survey evidence for head and deputy heads/school leaders
shows even stronger willingness to host teachers from other countries: 62% would
definitely be prepared to host staff and 28% would probably do so. On the question of
reciprocity exchanges or ‘post-to-post arrangements), school staff appear willing to
consider this (42% would definitely be interested in this option), and there is little variation
in this between school heads and the generality of staff.
2.3 Motivation and benefits
2.3.1 Individuals
The survey results suggests individuals are most likely to be motivated by the following
potential personal benefits of long-term mobility: improved language skills (92%); learning
about new teaching and learning methods (90%); enhanced professional skills (90%); and
better intercultural understanding (84%). Taking a wider perspective, respondents rated the
following potential benefits most highly for school staff in general: establishing long-term
relationships with schools in other countries (89%); better inter-cultural understanding
(83%); learning about new ways to approach specific challenges (82%) and learning about
new teaching and learning methods (81%). From this evidence there is little divergence
between personal and wider benefits, as shown in the figure below:
Figure 2.6
Q33: What potential benefits could mobility schemes for school
education staff bring (where the duration is more than six weeks)?
The
survey
results
suggest
that
in
terms
of
types
of
staff,
trainers,
educators/mediators/learning facilitators or assistants and staff working with special needs
pupils appear to agree slightly more strongly than teachers and head teachers that longer
term mobility would benefit staff. In terms of school types, only respondents from special
needs establishments differ from the overall pattern: here, learning new ways to approach
specific challenges (81%, compared with 62-72% for other types of educational institutions)
is second only to language skills.
May 2013
17
Clearly, improving language skills is an important motivation for individuals. However the
survey results indicate that this does not only apply to language teachers and this
motivation applies across a range of subjects: of those who said improved language skills
would be a benefit for them personally, 51% were foreign language teachers and 49% were
not; and 93% of all respondents felt they would personally benefit from improved languages
skills (this varies from 90% for environmental / social sciences to c. 95% plus for
vocational, business, languages, maths, physics etc.). As the table below demonstrates,
potential participants are interested in the language aspect across the range of subjects.
Table 2.9 Respondents citing “improved language skills” as a potential benefit
(Q33). By subject
Subject Area
Benefit for school
Benefit for me
Total
staff in general 46
personally
Number
%
Number
%
Languages (foreign)
2390
63%
3537
94%
3774
Economy and business
136
72%
176
93%
190
Physics
241
65%
344
93%
371
Sport
334
61%
510
93%
550
Biology
338
61%
516
93%
556
Arts and crafts
442
59%
694
93%
746
Language and literature
1034
64%
1512
93%
1624
Mathematics
790
61%
1211
93%
1300
History
603
62%
914
93%
980
Vocational subjects
212
65%
305
93%
327
Geography
505
62%
764
93%
819
Civics
329
63%
487
93%
522
Music
335
61%
506
92%
550
New technologies/ICT
508
63%
738
92%
802
Chemistry
221
64%
318
92%
345
Religion/ethics
243
59%
375
91%
414
Environmental education
287
67%
391
91%
430
Health education
228
62%
335
91%
368
Social sciences
299
65%
422
91%
463
697
66%
968
91%
1059
Not applicable
241
71%
296
88%
338
Total
4691
64%
6758
92%
7316
This evidence suggests there is potential for a new scheme to target education staff who are
not teaching language subjects, but who have a certain level of competence in another
language, providing some support for the hypothesis that a number of potential (nonlanguage teaching) participants already have the necessary language skills (or only need
additional preparation) to undertake long-term mobility using a second language. However,
the size of this group will be difficult to assess accurately and although contextual or other
survey data is available 47, this does not provide any detailed data to answer this question
satisfactorily.
46
47
According to all respondents
http://ec.europa.eu/languages/news/20120621-eslc_en.htm and http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/index.html
May 2013
18
The evidence from telephone interviews with individuals who responded to the online survey
adds more depth to this analysis. Here the emphasis is on the need for teachers, to
continue to develop professionally, re-fresh and up-date their knowledge and to open their
eyes to new experiences and approaches; with an emphasis on having a new experience
and comparing your own school with other systems. The consultations suggest this is
relevant to potential participants across the age range, from new teachers to those nearing
the end of their careers, affording these an opportunity to refresh and re-vitalise their
careers perhaps at a time when progress seems to have stalled or they have fulfilled their
ambitions in a national context. At all ages the appetite to learn more and pass on the
knowledge to others appears very strong. Teachers recognise the need to change their
outlook every so often and to continue to learn from new experiences. Some have the
feeling they are stagnating or have progressed as far as they can and need something to
‘give them a boost’. Some simply have a window of opportunity to take part in mobility
activity, through their family having left home or because they would like to go abroad
before they start a family. The consultation evidence here also highlights some cases where
it appears that teachers with experience of working abroad are more in demand and benefit
from improved career prospects as a result. Several consultees reported having
encountered very positive feedback from those who have been abroad and wish to benefit
themselves, while others have had a mobility experience of one form or another and wish to
repeat the experience.
2.3.2 Institutions
Turning to the likely benefits that survey respondents assigned to institutions, these are
shown in the figure below.
Figure 2.7 Q34: What benefits do you think might motivate your own school/
institution to either send or host members of staff on a mobility scheme?
May 2013
19
As these data show, the survey evidence suggests widespread agreement on a range of
positive benefits that would motivate school education staff to take part in mobility. Overall,
three benefits stand out: establishing long-term relationships with schools in other
countries; learning about new teaching and learning methods; and better inter-cultural
understanding. This potentially provides a useful global framework of objectives for any
school education staff mobility scheme.
Looking at ‘institutional’ perspectives, the survey results suggest that heads and deputy
heads are more cautious than teachers (73% of heads think it would definitely benefit staff
and 17% that it would probably have benefits, compared with 83% and 13% respectively
for teachers):
Figure 2.8 Q33: What potential benefits could mobility schemes bring (for school
staff in general)? by professional group
In fact, the majority of heads who responded to the survey (64%) agreed that longer term
mobility would definitely be of benefit to staff; and 20% believed it would probably be of
benefit. Some 54% were definitely interested in taking part themselves in mobility (38%
where this was longer term). The survey results show that the views of head teachers on
the potential benefits of longer term mobility do not differ significantly from those of the
general survey population: they value learning about new teaching and learning methods
(92%); establishing long-term relationships with schools in other countries (92%); and
fostering better inter-cultural understanding (90%). Head teachers were, understandably,
slightly less interested in personal benefits.
In common with the feedback from potential participating individuals and institutions,
consultations with NAs and other stakeholders also highlighted personal and professional
development for teachers as a substantial benefit of a long term mobility scheme. Here,
anecdotal evidence certainly indicates that long term mobility would have a number of
pedagogical benefits in terms of sharing teaching methodologies and good practice, as well
May 2013
20
as giving teachers a more international outlook. Feedback from short-term mobility
experiences is reported as very positive, so the assumption is that undertaking a longer
period of mobility would be even better for teachers in terms of impact and time to develop
their pedagogical skills. Personal adventure and inter-cultural experience were also seen by
NAs as a significant benefit. The potential wider benefits for the host school and the pupils
were also highlighted, including mobility as a means to benefit the host school in terms of
internationalisation 48, and to encourage pupil mobility. One NA comment reflects a
commonly held view that long-term mobility: “...would add a new dimension to teaching if
you have experience in another education system; it gives individuals another perspective
and enables teachers to be self critical”. Language learning, and experiencing different
cultures and school settings were also mentioned as key potential benefit.
Looking at the findings overall in more detail from the perspectives of the three key groups
of actors in mobility, a number of key messages may be identified, as presented in Table
3.10, below:
Table 2.10 Summary of the most significant benefits/motivation for key actors
Sending organisations
Individuals
Receiving
(host)
organisations
 Establishing long-term
 Improved language skills
 Better intercultural
relationships with schools
 Learning about new
understanding
in other countries
teaching and learning
 Establishing long-term
 Enhanced career
methods
relationships with schools
progression for staff
 Enhanced professional
in other countries
 Learning about new
skills
 Introducing pupils to new
teaching and learning
 Better intercultural
experiences
methods
understanding

 Learning new ways to
approach specific
challenges
Source: ECORYS online survey
Establishing long term relationships is important for both potential individual and
institutional participants, irrespective of whether they are sending or receiving. The survey
indicates that establishing long-term relationships with schools in other countries is the
highest rated benefit of long-term mobility: 89% believe there are potential benefits of this
nature for school staff in general and 67% for them personally. As noted above, these
benefits have a high approval rating amongst head teachers (92%) and apply more or less
equally in terms of sending and hosting organisations. The chance to expose pupils to
teachers from abroad appears to be a key benefit for hosts and this links to the strong
interest in enhanced inter-cultural understanding. Some 92% agreed or strongly agreed
that the internationalisation of school education should be encouraged.
Clearly, the individual and sending organisation is better placed to learn about new teaching
and learning methods. However it is likely (and indeed perhaps desirable) that, within any
new mobility scheme, schools have the opportunity to both send and host education staff.
It is worth considering the symmetry of the relationship between the three operational
actors (sending, hosting and individual beneficiaries). It might be argued that the individual
and the hosting organisation have more to gain than the sending organisation. However this
would not necessarily be the case, especially where the returning individual can have an
48
This is supported by the survey results:
93% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the
internationalisation of schools should be supported
May 2013
21
impact on the school and disseminate knowledge widely. Certainly the survey and
consultation results suggest similar levels of agreement on the benefits for both sending
and hosting organisations; and indeed “Learning about new teaching and learning
methods”; and “Learning new ways to approach specific challenges” both feature
prominently in terms of potential benefits for sending organisations (93%). This highlights
the importance of ensuring any new scheme is designed to promote, facilitate and indeed
require clear plans and guidelines (produced by schools and other organisations
participating) for ensuring knowledge and learning are passed on, so that impacts extend
beyond the individual.
2.3.3 Duration of mobility
Turning to the issue of the duration of a period of mobility, the results of the survey suggest
that interest in spending a period abroad declines with the length of stay proposed as
illustrated in the figure below:
Figure 2.9 Interest in mobility by length of stay
5000
CUMULATIVE
What is the maximum length of time would you be willing to spend
in the host organisation?
4500
What do you think is the maximum length of time your school
would be willing to let you spend on mobility / at the host
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Less than a
month
1 month
2 months
3 months
4 months
5 months
6 months
7 months
8 months
9 months
10 months 11 months 12 months
More than
12 months
Considering this data in more detail however suggests that beyond the duration defined for
the purposes of this study as longer than six weeks, the level of interest is still significant
(around 2,000 respondents would be willing to spend up to six months abroad and more
than 1,000 for up to a year). It is also possible to discern at least two break points in the
chart: there is a relatively steep decline between three and four months and again between
six and seven months, while at the same time there is a plateau at around four to six
months. These data are likely to correspond to school terms – for example a five or sixmonth mobility period might encompass school term (from the start of a new school year
through to January or from January to the summer break).
The evidence from telephone interviews with individuals who responded to the online survey
adds more depth to this analysis, suggesting that:
There is widespread recognition that longer periods have greater impacts; but this is not
personally realistic for many.
However, of those expressing a view, 3-6 months appears the most popular duration (based
on the timing of school terms), but with several willing to go abroad for at least a year
(because of their own particular circumstances).
A significant proportion would be willing to undertake a mobility period of up to a year
(around one third).
May 2013
22
2.4 Conclusions on demand, motivation and benefits
Taking account of the findings set out above, the following key messages may be identified:
 At least 5,200, and perhaps as many as 7,700, school education staff are potentially
interested in taking part in a long-term mobility scheme themselves;
 Overall, demand appears reasonably robust and the reduction in interest between general
and long-term mobility is relatively modest, across all groups.
 Interest is focused primarily on professional activity (teaching) 49, but there is also
significant interest in activity relating to job shadowing and teacher training 50;
 There is strong interest in undertaking mobility periods in a range of types of
organisations, not just schools (teacher training institutions, local, regional/national
education authorities, higher education institutions and research institutions. Taken
together with the range of activities (working professionally but also job shadowing and
undertaking research), this suggests the potential to support a wide variety of different
mobility experiences and institutional relationships, involving different types of teachers
(primary, secondary, vocational, special needs) and across a diverse range of subjects
(economy and business, vocational subjects, geography, history and physics for
example);
 Although a significant proportion of the demand concerns language teaching and learning
and the most popular potential destinations (UK, Ireland but also France and Germany)
reflect this, the level of interest among non-language teacher is also high;
 There is widespread agreement amongst school education staff (including head teachers)
and a range of stakeholders at EU, national and regional levels on the significant benefits
that long-term mobility can bring to individuals and institutions, focused on professional
development and fulfilment, learning about and applying lessons from other educational
systems and, importantly, promoting internationalisation and/or inter-cultural
understanding;
 A consensus emerges that a mobility period of at least 3-6 months is the most
appropriate, but periods of up to 12 months are also viewed positively by many. This
finding is likely to reflect the opportunities and constraints resulting from school calendars
and personal and educational commitments, and also emphasises the importance of
allowing for sufficient flexibility to cater for different needs.
49
50
Only those working in establishments for learners with special needs preferred job shadowing over teaching
Strongest amongst secondary school teachers and the younger age group
May 2013
23
3 Identifying obstacles
3.1 Introduction
Existing provision is insufficient to meet potential demand for long-term mobility from
school education staff. To understand why this is the case it is necessary to identify and
analyse the reasons for this apparent mis-match. This includes finding out not only what the
main obstacles are to long-term mobility schemes (in general), but which ones raise the
most (and least) concern to:
 The three main ‘operational actors’ (school education staff and schools in the form of
individual participants, and sending and receiving organisations); and
 Stakeholders at local/regional/national level (outside of school structures).
This analysis is then followed by consideration of ways in which these obstacles might be
addressed.
3.2 School education staff and schools
Looking at individuals first, the obstacles cited most frequently by respondents to the
online survey were:
 Personal or family circumstances (64%):
Potential participants with dependents (children but also potentially senior citizens) may find
it difficult to spend extended periods way from home if they cannot make arrangements for
these to be looked after.
 The financial/administrative costs of applying (62%);
There is an administrative burden associated with applying for any scheme, for individuals
and for school administrations for example. Practical issues like travel, insurance and
accommodation take time and effort to organise.
 Negative attitude of employer (36%):
This does not appear to be a concern for the majority, but it is clear that in some cases
those who are directing or leading educational institutions have the ability to veto any
desire to undertake a period of mobility. This might be for a variety of reasons including
cost, and/or having to fill any gaps in teaching capacity.
 Legal and social protection issues (36%):
Here, the main issues concern doubts about providing health and insurance cover whilst
abroad, dealing with taxation and maintaining pension rights. This also includes concerns
about employment status and progression (e.g. missing out on promotion if away for an
extended period).
May 2013
24
Issues that appeared of relatively less concern were: language barriers (23%), potential
disruption to pupils (22%) and effects on professional status (14%), as shown in the table
below:
Table 3.1
scheme?
Response
Q35: What factors might prevent you from taking part in a mobility
Total
%
Personal or family circumstances
4708
64 %
Financial/administrative costs of applying
4583
62 %
Legal and social protection issues (employment
status, tax, pensions, health cover, insurance,
social costs)
Negative attitude of employer
2670
36 %
2696
36 %
Potential disruption to current job
2377
32 %
Language barriers
1682
23 %
Legal factors (e.g. restrictions resulting from
national law/authority)
Potential disruption to pupils
1615
22 %
1527
21 %
Effects on professional status (e.g. recognition
of qualifications)
1009
14 %
282
4%
The evidence highlights and reinforces the importance of personal circumstances and the
variety of different and very specific situations, highlighting the key role of dependents in
influencing propensity to undertake long-term mobility. Here, women with young children
are the group facing the biggest challenge, although there is also evidence that given the
appropriate support this situation does not by any means present an insurmountable
obstacle. Several teachers interviewed are willing to undertake mobility accompanied by
their dependent children, given the right circumstances. Assistance with travel costs and
exchanges (where both teachers undertaking a reciprocal mobility retain their salaries)
appear to offer potential solutions that might make the difference between taking up or
declining an opportunity. Where a teacher’s spouse or partner is also a teacher, and there
are dependent children, this also opens up more opportunities.
In terms of obstacles facing schools, the survey results highlight the following main
obstacles for sending schools:




Lack of support/information from a scheme’s managing body (88%);
Potential disruption to pupils (86%);
Legal and social protection issues (87%); and
Difficulties linking up with schools with enough experience of mobility (86%).
Issues that appeared of relatively less concern were: quality of hosted individual (46%) and
practicalities (65%).
May 2013
25
For receiving schools the survey results indicate the following are the main obstacles:




Quality of the individual hosted (91%);
Practicalities (88%);
Language barriers (86%); and
Financial/administrative costs of supervising the visiting individual (83%).
Here the focus on the calibre of the individual to be hosted is an obvious and
understandable concern, and the other obstacles revolve mostly around other practical
issues: finding accommodation, making changes to classes/timetables and allocating
responsibility for supervision. These requirements will inevitably provide extra work for
school administrations and accompanying costs.
Issues that appeared of relatively less concern to receiving schools were: negative attitude
of education authorities (72%) and potential disruption to pupils (60%).
This evidence confirms the type of obstacles one would expect to feature most prominently
for each actor, while the figure below also summarises variations between sending and
hosting organisations (using re-calculated percentages).
Figure 3.1 Q37: What obstacles do [mobility schemes] pose to the school? 51
The survey data also suggests that the views of head teachers mirror the totality of survey
respondents for hosting organisations (i.e. the biggest concern is the quality of the hosted
individual). The group that appears to have the biggest concerns about this issue are
deputy head teachers (97.3% reported this as a main obstacle). Head teachers are also
slightly more likely to be concerned about a lack of support from a scheme's managing body
(84%) compared with the totality of respondents (80%). Head teachers' views on the
obstacles faced by sending organisations follow a similar pattern: the concerns are shared
but heads rate disruption to pupils as slightly more of a concern (89% of heads concerned
compared with 87% for all respondents), above lack of support information/information.
The survey results appear to highlight broad agreement between head teachers and all
respondents on the potential obstacle posed by the negative attitude of teachers’
51
Percentages in this table are in terms of relative proportions, comparing responses on sending versus hosting
May 2013
26
employers: around 85% for both for sending organisations and 71% for both for hosting
organisations. However this should also be seen in the light of the generally positive
opinions of head teachers regarding the benefits of school education staff mobility. On a
personal basis, (i.e. what factors might prevent an individual respondent taking part in a
mobility scheme), head teachers were less concerned about the potentially negative attitude
of an employer than respondents as a whole (23% compared with 36%).
It is useful at this stage to compare the perspectives of the three key actors that emerge
from the survey data 52, in order to highlight a number of key messages (Table 4.4, below):
Table 3.2 Summary of obstacles from the perspective of key operational actors
Sending
Individuals
Receiving
organisations
organisations
Most
 Lack of
 Personal/family
 Quality of the
significant
support/information
circumstances
individual
obstacles
 Disruption to pupils
 Financial/admin cost  Practicalities
 Legal protection etc.
of applying
 Language barriers
 Linking up with
 Negative employer
 Financial/admin cost
experienced schools
attitude
of applying
 Legal protection etc.
Least
 Quality of the
 Professional status
significant
individual
 Negative attitude of
obstacles
 Practicalities
 Language barriers
authorities
Source: ECORYS online survey
Unsurprisingly, this analysis illustrates a divergence in priorities: those sending the
individual are less concerned about the quality of that individual than the host organisation;
disruption to pupils is more of an issue for the institution that sends a member of staff;
there are clearly more in the way of practicalities (accommodation, subsistence etc.) for
host organisations to deal with; and there is a different type of administrative burden
involved for all three actors: sending organisations need to find appropriate partner schools,
make sure the necessary legal and social protection is in place and address the issue of
replacing the teacher who has gone abroad; while hosts have a range of practical issues to
tackle including those that relate to ensuring the visiting individual can meet certain
teaching standards. Individuals’ focus on personal circumstances is understandable 53, but
they also see some of the administrative aspects as a potential deterrent.
3.3 National/regional/local perspectives
The evidence from consultations with NAs confirms that the main obstacles faced by
teachers wishing to participate in a long term mobility scheme are: family, children,
housing, arranging a replacement teacher and reciprocal pay. Other points raised included
the importance of the views of parents (and the corresponding need to make sure the
incoming teacher is high quality), and the added challenges that exist in Member States
with a strong regionalised approach (for example in Germany there are 16 Länder and
therefore 16 slightly different education systems).
There was also a suggestion of teacher shortages in some Member States meaning the
replacement of teachers will also be more difficult. The legal situation i.e. who is responsible
52
Bearing in mind that 49% of respondents were from secondary schools, 26% primary schools and 14%
vocational institutions.
53
The survey results do not suggest any appreciable difference between the views of women and men on this issue
(61% of men and 65% of women rated family circumstances as a potential obstacle).
May 2013
27
for the class, the foreign teachers/ the school as well as other legal and bureaucratic issues
were also highlighted as obstacles to be resolved. A key concern in some countries (for
example Portugal, Cyprus and Slovakia) was the legislative framework which limits the
opportunities for teachers to go abroad for more than a short period of time and another
issue for many Member States is that mobility periods are not formally recognised by
authorities and employers.
Languages may present a problem for some teachers, although on the whole NAs did seem
to think that it would be possible for the majority of the applicants to teach in another
language.
May 2013
28
4 Overcoming obstacles to long-term mobility
4.1 Existing mobility activity and opportunities
4.1.1 Introduction
The extent of existing provision and participation in current schemes is relevant for two
reasons: to ascertain whether the demand identified might be satisfied through existing
provision (thus avoiding duplication); and whether there are any transferable lessons that
might inform the design of any new EU long-term mobility scheme (‘success factors’).
 Review provision at EU level;
 Review activity at national level; and
 Consider a selection of existing mobility schemes with long-term elements.
4.1.2 EU mobility schemes
An overview of EU mobility schemes is provided at Annex 6. Here the main features of the
components with a direct bearing on the feasibility of a new EU action for long-term mobility
of school staff are set out.
The Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) is the EU's principal funding mechanism for
improving education and supporting the lifelong learning agenda within European Union.
Within the LLP, the Comenius programme is intended to “address the teaching and
learning needs of all those in pre-school and school education up to the level of the end of
upper secondary education and the institutions and organisations providing such
education” 54. The table below summarises the main characteristics of the two Comenius
actions relevant to this study.
54
See Official Journal of the European Union, Decision No 1720/2006/EC of the European parliament and of the
council of 15 November 2006 establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:327:0045:0068:en:PDF
May 2013
29
Table 4.1 Comenius actions for school staff
Programme
Activities
Benefits highlighted
by recent impact
assessments 55
Comenius
 Work placement in a  Programme
Assistantships
school abroad for
significantly
future teachers.
contributes to the
 The
duration
is
personal
and
between three and
professional
ten months
development
of
participants and to
the employability of
participants.
The
duration is flexible
but appears to be
less advantageous if
the placements last
less
than
six
months.
Comenius In Structured
training  Increased
Service
courses,
European
knowledge in area
Training (IST)
seminars
and
of
specialisation,
conferences and job
knowledge
and
shadowing,
work
skills in other areas
placements,
and opportunity to
observation periods.
reflect on teaching
 The duration of the
and
working
activity could be up
methods, increase
to six weeks but
of foreign language
those lasting more
knowledge,
than two to three
intercultural
weeks
are
the
understanding, and
exception.
contact
with
colleagues.
Financial Support
 Assistants receive a
flat-rate grant to help
cover their preparation,
travel and living costs
while abroad. These
rates depend on the
country to be visited
but
range
between
€3000 -€5800 for 13
weeks
with
a
subsequent
reduced
weekly rate thereafter.
 Travel,
course
or
seminar
fees
are
supported based upon
actual
expenditure.
Living
costs
are
supported by a flat rate
allowance determined
by the duration of
training
and
the
country in which the
activity takes place;
linguistic preparation is
supported by lumpsums
The key features to note here are that Comenius work placements provide mobility
opportunities of the longest duration (up to 10 months), but only apply to assistantships for
future teachers, i.e. those who are not yet employed as fully qualified teachers 56. The
component aimed at practising teachers (In-Service Training) is of shorter duration
(commonly two or three weeks) and focuses on a mixture of activities (including work
placements). The findings of the recent impact study of Comenius In-service Training
(IST)55 give some information on the types and the duration of the activities under the
actual guidelines. The survey data suggests the majority (89% of respondents) applied for a
training course and only about 5% took part in a seminar/conference, or carried out a
period of job-shadowing. From this evidence it may be concluded that although Comenius
supports in-service training of up to six weeks, in practice training periods of more than two
or three weeks are the exception, with the average training lasting 11 days. It was even
shorter in the case of seminars (seven days on average) and slightly longer in the case of a
job shadowing (12 days).
55
Comenius Assistantships GES (Kassel 2010)
May 2013
30
Within the Comenius programme there is therefore not yet an action for long-term mobility
for educational staff other than future teachers. There is therefore a potential gap in terms
of opportunities for qualified teachers to undertake work placements of a significant
duration for example (at least six weeks and probably 12 weeks and upwards). This does
not confirm demand for such opportunities; since it might be argued that because most inservice mobility is biased towards the lower end of the duration range, there is limited scope
for longer mobility. However this is not necessarily the case, since the types of activities on
offer in IST (courses, conferences, job shadowing and seminars) are consistent with
relatively short-term stays abroad. It is therefore useful to review some of the detailed
findings concerning duration and types of activities within Comenius.
A number other EU programmes and actions offer examples of elements that might
potentially be transferred to any new EU long-term mobility action for school education
staff:
 Comenius Regio Partnerships link together two partner regions (involving local or
regional authorities) as well as well as schools and other relevant partners. The main
purpose is not to involve pupils directly, but rather to focus on "structured cooperation"
between groups of organisations in participating regions.
 Comenius Individual Pupil mobility allows long-term mobility: secondary school pupils
to spend from 3 - 10 months in a host school abroad. The initiative also aims to
strengthen cooperation between participating schools and allows them to recognise the
studies undertaken at the partner school abroad. In terms of administration sending
schools apply for funding from their National Agency and the sending school is responsible
for managing and distributing the funds. The host and sending school must nominate
contact teachers and mentors for the pupils before the mobility takes place. The host
school must sign up to a Learning Agreement and the host family, where the pupil will
stay, must sign up to a Host Family Charter which lays down the expectations and
responsibilities of the family whilst they are hosting the foreign pupil. The Learning
Agreement has two main functions; it ensures the sending school recognises the study
period abroad, in order to avoid the pupil undertaking a lot of catching-up after returning
home. It is also seen as an information and coordination instrument between the sending
and the host schools i.e. it clarifies expectations and ensures that the pupil experiences
and the stay in the school are meaningful.
4.1.3 National mobility activity
It is known from previous studies that national, especially bi-lateral mobility activity has
been a common feature of the European experience for many years. In particular, a recent
report on mobility activity throughout the EU 57 identified some 928 relevant national
schemes 58, most funded by national and regional governments. This research suggests that
an annual total of around 430,000 people are taking part in mobility via national schemes
(double the number taking part in EU mobility schemes). However the evidence presented
also indicates that activity aimed specifically at teachers, trainers and other educational
staff amounts to about 6% of total participation in national mobility activity (estimated at
25,000 per year). In terms of types of activity ‘school stays’ form the predominant
component of national mobility activity and for the most part mobility is short-term in
duration. This research also reports that outgoing schemes outnumber incoming schemes
by two to one although a significant proportion are reciprocal. Intercultural understanding
57
Study on Mobility Developments in School Education, Vocational Education and Training, Adult Education and
Youth Exchanges, ICON Institut GmbH/CO KG Group for European commission, DG EAC, June 2012:
http://ec.europa.eu/education/documents/more-information/mobility-study-report.pdf
58
Encompassing the fields of school education, vocational education and training, adult education and youth
exchanges
May 2013
31
and language acquisition figure prominently in terms of the primary purpose of national
mobility activity (a finding that is consistent with the results of our online survey).
The above report also provides some interesting findings in terms of trends over time, and
the relationship between national and EU mobility schemes: it notes that fewer and fewer
mobility schemes are being established and those that have been launched in the last few
years (2008-2010) target young people and school pupils (although ten new schemes have
been established for teachers). It also suggests that over the same period, EU funding for
mobility has increased as national budgets have been declining. Concerning the inter-play
between EU and national mobility activity the report notes that: “…it emerges very clearly
from the study that this "mobility scene" is not tightly knit, but fragmented and pluralistic,
with a multitude of very diverse actors and stakeholders, and a large variation in practices.
There is no single agency with a commanding overview even within individual geographical
locations, policy fields and sectors, and despite the fact that everybody presumably shares
the overall desire for more and better mobility, coordination and concerted action is
obviously not always easy or evident”. It also raises the potential for at least four types of
interaction between EU and national levels: complementarity (synergies are exploited),
competition (EU and national schemes overlap and compete for participants), instigation
(action at EU level raises awareness and promotes similar measures at national level) and
substitution. These are important considerations for this feasibility study and will be
addressed later in this report.
The findings of the report described above are certainly consistent with the results of the
online survey conducted as part of our study, which suggests that many schools already
participate in some form of mobility activity: 51% reported that staff at their school already
participated in EU mobility programmes, and 28% had an established relationship with a
school in another country. While 23% of these reported relationships had been established
for less than two years, 57% have existed for 5-10 years, and 13% for even longer. Around
half of all respondents had previous experience of mobility, but for the majority (89%) this
had lasted for one month or less. Only 2% of respondents had undertaken a mobility period
of more than 12 months duration.
The most frequently reported destination for mobility periods were the UK (34%), followed
by Germany, France, Italy and Spain (all 11-12%). However, the survey evidence on the
geographical patterns in terms of long-term institutional relationships with schools is more
balanced: schools in Germany are cited most frequently (35% of respondents) followed by
France (29%), then a cluster of the remaining large Member States (UK, Spain, Italy and
Poland) where 22-23% reported long-term relationships with schools in those countries. The
difference between individual and institutional experiences is likely to reflect the short-term
nature of most personal mobility activity (short courses, conferences etc.) while the broader
spread of reported school-level relationships provides evidence of a natural starting point
for any future long-term mobility. Many of these inter-school relationships are likely to be a
result of the EU Comenius programme.
4.1.4 Opportunities for long-term mobility
The findings suggest there are relatively few long-term mobility schemes, so opportunities
are limited. In fact, previous national attempts to support longer-term mobility appear to
have met with limited success and opportunities of this type appear to have diminished
(while at the same time short-term opportunities available via the EU have increased).
Examples identified during the consultations include Estonia and Finland with Fulbright
teacher exchanges, a Netherlands scheme which was closed because of lack of demand, a
national post-to-post scheme in Spain which was discontinued about five years ago, a
May 2013
32
scheme run by the European School Heads Association (ESHA) 59 which met with difficulties
and Nordplus Junior where uptake of the option for longer-term mobility is limited.
However a number of international schemes do continue to offer long-term mobility
opportunities for teachers (including Fulbright, Jules Verne as well as a range of bi-lateral
programmes mainly addressing language learning), although these are limited in scope to a
small number of countries. A number of existing long-term mobility schemes (or schemes
with a long-term component) are now identified and reviewed, to determine whether these
offer any insights into obstacles to longer-term mobility and how these might be addressed.
The key findings are summarised in the table below:
Table 4.2 Existing long-term mobility schemes
Scheme title
Key findings
Fulbright UK
 Post-to-post exchanges with the US remove the need for the
substitution of staff and it is reported that if a good match is
found, this is a very successful feature of the programme.
 Exchanges can extend to reciprocal support to find
accommodation (exchanging homes is possible).
 Countries can request teachers in specific subject areas,
according to their own requirements;
 Supplementary maintenance allowance to account for
differences in cost of living – lump sum with no variation;
 Potential for fostering long-lasting links between schools. High
individual and institutional impacts more likely from long-term
mobility and high level of commitment required.
Distinguished
 The Finnish/US Fulbright programme was adapted to meet the
Fulbright Awards In
current needs of teachers as it was felt programmes should
Teaching
Program
evolve if they are no longer fit for purpose or outdated.
(Finland)
 Once a robust system for these kinds of exchanges is in place
they can be expanded to support larger numbers of teacher
(pilot scheme).
 This programme is based on quality not quantity and the hope
is that good quality candidates who have a good quality
experience will have a greater impact on the education
system/school/pupils in Finland and the US.
 Monitoring and evaluation is important and should be an
integral part of any programme, especially in terms of
monitoring long term impact.
 The funding structure means teachers do not have to leave a
position or the school does not have to fund the teacher as the
programme covers the costs of participation including a living
allowance.
Jules Verne
 Jules Verne is still a new experimental programme and lessons
can be learnt from what has been achieved so far. It is reported
that the administrative procedures could be simplified. More
planning is needed to ensure the links are sustainable,
potentially a 6-month preparatory period (from March to depart
in September). It is a very innovative programme, which
attracts interest from Chinese, American and Brazilian
universities.
 Teachers keep their salary for the year and travel expenses of
the teachers are paid
59
http://www.esha.org/
May 2013
33
Nordplus Junior
Franco-German
exchange scheme
 Non language teachers are a priority
 Not an exchange programme - teachers go to institutions that
offer places in foreign countries, and schools in France offer
placements for teachers if they so wish.
 The activities within the programme have the potential for
longer term mobility periods; Nordplus have taken a flexible
approach to the activities and the timescales and left it up to
the institutions applying for the projects to decide what they do
and for how long, but this has led to virtually no long term
mobility periods for teachers (most teacher mobility is not
longer than 3 weeks).
 Institutional restrictions such as the cost of replacement
teachers appear to limit participation in longer term mobility.
Exchanges are often used if teachers go for more than one
week (usually a maximum of three weeks).
 An institutional project based approach has many advantages
such as having the potential to embed long term collaborations.
 Lump sum mobility grants are provided within a project setting.
 There is a focus on language learning in primary schools, and it
is a structured, on-going support programme.
 The teachers continue to receive their salary from the sending
country and there is flat-rate reimbursement of travel expenses
 There is evidence of potential for greater individual and
institutional impacts from long-term commitment.
A series of fiches setting out the main features and details of each scheme are presented at
Annex 7, while the key common messages that may be taken forward to inform the
consideration of a new EU scheme for long-term mobility are summarised below:
 Experience form the schemes highlights and confirms the value of long-term activity in
terms of the strong impacts delivered for individuals and schools;
 Those schemes that do exist are relatively small scale and the number of participants per
year is small, limiting the scope and scale of impacts;
 Schemes are tailored to national, bi-lateral or regional contextual needs, but this tends to
limit flexibility and opportunities which in turn hampers expansion;
 Experience with long-term mobility appears to reflect the obstacles and difficulties set out
in our findings above;
 Reported lack of interest on the part of potential participants may reflect a lack of
awareness and limited promotion of the benefits to institutions and national authorities as
well as to education staff and schools; and/or linked to pressure on national budgets;
 Success depends to a large extent on the commitment and enthusiasm of the
participating individuals and key champions in schools and elsewhere, potentially
compromising long-term sustainability;
Turning to transferable lessons for ensuring the quality of any potential new EU scheme, the
key messages are:
 Support and practical help is essential. Applicants need to be provided with detailed
information about what the mobility period entails. Existing schemes often have
workshops or orientation days where it is possible to meet previous participants of the
scheme and find out more about the experience. This is seen as an important factor in
encouraging people to apply and feel confident in the process and system. From the
May 2013
34





existing schemes it is clear that at least six months of preparation is required before a
teacher actually goes to teach in a school. This may entail languages training, but also
country knowledge and understanding of the education system and curriculum.
A strong framework and partnership approach to address individuals’ ‘vulnerabilities’
is a key feature in a number of the existing schemes. This is the model used by the
Nordplus Junior programme and the Comenius Pupil Mobility Programme and ensures the
schools and school staff undertake mobility periods as part of a project led by an
institution. Teachers are therefore able to make trusted contacts and links before the
mobility period takes place.
Stimulating and maintaining demand is an important issue for schemes in this
particularly difficult economic climate. Many schemes share the experiences of former
participants in order to promote the scheme. If the mobility period has been successful
participant are willing to become advocates for mobility and are happy to talk to others
about their experiences and the benefits of participation. Many schemes see this as one of
the most effective ways of getting the message across and encouraging people to
participate.
Fostering and building communities of practice is something the Finnish Fulbright
scheme has been very determined to establish. They systematically track all their alumni
to try and monitor the kind of long term impact the year in the US has had on teacher’s
careers. Alumni are often used in the Fulbright programme to ‘spread the word’ and
support and encourage further participants to take part. Written evidence of their
experiences is also used to full effect in the Finnish Fulbright scheme’s brochure, where
they insert ‘tips from a former Fulbrighter’ throughout the brochure 60 to illustrate their
points.
The flexibility of the scheme is essential; those schemes which have survived whilst
many other have been discontinued are the ones where the institution and the teacher
can decide on many of the variables. Such as, what is the best time frame i.e. one
term/one year, what the most appropriate type of mobility is for them i.e. job shadowing
or team teaching and as in the Fulbright teacher exchange programme the schools can
decide in which year group/subject the teacher will be best to teach in, depending on the
requirements of that year group, whether they have exams to prepare for etc.
Reciprocity does feature in a number of existing schemes. One of the Fulbright schemes
operates solely on this method and the experience from Fulbright in particular is that if
the exchange works it is a simple solution to a number of difficult issues, such as
replacing teachers and finding accommodation for just one academic year. It has also
been suggested that it can help to sell the scheme to schools and head teachers i.e. if
they get a teacher in return for the teacher they are loosing there are some immediate
added benefits to the school, such as having a native speaker for language classes or
simply to add an international dimension to the work of the school.
It is concluded from the evidence set out above that provision at national and EU levels for
all types of mobility is extensive, and short-term mobility opportunities in the education
sector are relatively common. However, long-term mobility opportunities for school
education staff are very limited and existing schemes face a range of challenges, not least
as financial pressures increase. At the same time it is evident from the survey data that
potential demand for this type of mobility is likely to be strong and demand significantly
exceeds supply.
60
http://issuu.com/fulbright-centerfinland/docs/handbook_pt2?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage
May 2013
35
4.2 Resolving the key issues
Existing provision for long-term mobility of school education staff falls far short of likely
demand. Many of the obstacles to longer term mobility are already well known and appear
to be confirmed by the evidence gathered for this study. Before exploring the range of
potential solutions, it is important to highlight three overarching messages:
 Firstly, there are different levels at which obstacles need to be addressed (for example
the strategic and operational levels, or the state, institutional and individual levels for
example);
 Secondly, the benefits of long-term mobility are valued sufficiently highly to make it
worth the effort, on all sides, to provide solutions; and
 Thirdly there is recognition that a scheme of the nature proposed is ambitious and
experimental, and so there will be a strong element of ‘learning by doing’ over time.
The evidence demonstrates considerable enthusiasm for tackling any obstacles: comments
from potential participants illustrate this: “Any obstacles are made to be overcome!” 61, “I
think that through practical experience of the scheme one or two years these problems will
be overcome without greater difficulties” 62 and “It requires time and experience in this type
of mobility. I think these problems can be easily solved” 63. The survey evidence also
indicates that individual teachers are willing to consider the detailed implications of
undertaking a longer-term mobility period and to analyse the possibilities and
consequences, both for them personally and for their school: for example, “Those obstacles
can be easily overcome if the mobility lasts from between six and eight weeks because the
potential disruption for the pupils would be limited and the benefits they would enjoy would
be far more important”” 64.
Overcoming the obstacles to long-term mobility entails exploring solutions to the following
key issues:
 The degree to which national legal frameworks may prevent or limit the scope for
long-term school staff mobility;
 Identifying or mobilising resources to fund replacement staff. This is the most
significant obstacle to be overcome and includes both quality and cost components;
 The role that existing partnerships might be exploited to encourage uptake of any new
EU mobility action;
 How management, structures and processes might be designed to provide support
for partnering and minimise the administrative and financial burden on individuals and
host and sending institutions and organisations as far as possible;
 The potential that adopting an institutional approach offers for overcoming certain
obstacles;
 Finding ways to encourage teaching and other activity across language barriers and in
as wide a range of subjects as possible, within the frameworks of national curricula and
without compromising the necessary quality standards. This increases the relevance of
any scheme to as wide a range of participants as possible and should increase take-up;
 Taking account of the diversity of personal circumstances, to open up long-term
mobility opportunities to as many participants as possible (at some stage in their career),
without entailing excessive costs, and offering sufficient flexibility to maximize take-up;
61
62
63
64
Online
Online
Online
Online
survey:
survey:
survey:
survey:
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
school
school
school
school
teacher, Finland.
teacher, Sweden
teachers, Portugal.
teacher, France
May 2013
36
 The potential that offering a range of activity apart from teaching (especially job
shadowing, teacher training and research), might play in extending opportunities to as
wide a spectrum of participants as possible, linked to a high degree of flexibility in terms
of the eligibility of host institutions (teacher training establishments, research institutes
and higher education institutions and school education authorities for example.
 The role of duration in realising the full benefits of long-term mobility, in particular
where national frameworks currently prevent this.
4.2.1 National legal frameworks
In terms of the role of existing national legal frameworks, education systems and
regulations, NAs are limited in the extent to which they can provide robust information.
National ministries are largely unable to comment on these aspects as part of a feasibility
study on potential future actions. Undoubtedly the diversity of contexts here presents a
major challenge. Whereas a detailed and systematic analysis of the situations in each
country is beyond the scope of this study, the information available demonstrates the
complexity that any new EU programme would need to take into account 65.
4.2.2 Providing replacement teachers
There are various possible routes to address this issue:
 The sending school must use its own resources to pay for a replacement teacher, which
will be an additional cost where the mobile teacher is still being paid their ‘home’ salary;
 The cost of providing a replacement is, in whole or part, met from national resources or
EU resources, (i.e. from outwith the school’s own budget);
 A post-to-post or contemporaneous exchange approach is employed, where reciprocity
implies a neutral effect on both schools’ budgets – this option also offers additional
benefits in the form of reduced costs where accommodation can also be exchanged;
 Existing staff cover the commitments of the absent teacher; although this is unlikely to be
viable in most cases where the duration of the mobility is greater that a few weeks.
 Within a long-term relationship between schools, the period of mobility is cumulative
rather than continuous (i.e. a series of shorter mobility periods is spread throughout an
extended period of one or two years).
Although the evidence indicates that potential participants recognise the benefits of post-topost exchanges, and a proportion would be willing to exchange accommodation, in practice
the practical difficulties mean this option is unlikely to be widely applicable, at least in the
beginning. The main difficulty is that a one-to-one exchange offers very limited scope for
preparation and implies the two teachers never meet or work together; although it is
possible that such preparation could take place outwith the actual exchange period as such,
(through school partnerships or eTwinning for example), should the project be something
that is conceived as a much longer term proposition.
For many NAs, the key is finding a way for schools to substitute teachers (or to find a way
to meet the replacement costs involved). Reflecting comments from teachers, some NAs felt
that undertaking a mobility of at least six months duration is sometimes easier, because
this provides greater certainty from a forward planning perspective (where a replacement
teacher has to be found). When the teachers who go for two or three weeks for ISTs and
65
Eurydice: Key data on Education in Europe 2012
May 2013
37
are not replaced (since presumably temporary solutions can be improvised), this is reported
to cause a problem for the school.
It was also recognised that different schools across Europe are in different positions
according to legal structures and financial autonomy, which affects the ability to use project
funding for replacement teachers or to employ a replacement teacher (e.g. not all schools
have a bank account). For example the Eurydice Report on Key Data on Education in
Europe, 2012 66 sets out key variations in detail, while highlighting the prevalence of
increasing autonomy in many countries: in terms of managing financial and human
resources: 11 countries are reported as granting a large degree of autonomy. Equally, it is
also reported that: “…in a minority of countries, very little autonomy is granted to schools in
the area of financial and human resources. This occurs mainly in Germany, Greece
(although legislation passed in 2010 has conferred full autonomy on schools for operating
expenditure), France (ISCED 1), Luxembourg (ISCED 1) and Malta. In Cyprus and Turkey,
schools have no autonomy in these areas”.
A recent consultation exercise undertaken by the European Commission on the financial
autonomy of schools to manage large partnerships, concluded that "…a large majority of
schools would not be able to manage large cooperation projects financially (due to lack of
financial tools) or would lack administrative capacity to ensure effective project
management." 67
It very likely that funding would be required from outwith the participating school’s own
resources to meet the costs of any replacement teacher. There are diverging views
concerning the extent to which these costs should be met: teachers believe strongly that
full recovery of costs is the only viable option (since no additional funding would be
available from school budgets); whereas the wider stakeholder group feels that it would be
too costly to meet these costs in full (e.g. from the EU programme budget). The
stakeholders also argued that these costs could be met by various mechanisms other than
direct subsidy from the EU or national sources – for example any lump sum payment into a
mobility project might include a budget for management, which could be applied to the cost
of staff replacement and/or funds from other sources could be leveraged (Structural Funds
for example).
4.2.3 Role of existing partnerships
Approaches and structures that foster trust, commitment, stability and knowledgesharing over an extended period offer an organisational environment conducive to
overcoming any structural, personal, academic and practical difficulties faced by both
individuals and institutions. Many schools across Europe already take part in a range of
partnerships and projects (not least through Comenius School and Regio Partnerships and
eTwinning), a situation reinforced by the results of the online survey conducted for this
study 68. Many of these may be very productive, but equally they may suffer from
weaknesses, such as being project-specific, ephemeral and lacking in the management
resources needed to keep them going. Most felt exchanges were a promising concept in
principle and that partner-searching could be facilitated through eTwinning, where
schools/teachers post information and solicit interest. However, it was also highlighted that
entry criteria would have to be operated to maintain quality.
66
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/134EN.pdf
DG EAC consultation of National LLP Agencies 2012
68
28% of respondents’ schools had an established relationship with a school in another country, 57% of which
have existed for 5-10 years.
67
May 2013
38
A number of NAs suggested also that arranging exchanges through existing Comenius
School Partnership (similar to mobility for pupils), and indeed Comenius Regio partnerships,
would enable existing trusted relationships to be exploited, drawing on past experience to
identify agreed solutions to avoid many obstacles. Many NAs suggested that this would also
help to attract and motivate teachers, and allow them to plan thoroughly before the
exchange proper began (again reinforcing one of the main priorities identified by teachers,
as explained above). As one NA said “It will be important to ensure exchanges are properly
prepared. Schools and potential candidates need to become familiar in advance of the actual
mobility period, longer term mobility is likely to be more successful in the context of strong
partnerships”.
4.2.4 Management structures and processes
Teachers believe the goal should be to minimise the administrative burden for teachers
and schools themselves as far as possible. Respondents highlight the necessity to provide
strong management and/or co-ordination systems, at school, national and EU levels,
ensuring consistency and transparency. The provision of dedicated international or mobility
co-ordinators is favoured by a number of respondents, either in schools or on regional or
national level: “The successful implementation of such initiatives would be greatly facilitated
if a well trained educator may take up the role of project leader and coordinates all related
matters not to add to the already heavy workload on schools” 69 and “You need money so
one person at a school can do all the paperwork and the arrangements for people going
abroad and coming to your school. Today no one at a school has time to do anything else
than teaching and taking care of students. So if someone can be responsible for this it
would definitely be easier for people to take part in a programme and to be good hosts” 70.
Again, there is a sense that in committing to the challenge of undertaking long-term
mobility, the level of support and investment required must be commensurate with the
challenge, and sustained throughout the duration of the stay. Understandably, practical
matters concerning accommodation and finances, but also insurance and travel are
important to individuals and potential participants would need to be reassured these
matters will be taken care of.
As potential participants, teachers feel strongly that preparation would be a key factor in
making any long-term mobility programme a success. The online survey results emphasise
this, in particular with respect to languages; and the consensus at the teacher workshop
was that a six-month lead-in time was required, perhaps within a partnership framework.
Evidence both from the online survey responses and the teachers workshops recognises the
support provided by international coordination/development officers (where these are
available) and for the value of international policies in schools (which are becoming more
common) in support the kind of initiative proposed. These kinds of measures help to
address the common challenge that, in general, it seems to many teachers that
participation in international projects is dependent on the enthusiasm of the individual,
rather than the agreed objectives of the institution.
Stakeholders insisted that some form of management fee would need to be provided for,
or at least financial assistance to cover administration, although again it was felt a degree of
flexibility in allocating resources to management should be permitted within the partnership.
Another area of widespread agreement concerns the need to make appropriate provision for
a contribution towards meeting the management costs associated with long-term mobility
activity, in particular given the requirement for effective preparation and on-going support
69
70
Online survey: Head Teacher, Malta
Online survey, Secondary school teacher, Sweden
May 2013
39
for participants (individuals and schools), in line with the partnership and/or institutional
approach favoured by the majority of consultees. Here, lumps sums in particular would be
useful for the preparation period, given the need to ‘get to know each other’, for example
by undertaking preparatory visits or web meetings to ensure there is a trusted relationship
first, before the mobility period takes place. Where schools are not in a position to manage
funds (e.g. where they have no bank account) it might be possible to use charitable bodies
to manage project funding, for example on behalf of a project partnership.
4.2.5 Institutional approaches
Long-term mobility is better served by stable management and support structures, and an
emphasis on institutional approaches, linked with strategies and action plans for
internationalisation at all levels (national, regional, local and individual educational
institutions). Such an approach seeks to reinforce the role of the school, ensure the types of
activities selected and supported (not just mobility) are appropriate to the development
needs of the institution as a whole and present the highest potential for achieving an impact
on teaching and learning. This in turn implies the need for an overall school development
plan. Crucially, an institutional approach allows for mobility of different duration within a
common partnership between institutions in different countries. There was broad agreement
in the teachers and stakeholder workshops that an institutional approach offers a number of
advantages. This would diminish the risks associated with long term mobility, but it was
also noted that (from the teacher’s perspective in particular) buy-in and support from head
teachers would be very important. The results of the online survey suggest a relatively high
level of approval of long-term mobility on the part of head teachers (subject to the concerns
discussed above 71), indicating that this need not necessarily present a major obstacle
across the board. The key to capitalising on this generally favourable outlook will be to ‘sell’
the benefits of the mobility period effectively to the sending and receiving schools. NAs
agree that it may be necessary to promote the value of internationalisation to institutions,
rather than mobility per se: many felt developing an institutional approach through
relationships and cooperation between schools would be beneficial.
There may also be a need to offer any new mobility action together with structure and
frameworks that allow new entrants to build confidence and learn from more experienced
participants. Consideration might also be given to how schools might benefit from
economies of scale and increased access to partners in other countries (and a wider choice
of mobility opportunities to meet their needs), if they cluster together with other schools in
their local area or region. Evidence from existing schemes also demonstrates the value of
institutional approaches (notably NordPlus Junior and Jules Verne).
4.2.6 Language barriers and subject areas
This issue is a concern for teachers and potential receiving organisations in particular, and,
strategically any new programme would benefit from as diverse a target group as possible,
the issue remains important. The evidence so far suggests a number of positive and
negative aspects in the context of a potential long-term mobility scheme. To teach a subject
in another language successfully requires a high level of competence in that language; not
only in terms of everyday conversation, but in terms of the detail of the specific subject
terminology and ability to follow and interpret the relevant curriculum requirements and use
the local tools and methods. The need for teaching to conform to the curriculum
71
Quality of incoming teachers for example
May 2013
40
requirements of the host institution within the appropriate national frameworks reinforces
the significance of the challenge. Clearly, school authorities, and above all parents, will not
countenance compromising the quality of pupils’ education, however significant any intercultural or other benefits may be.
However, the survey data suggests a potentially sizable group of teachers who, while not
language teachers as such (although in some countries there are commonly teachers who
are qualified in two subjects including a foreign language), may have the necessary skills
(perhaps augmented by support for additional training and preparation) to teach their
subject in another language 72. For this group, language is not an obstacle. In addition,
evidence from the online survey 73 and teacher’s workshop suggests that bi-lingual teaching
provision (mainly English) is not uncommon (for example in Finland, Germany, the
Netherlands, Poland 74 and Hungary 75).
The evidence from the workshop with stakeholders suggests that the language issue is less
of a concern for this group (since teachers are unlikely to volunteer to undertake long-term
mobility in a situation where they would struggle), but there is widespread agreement that
support for language learning should be provided as part of any preparatory support,
assuming as a starting point that the level of competence in a second language is already
relatively high. Here, sufficient lead-in time needs to be provided (3-6 months) to resolve
any issues and undertake appropriate preparations, including for example the use of virtual
media 76. The selection process will be critical in terms of language and subject issues, in
terms of choice of class as well as teacher and subject (where the issue varies in
significance from subject to subject).
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) 77 also offers significant lessons and
perhaps, for some schools, the elements of a way forward on this issue for longer-term
mobility 78, since it involves teaching a curricular subject through the medium of a language
other than that normally used. Teachers working with CLIL are specialists in their own
discipline rather than traditional language teachers.
Taking a wider perspective, certain language trend make it more likely that, over the longer
term, an increasing number of school education staff will be able to participate in long-term
mobility (as language barriers gradually reduce for more and more teachers and pupils).
Here, developments include increasing multi-lingualism, including increasing bi-lingualism in
schools and initiatives to introduce language learning at an earlier age in schools. For
example a recent Eurostat report on foreign language learning 79 found that more than nine
out of ten primary children in Italy, Spain, Austria, Greece, Norway and Croatia, were
studying English. In secondary schools some 94.6 % of all EU-27 students at ISCED level 3
were studying English as a foreign language in 2009, compared with around one quarter
studying German (26.5 %) or French (25.7 %). Luxembourg and the Czech Republic were
the countries with the highest proportion (100 %) of secondary education students (at
ISCED level 3) learning two or more languages in 2009, while shares above 90% were
recorded in Slovakia, Finland, Estonia (2008 data), and Romania, Slovenia, Sweden and
72
Around half of the respondents who counted improved language skills as a major benefit of mobility were not
foreign language teachers
73
Around half of respondents reported that they worked in schools with bi-lingual capability
74
For example Gdynia with a population of 340,000 has two international schools (teaching in English and French)
75
20 bi-lingual schools
76
Perhaps allowing for some mechanism for assessing baseline linguistic competence
77
http://ec.europa.eu/languages/language-teaching/content-and-language-integrated-learning_en.htm
78
Indeed in the view of the French NA a new scheme would improve the implementation of CLIL.
79
Foreign Language Learning: Eurostat October 2011
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Foreign_language_learning_statistics
May 2013
41
France (this indicator includes all foreign languages, not just German, English and French).
However, there are some countries such as Ireland, the UK and Greece where less than
10% of students at ISCED level 3 were learning two foreign languages. At the same time,
teachers themselves are becoming more proficient in another language (this is likely to
apply to younger teachers in particular).
Overall, the evidence from potential participants and other stakeholders suggests that, if
they are given sufficient flexibility, staff and school management should be best placed to
develop their own appropriate solutions and approaches. Other options may include job
shadowing or ‘team teaching’. Teachers are also interested in the possibilities of
undertaking periods of mobility in other institutions other than educational institutions.
Suggestions included the National Health Service in the UK or industrial placements, which
related to the subject a teacher taught. The idea that teachers could potentially go to other
institutions such as teaching training colleges was generally supported. Flexibility for the
individual is clearly an important principle to take into account.
4.2.7 Taking account of personal circumstances
The issue of personal circumstances is a recurring theme in any consideration of extending
the duration of mobility beyond a few weeks 80. Experience of other schemes (including
those run by Pädagogische Austauschdienst or PAD in Germany 81) and the Fulbright
programme in Finland) suggests that personal circumstances did make long term mobility
inaccessible to many teachers. It is also clear that there is considerable diversity in
circumstances – almost every case might be considered unique.
Overall, it is likely that the strongest demand for long-term mobility would be from younger
teachers (without families) although there is also some evidence from the in-depth
consultations of significant interest on the part of older teachers whose children have left
home (although caution should be exercised in making generalisations). This does not
necessary conflict with the survey finding that age made little difference 82, since
respondents clearly distinguish between wishing to undertake longer-term mobility and
being able to participate in practice, in the immediate future. Another important point to
consider is that, over the longer term, as individual teachers’ personal circumstances
change, the opportunity may arise at least at some stage of their career (assuming the
programme is in place for long enough): “I have 16 and 18 year old children, which limits to
about 3 months how long I am prepared to spend away, but I could go away longer when
they are older”. 83
There are examples from other EU schemes (Marie Curie Actions in particular) where a
significant minority of participants are accompanied by spouses and children 84. However this
approach would have significant implications on the funding required. Equally, a number of
teachers have told us that a year would be feasible to take your family. However, there is
no doubt that some level of additional support should be provided, where the impact
delivered by the mobility justifies the cost. Most NAs suggested that finance is a significant
issue which needs to be considered carefully: teachers would need to receive the same
benefits as others involved in mobility actions, such as travel costs and some support whilst
80
For example, this issue was also prominent in the responses of participants in the Comenius IST programme
when asked about their interest in undertaking longer-term mobility as part of the impact study of that scheme
81
Public organisation working on behalf of the Federal States to promote international exchange and cooperation in
the school sector
82
See Section 3.0, above
83
Follow-up telephone interviews with teachers
84
ECORYS for DG EAC: FP7 Marie Curie Life-long Training and Career Development Evaluation: Individual
Fellowships and Co-funding Mechanism, February 2012.
May 2013
42
abroad (e.g. Assistantships). Most NAs felt it would be better if there were some support
for families, so that access to the scheme was not denied to high-quality candidates who
have dependents. There was also general agreement that the criteria for setting the level of
support should be such that participants were at least no worse off by taking advantage of
the opportunity.
The feedback from teachers highlights the requirement that participants should be provided
with all the support they need (not just financial), and that the guiding principle should be
that those undertaking long-term mobility should not be disadvantaged (i.e. no worse off
financially compared with having stayed where they are). This implies a range of additional
allowances (for example to cover travel and accommodation, and to compensate for any
significant differences in the cost of living between countries), but is also consistent with the
evidence indicating that potential participants value the benefits of mobility highly
(therefore the rewards are not viewed as primarily financial). The single most important
provision that could be made to meet individuals’ requirements would be if individuals could
retain their salaries (not least to guarantee there are no difficulties with pension and social
security rights). This model is currently used under the Fulbright and Jules Verne long-term
mobility schemes, although it will be important to ascertain from specific national ministries
whether it is feasible to pay salaries and keep benefits and social entitlements intact for the
period of any long-term mobility.
In summary:
1 Retaining the participant’s base salary during mobility would ensure continuous
service and access to pensions and other entitlements and thus increase the feasibility
of undertaking long-term mobility for many;
2 Although it is important to ensure teachers with families are not discriminated against,
it is likely to be impractical to design a scheme which can support all teachers,
regardless of personal circumstances and it is therefore probably not necessary to
support families directly i.e. through specific additional funding for dependents.
However, scope should be allowed for making additional allowances available to cover
any gaps in the cost of living between different countries.
3 Teachers should have the opportunity to take their partners/families, as far as
resources allow (this raises an issue of scale or ‘quality vs. quantity’ that would need
to be weighed up).
4.2.8 Range of eligible activities and organisations
Although the bulk of demand is likely to be in terms of teaching abroad, the evidence
suggests focusing on this component alone would risk missing out on exploiting the demand
that exists for a range of other activity in a range of institutions other than schools. This
must be a key consideration for any new scheme, since by widening the scope in this way it
will be able to appeal to as wide a constituency as possible. It is apparent that potential
participants are strongly motivated by a desire to improve their professional development,
in particular through exposure to new contexts, new methods and new cultures. It follows
that every potential participant will have individual concepts and ideas in terms of how this
can best be achieved. For many this may entail teaching abroad, but for a significant
number this may involve the opportunity to spend time learning about a specific area of
their own work that interests them, or researching a subject or method that is relevant to
their everyday work, where insights gained can be feed back into practice. Underpinning
these needs is a desire for continuing professional development and career renewal and
revitalisation. Activities are likely to be largely project based, small-scale studies or action
research projects (for example on different approaches to early school leaving, health,
May 2013
43
employability or any other issue of interest), and in some cases this might involve spending
time at several different organisations and/or public agencies across a range of sectors (e.g.
criminal justice, sport, the arts or industry).
May 2013
44
5 A future mobility action
5.1 Introduction
In this section the findings set out above are used to start to develop proposals for a future
mobility action, considering scale and eligibility, duration, management and structures,
training and support, costs and financial support and requirements for participating actors.
It is equally important to consider the level at which each of the obstacles should be
addressed:
 Level 1 – where wider and contextual obstacles require inputs from
local/regional/national authorities and structures, potentially in conjunction with EU
policy, OMC etc.;
 Level 2 – where obstacles can be addressed by the EU programme design (i.e.
structures, frameworks, rules), essentially the programme level;
 Level 3 – obstacles where schools themselves are best placed to identify workable
solutions, acting in partnership with other schools (flexibility, autonomy), essentially the
project-level;
 Level 4 – obstacles that can only be addressed by individuals themselves provided that
are given all necessary support and information (mostly relating to personal
circumstances).
Clearly Level 2 (and partly Level 3) is where the main focus of this study lies, although the
evidence presented above also provides strong indications regarding the other levels.
The table below links specific obstacles to these levels in terms of where the strongest
influence lies, suggesting where the main responsibility lies and effort is required.
Table 5.1 Relevance of obstacles by
Personal
circumstances
Level 1
Local/regional/
None
national authorities
and structures
Level 2
Limited
EU programme
Level 3
Educational
Moderate
institutions and
partnerships
Level 4 Individuals
Strong
potential intervention level
Replace
Retain
Partnership,
teachers
salary
management
Languag
e etc.
Moderate
Strong
None
None
Limited
Limited
Strong
Limited
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Strong
Limited
None
None
Strong
5.2 Scale
Firstly, in terms of scale, the findings of this research suggest strong demand for an EU
long-term mobility action: based on the survey results alone this may currently amount to
between 5,000 and 7,000 potential participants.
May 2013
45
The survey figures represent people interested in undertaking long-term mobility. It is
difficult to estimate with any certainty the extent to which this might be translated into real
applications to a new programme and to real mobility activity. Clearly, much would depend
on the specific opportunities offered by any new programme and the financial and other
support provided to individuals. The role of school authorities and head teachers has also
been emphasised in the process of moving from aspiration to reality. However, if a number
of assumptions are made based on the survey data, and the group of definitely, probably
and might be interested individuals reduced by a range of factors, the effect may be seen in
the table below:
Table 5.2 Illustration of potential resilience of demand
Cohort
Number
High
Medium
Low
from
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
survey
Definitely
interested
Probably
interested
Might be
interested
Totals
5,241
4,717
3,668
2,620
Profile applied
(% retained in
H, M, L
scenarios)
90, 70, 50
1,423
996
711
427
70, 50, 30
1,063
319
106
0
30, 10, 0
7,727
6,032
4,485
3,047
This demonstrates that the lowest case scenario would still see around 3,000 applications,
from this cohort alone, depending on the amount of budget made available and the unit
costs of support. A significant proportion of applicants is likely to be from those with
previous experience, especially of the Comenius programme, and from existing Comenius
and other partnerships. However the fact that the survey sample was made up of significant
numbers of teachers from Portugal, Spain and Italy also needs to be allowed for. This
suggests that demand might be stronger from those countries than others, but the research
evidence also shows high levels of interest and enthusiasm from a much wider range of
countries.
It is difficult to indicate the appropriate scale for any new EU scheme, since this remains a
matter for EU policy makers and is also likely to be determined by the budget available.
However, based on the research, there is sufficient evidence of demand to consider a pilot
activity..
5.3 Eligibility
The evidence indicates that the focus on teachers already in-post (i.e. employed) is the
right one, given the challenging requirements of practising professionally in another
country, complying with the relevant curricula and addressing any language barriers. It is
likely that only experienced teachers would be in a position to rise to these challenges.
Where experienced teachers are currently unemployed, their participation in any new
scheme may be workable in some cases (for example it would avoid the need to fund a
replacement teacher in the home country, but the participating individual would still need to
be paid).
School education staff across a range of subject areas and types of schools would benefit
from long-term mobility and are interested in doing so. However capitalising on this will
require that appropriate support is built into any EU programme and the scheme is
marketed effectively. In addition, the evidence suggests a sufficient level of interest in
May 2013
46
undertaking mobility in organisations other than schools (teacher training institutions in
particular). Again sufficient flexibility should be built into to any new action to encourage
this, and this can only add to the richness and impact of the programme. Exchanges are
unlikely to be the most popular option, but can resolve the obstacle of having to provide a
replacement teacher and should be eligible if all parties agree (including exchanging
accommodation in some cases).
The eligibility criteria should therefore be set widely and flexibly, and the onus placed on the
applicant/partnership to make a case, based on the impacts to be delivered. This should
include responsibility for ensuring appropriate partnering between schools and teachers, and
satisfying all parties on issues of quality (e.g. where competence in a second language is a
potential issue). Preparatory visits should also be eligible as a critical component of
ensuring the proper planning and execution of long-term mobility periods.
5.4 Duration of mobility
In terms of the optimum duration for long-term mobility, a consensus emerges that the
longer the period the greater the impact and the more straightforward it may be in many
cases to overcome issue around personal circumstances and finding replacement teachers;
that three months is probably the minimum required to realise the benefits of the mobility
activity; somewhere between three and six months would be possible for a significant
number of participants; and that periods of up to (and indeed more than) a year are
attractive to a significant minority. Schools could perhaps take part in a range of short-term
mobility activities followed by some longer-term assignments, based around specific tasks
or projects, perhaps prepared or set up during the short-term activity. Of course, besides
personal commitments, a range of other factors comes into play in determining the
feasibility of specific periods, not least school and curriculum requirements (including
examination timetables), and legal frameworks (for example in some countries, including
Portugal and Croatia, teachers are limited in terms of the amount of leave they may take, or
the time they are allowed to spend away from the school.
The definition used in this research was that long-term mobility lasted longer than six
weeks. Stakeholders and participants recognise the relationship between longer duration
and greater impacts, but a degree of flexibility needs to be provided to enable as many
people as possible to benefit, without compromising the basic principle that ‘longer is
better’. A minimum of six weeks appears reasonable, but three to six months attracts
widespread approval and is likely to be the most common duration. Consideration might
therefore be given to setting the minimum at 12 weeks. Schools should have the flexibility
to decide on the length of the mobility, depending on the actual circumstances and given
that timetable issues will play a key part in making such choices. Although it is unlikely to
be the most popular option, the research evidence also suggests that a significant minority
is keen to undertake year-long periods of mobility (or longer) and this should also be
facilitated where possible.
Consideration also needs to be given to the linkage between short and long-term mobility
opportunities, and to periods of mobility within long-term partnerships. Here the evidence
suggests short-term mobility may crowd out longer-term opportunities where these are
offered as part of the same programme. This risk would be reduced by having a distinctive
and separate programme for long-term mobility, but this might preclude the development
of important synergies between short and long-term mobility. Such synergies would be
realised for example where any long-term mobility programme includes provision for (shortterm) preparatory activity activity), as a precursor to undertaking a long-term activity.
Equally where schools and other institutions and organisations establish (or indeed
May 2013
47
continue) a long-term relationship this is likely to include a range of activities, including
mobility, which in the case of any new scheme should comply with the minimum duration
criteria. For example, the minimum might be set at 12 weeks cumulatively over a two-year
period, with each discrete mobility period having to last for a minimum of six weeks
(perhaps six weeks in the first year and six or more in the second etc.). On balance,
integration into partnerships offers the best course of action, to deliver the degree of
flexibility required. Care should however be taken to ensure the benefits of options for longterm mobility that are offered through a wider action, and their distinctiveness, are
promoted and publicised effectively.
5.5 Management and structures
The most important priority here is to establish the overall approach. There are three main
scenarios to be considered here:
 Individual scenario, where the emphasis is on individuals identifying opportunities for
mobility, exploring potential matches and (with the support of their parent institution)
pursuing and delivering these, where there is agreement that there will be a significant
impact on the school upon the participants’ return. Individuals apply to a centralised
management agency and the grant is provided in part to the individual and the
institutions involved. This is essentially the original Fulbright model and there is no doubt
that this type of mobility is very successful for the comparatively small number of
individuals and schools involved at any one time. Another example in a different context
would be the Marie Curie Individual Fellowships. The advantages would include more
opportunities for individuals to achieve their personal goals, but institutional impact is
likely to be limited.
 Project-partnership scenario, where schools and other educational institutions come
together to exploit specific funding opportunities for mobility and other separate activities,
on a scheme by scheme basis. Partnerships of organisations apply for funding that applies
to a specific type of activity and output. Advantages here are that projects can be
specifically tailored to the needs of the schools, longer term relationships may be
developed and follow-on projects frequently take place. However, the activity takes place
without the benefit of a set of wider objectives for the individuals, schools or partnership
and any strategic perspective is potentially diminished, together with the likelihood of
long-lasting institutional or structural impacts.
 An institutional scenario is a further development of the project-partnership approach,
but seeks to combine the benefits of individual participation and partnership working
within a strategic framework that promotes a holistic view of all trans-national activity,
including short and long-term mobility. Context, needs and expected impacts of activities
can then be set out in the form of an overarching Development Plan, and choices made
with reference to this. Critically this would allow for an assessment to be made of how the
impact of activity (including all forms of activity) might be maximised through integration
of the knowledge and learning acquired back into everyday practice and wider curriculum
development. The essential organising principle here remains a trans-national partnership
of organisations, but the application is for funding is made on the basis of, and applied to
the achievement of, a set of strategic goals and impacts, with flexibility in terms of how
these are achieved and through which types of activity.
These distinctions are especially pertinent in the context of the proposal for the “Erasmus
for All” programme adopted as a draft Regulation by the European Commission in November
2012. This envisages a new “strategic/institutional approach to schools”, where support for
a range of co-operation and mobility activities is offered within a single integrated
framework. In addition, preliminary discussions between the Commission and NAs have
May 2013
48
included the possibilities offered by the introduction of ‘European School Development
Plans’. This approach would offer a number of advantages and could be a pivotal element of
an institutional scenario, providing the strategic direction and assessment of long-term
impacts required. ” 85..
For longer-term staff mobility in particular, the institutional scenario would deliver a
number of advantages and is the preferred option:
 Given the investment required in time and resources to make long-term mobility a
success, as well as the range of practical concerns outlined in this study, the institutional
scenario
brings potentially greater stability, and the ability to plan and prepare
effectively, compared with the individual and project-partnerships scenarios;
 It would provide valuable flexibility in terms of how to meet the needs of schools and
individuals (in terms of duration, activities, types of host organisations, individuals taking
part etc.);
 It is likely to promote and facilitate greater integration with school and national
authorities, based on shared objectives concerning quality and internationalisation, and to
secure the buy-in of head teachers;
 It promotes strategic thinking and potentially clustering of schools to deliver economies of
scale administratively, and build large knowledge networks and sustainable communities
of practice, which in turn are likely to open up a wider variety of mobility opportunities to
meet specific needs (for example where knowledge ‘hubs’ may develop around specific
learning needs, or access to opportunities is increased by virtue of the scale of networks);
 Institutional involvement in the design and implementation of the range of preparation
activities required to maximise the chances of success of the actual mobility period itself
will improve quality;
 In terms of visibility and raising awareness, institutions are more likely to be able to
achieve impact.
The key feature of such an approach is the flexibility for applicants to determine for
themselves the precise package of activities, on the basis of their own needs and objectives.
This gives a high degree of autonomy in identifying and supporting individual participants,
sending and receiving organisations, as well as arranging the periods of mobility and
resolving any problems that may arise, for example, misunderstandings between participant
and receiving organisation. Existing project partnerships 86 provide a sound foundation for
building a new programme, and initiatives such as eTwinning 87 offer a valuable mechanism
for finding partners and support to the whole project lifecycle. .
In terms of day-to-day management this would be the responsibility of National Agencies
appointed by the responsibility authority in each country participating in the action,
advantages include exploiting the knowledge and expertise already in place within NA
structures, the value of inter-NA networking and cost-effectiveness where current Comenius
NAs are in a position to assume any additional responsibilities. The strong levels of interest
from schools likely in some countries, and the importance of preparing for long-term
mobility effectively, suggest that sufficient resources would have to be applied at NA level at
least initially in terms of training and support 88. Once operational, the use of the
institutional approach outlined above would not result in any unsupportable increase in the
85
http://comeniuspartnerships.teamwork.fr/en/documents
Estimated to be around 11,000 for Comenius alone
87
On 16 November 2012, the number of teachers and schools registered was reported as 183,633 and 98,000,
respectively (http://www.etwinning.net/en/pub/index.htm)
88
To support for example: training on financial management, problem resolution and legal matters, together with a
substantial outreach programme of information days, clinics, thematic networking, workshops, dissemination, best
practice inventory etc.
86
May 2013
49
NAs’ workloads, since there are likely to be a smaller number of larger, integrated grant
applications. One area where a centralised approach may offer a number of advantages
concerns the partnering process that will be required for a long-term mobility action. There
is evidence that this would be more efficient and effective if it were a central function and
not a routine part of NA duties. This seems sensible, and consideration might be given to
how the existing eTwinning service could be used or adapted.
The issue of whether a new scheme should be a specific programme dedicated to long-term
mobility, or part of a wider scheme involving other related activities needs to be considered.
As concluded above, an approach, where long-term mobility is one option within a wider set
of activities selected by institutions as part of their European School Development Plan,
offers a number of advantages: greater scope for realising synergies in long-term learning
and relationship-building and potential economies of scale.
5.6 Costs and financial support
5.6.1 Potential operational modalities
As set out above, the institutional scenario offers the best option for supporting long-term
school staff mobility. Within this scenario three basic operational modalities may be
envisaged in practice, as illustrated by the diagram below. These are provided to explore
the types of costs that would have to be supported and to understand upon which actors
these costs are likely to fall.
Figure 5.1 Potential basic operational modalities of long-term mobility under an
institutional scenario 89
89
In certain cases ‘School 2’ may be replaced by another type of eligible destination organisation or institution
May 2013
50
Two countries are included for illustrative purposes – more than two countries could
participate.
These may be described as:
 Modality A: Single one-way mobility, which may be reciprocated in the subsequent year
(Model A1);
 Modality B: Reciprocal mobility, where two school exchange teachers in the same year;
and
 Modality C: Reciprocal mobility where the exchange is between clusters of schools, i.e.
where a school exchanges with a different school within the same geographic cluster.
The two tables below set out the comparative costs that would be incurred as a result of
these options, where costs are allocated to sending or host organisations on the basis of
where the cost would be incurred (leaving aside for the moment the question of where the
funding to meet these costs would come from). The indicative level of costs are estimated
as significant, moderate or limited for each participant as set out in the different modalities
in the figure above.
May 2013
51
Table 5.3 Costs incurred WITHOUT salary retention (XXX=considerable, XX=moderate, X=limited)
Mode
Activity
Manag’t
Replaceme
Travel
Accomm
Stipend,
Expenses
nt teacher
(insurance etc.)
A
Single one-way
mobility
Sending institution
XX
XXX
XX
Host institution
X
XX
XXX
XX
A1
Multi-annual single
one-way mobility
As above for School 1 in Year 1, School 2 in Year 2 etc.
B
Reciprocal mobility,
school-to-school
Sending institution
XX
XX
XX
XXX
X
Host institution
C
cluster approach
Partnership
XX
XX
XX
XX
Sending institution
X
X
XX
Host institution
X
XX
X
X
May 2013
52
Table 5.4 Costs incurred WITH salary retention (XXX=considerable, XX=moderate, X=limited)
Mode
Activity
A
Single one-way
mobility
Sending institution
XX
XXX
XX
Host institution
X
Multi-annual single
one-way mobility
As above for School 1 in Year 1, School 2 in Year 2 etc.
school-to-school
Sending institution
XX
XX
Host institution
cluster approach
Partnership
XX
XX
Sending institution
X
X
X
Host institution
X
A1
B
C
Manage
ment
Replaceme
nt teacher
Travel
Accomm
Stipend,
Expenses
(insurance
etc.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
May 2013
53
In the first matrix (Table 6.3), where teachers are unable to retain their salaries, oneway mobility means that the main burden in terms of additional costs falls on the
sending institution, largely as a result of the need to fund a replacement teacher, or
on the host (since the sending institution may retain the teacher’s salary and use it or
pay for the replacement). Conversely, under a reciprocal mobility arrangement, both
sending and receiving schools would have to provide a stipend.
In the second matrix (Table 6.4), where it is assumed any teachers undertaking a
mobility period retain their salaries, only where no reciprocity takes place does any
party incur ‘considerable’ costs (the sending organisation in this case).
This highlights the following key messages:
 Costs are lower overall where participants can retain their home salary during
mobility, so this should be the preferred option for all three modalities considered. ;
 Modality B is the most cost-effective overall, since the transaction is approximately
neutral in term of costs;
 Collaborative approaches, such as in Modality C provide opportunities for costsharing, for example where a teacher can move between several destination schools
during a mobility period; and
 Where sending organisations in particular may appear to ‘lose out’ compared with
host organisations over a single cycle, over several mobility cycles (over one or two
years), the costs and benefits would be spread more evenly.
5.6.2 Costs of support
The important proviso must be added that in general EU support should take the form
of lump sum payments, using fixed amounts based on a scale of unit costs, rather
than the reimbursement of eligible costs 90. There are a number of reasons for this:
administrative efficiency, flexibility and predictability to facilitate long-term planning.
The levels of support that might be provided for each cost category are now
considered, firstly by reviewing current arrangements that apply to comparator
programmes.
Firstly, the evidence presented so far suggests that, given the nature of the challenge
in facilitating long-term mobility for school education staff, and the benefits offered by
partnership/institutional approaches any new scheme should include a contribution to
management and administration costs, to ensure effective partner-searching,
preparation and support for participating individuals and organisations. The approach
used for the Leonardo da Vinci and Comenius Individual Pupil Mobility schemes,
amongst others, offers the best solution here: where the amount of support is
calculated on a per head basis. The rate for managing Leonardo Initial Vocational
Training activity is €300 per head (assuming a 12-week duration). The Comenius
Individual Pupil Mobility grant paid to the sending school 91 includes a lump sum
element to cover the administrative costs of both sending and hosting schools, at a
rate of €500 per pupil for the host and €150 per pupil for the sending school. The
sending school also receives a lump sum of €120 per pupil is allowed to cover the cost
of linguistic preparation. In addition all relevant elements of Leonardo, Grundtvig and
90
91
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/biblio/documents/regulations/regulations_en.cfm
http://ec.europa.eu/education/llp/doc/call13/comenius_en.pdf
May 2013
54
Comenius mobility can attract up to €500 per head for pedagogic, cultural and
linguistic preparation of participants 92.
For any new type of scheme proposed it would be prudent to plan for an EU
contribution per individual of up to €1,000, assuming this is paid, as a lump sum, into
the partnership managing the long-term teacher mobility, to cover all management,
administration and preparation costs 93. The participation of schools and teachers is
likely to be increased if some of the costs 94 incurred through having to finance a
replacement teacher in one of the participating schools is covered (at least in part) 95.
Secondly, the evidence suggests strongly that if school education staff are able to
retain their home salaries (ideally also within some form of reciprocal framework) then
additional allowances need not be provided to any great extent. Should this solution
prove unworkable 96 (either for operational or legal reasons) some form of grant would
need to be provided, in line with current EU schemes aimed at professional mobility.
Relevant reference here might include the following:
 Comenius IST grants combine flat-rate allowances with allowances based on real
costs. Course or seminar fees will be supported based upon actual expenditure.
Travel and living costs will be supported by a flat rate allowance determined by the
duration of the training and the country in which the activity takes place.
 Comenius Assistants receive a flat-rate grant to help cover their travel and living
costs while abroad. Grants are available for the travel and subsistence cost of
students and members of teaching staff. The average grant per Assistant for 2010
was €6,974 97.
 Under Comenius Individual Pupil Mobility, individual pupils receive a flat-rate
grant based on a set of allowances to cover expenses such as study materials and
local transport, calculated by country and ranging from €122 to €235 for the first
month.
 Grundtvig for staff in the adult learning sector 98 (comprising visits and
exchanges, assistantships, in-service training and learning partnerships) provide for
mobility periods ranging from five days (for training) to 45 weeks (Assistantships).
Funding depends on the destination country, but can be up to €3,500 as a
contribution to travel and subsistence expenses and course fees, (depending on the
duration of the activity) and up to €8,000 is available for Assistantships, as a
contribution to travel and subsistence expenses, again depending on the duration of
the activity.
 Erasmus for Higher Education staff 99 provides for mobility under two measures:
teaching assignments lasting up to six weeks and training-based secondment
periods of five to six weeks duration. Erasmus also includes the Intensive
Programme (IP), which focuses on joint research and curriculum development (for
example to establish new trans-national joint or double degrees).
 Grant support for individuals participating in Erasmus Mundus Masters and
Doctoral courses provide €1,000-1,800 per month in subsistence allowance
92
http://ec.europa.eu/education/llp/doc/call13/part1_en.pdf
Also bearing in mind the sometimes significant differences in salaries between sending and receiving
countries
94
This would include the cost (or part costs) of a teachers salary (variable in each country) for the mobility
period
93
96
Noting that the implementation of the EU Quality Charter for Mobility “…includes the elimination by the
Member States of mobility obstacles and the provision of support and infrastructures to help raise education
and training levels in the European Union”
97
http://ec.europa.eu/education/comenius/doc/figures_en.pdf
98
99
May 2013
55
depending on level, plus a €3,000 allowance for a minimum of 10 months
participation (to cover study costs/lab fees etc.).
However, according to EU financial regulations, grants may not be used to pay
salaries; so it is unlikely that grants pitched at these sorts of levels would be sufficient
for experienced school education staff, not least since pension costs figure prominently
in the minds of potential participants. Indeed the only option available in most cases
would be to award grants to individuals which amounted to the equivalent of their
salary 100, plus social costs. Since this is likely to be in the range €25,000 to 50,000 101,
such an approach would severely limit the number of participants. The stipend/salary
option might also reduce the incentive to find workable solutions concerning other,
more cost-effective options.
It is notable that the salary retention approach forms a central pillar of two of the
most successful long-term schemes (Fulbright and Jules Verne), whereas in another,
Nordplus, the lack of this mechanism may contribute to low levels of interest. At this
stage it is therefore clear that salary retention offers the best solution.
5.7 Requirements for participating actors
5.7.1 Participation
In terms of participating in the scheme, organisations and institutions would need
to be able to provide:
 Proposals for a long-term strategy with clearly defined structure, governance and
financial plans;
 Proposed numbers of school education staff who will undertake long-term mobility,
including duration (or aggregate duration) targeted;
 Evidence of all necessary provision for dealing with matters concerning travel,
accommodation, health, problem resolution, insurance etc.
 Proposals (in co-operation with national authorities as appropriate) for ensuring
recognition for teachers undertaking periods of mobility in other Member States to
ensure that the period abroad is recognised by the home countries authorities as
part of their career, and therefore does not impact on the career progression or pay
and rewards of a teacher once they return home.
 Action plan comprising the outline of a three-stage process for partner-searching,
preparation phase (of at least six months) and implementation.
 Impact assessment report, setting out in detail the expected results of the mobility
period, the impacts on home institution/organisation, how these will be achieved
and how these will be sustained over the longer-term. This would be used as the
basis for a subsequent evaluation report to be produced on completion of the
mobility period.
In particular cases where a ‘non-school’ is a host, the same principles will apply, but
the importance of defining the precise activity to be undertaken and the intended
impact on the home institution upon return will need to be well developed.
Any long-term mobility scheme would need to draw on the EU Quality Charter for
Mobility 102, which already provides a sound basis, although it may be worth
100
101
102
Similar to Marie Curie researcher grants
Eurydice Report: Teachers’ and School Heads’ salaries and allowances in Europe 2011/2012
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education_training_youth/lifelong_learning/c11085_en.htm
May 2013
56
considering minor adaptations to this latter document to better address the specific
situation and needs of teachers and schools:
EU Quality Charter for Mobility: ten principles
 Information and guidance: every candidate should have access to clear and
reliable sources of information and guidance on mobility and the conditions in which
it can be taken up, including details of the Charter itself and the roles of sending
and hosting organisations;
 Learning plan: a plan is drawn up and signed by the sending and hosting
organisations and participants before every stay for education or training purposes.
It must describe the objectives and expected outcomes, the means of achieving
them, and evaluation, and must also take account of reintegration issues;
 Personalisation: mobility must fit in with personal learning pathways, skills and
motivation of participants, and should develop or supplement them;
 General preparation: before departure, participants should receive general
preparation tailored to their specific needs and covering linguistic, pedagogical,
legal, cultural or financial aspects;
 Linguistic aspects: language skills make for more effective learning, intercultural
communication and a better understanding of the host country's culture.
Arrangements should therefore include a pre-departure assessment of language
skills, the possibility of attending courses in the language of the host country and/or
language learning and linguistic support and advice in the host country;
 Logistical support: this could include providing participants with information and
assistance concerning travel arrangements, insurance, the portability of government
grants and loans, residence or work permits, social security and any other practical
aspects;
 Mentoring: the hosting organisation should provide mentoring to advise and help
participants throughout their stay, also to ensure their integration;
 Recognition: if periods of study or training abroad are an integral part of a formal
study or training programme, the learning plan must mention this, and participants
should be provided with assistance regarding recognition and certification. For other
types of mobility, and particularly those in the context of non-formal education and
training, certification by an appropriate document, such as the Europass necessary;
 Reintegration and evaluation: on returning to their country of origin, participants
should receive guidance on how to make use of the competences acquired during
their stay and, following a long stay, any necessary help with reintegration.
Evaluation of the experience acquired should make it possible to assess whether the
aims of the learning plan have been achieved;
 Commitments and responsibilities: the responsibilities arising from these quality
criteria must be agreed and, in particular, confirmed in writing by all sides (sending
and hosting organisations and participants).
For individuals, a personal development plan should be required, to fit with the
institutions overall strategy and in conjunction with the impact assessment report.
Requirements should also include completing an evaluation report (in conjunction with
the institution).
5.7.2 National and school authorities have a specific role to play in terms of
ensuring legal frameworks and employment and social protection rule
and regulations do not limit the ability of education institutions and
their staff to participate in long-term mobility. They can also provide
support through encouraging and supporting the development and
May 2013
57
implementation
of
school
internationalisation
strategies,
and
collaboration and clustering by schools at the local and regional levels.
Support
Institutions will need to be provided with a range of support, during the application
phase, but more importantly during implementation, in particular:
 Help and advice (e.g. from NAs) on dealing with the potentially complex set of
practical issues that will need to be addressed for long-tem mobility; including
especially where the requirements are likely to be different from previous
programmes. Here issues concerning pay, taxation, social costs, fiscal management,
pastoral care arrangements, social matters (health cover, social protection etc. will
need to be addressed comprehensively.
 Assistance on school development plans, action planning, impact assessment and
evaluation of outcomes and impacts and how to establish learning agreements etc.;
 Access to an inventory of examples, for example an inventory of practice, via a onestop shop website for example, would encourage learning and wider up-take of a
new scheme;
 In terms of partner selection, the future eTwinning initiative might be used as a
platform from which to take part in longer-term mobility (the survey results suggest
such relationships are relatively common, but there is less information on how
strong and structured these are);
 Information and support on how to provide language support to teachers before
they go abroad.
May 2013
58
6 Conclusions and recommendations
Drawing on the evidence presented above, the following conclusions have been
developed with respect to a potential future EU action to support long-term mobility
for school education staff.
6.1 Conclusions
1. A future action on long-term mobility of school education staff is feasible and
would bring a range of benefits to individuals, institutions and in terms of key
policy goals including enhancing the quality of teaching, increasing the
international outlook of school and supporting continuing professional
development.
2. The evidence supports the need for action at EU level, rather than through Member
States acting alone or bi-laterally, in particular if long-term mobility is to be
supported on the scale and scope required to have any impact.
3. The added value of a scheme represents a public good, in terms of inter-cultural
understanding, improvements in education systems, in the professional
development of teachers and the creation of knowledge networks and transnational communities of practice of a type unlikely to develop at national level.
Such a scheme is unlikely to compete with, substitute or duplicate any exiting
provisional EU or national level.
6.2 Recommendations
1. An EU scheme should be adopted to support the long-term mobility of school
education staff;
2. It should be based on an institutional approach, in line with the draft Regulation
for ‘Erasmus for All’, which will deliver a number of benefits compared with
individual or project-based approaches, including flexibility and scope for tailoring
to specific needs, shared administrative and management costs, and synergies
with other relate activity that shares common objectives relating to the quality of
teaching and learning and internationalisation. This approach offers specific
advantages for long-term mobility, namely stability, embedding of a long-term
view and long-term planning, and flexibility to find solutions to a range of practical
obstacles;
3. Long-term mobility activity supported by the scheme should be based on transnational collaboration between institutions, be defined by clear processes,
information and guidance, and include satisfactory provision for preparatory
activity (to ensure quality and successful outcomes). Inter-institutional
relationships should be long-term, with EU support on a two-year cycle at least;
4. The action should permit a significant degree of flexibility with respect to levels of
school and types of teacher, subjects and destination, provided evidence of
potential impact can be provided by applicant institutions;
5. Adopting a trans-national cluster approach, with some form of reciprocity, will
help improve cost-effectiveness, compared with alternative approaches. Although
this implies increased management costs, where these lighten the administrative
burden on individuals and provide for thorough planning and preparation, this
May 2013
59
should be justified by improved mobility outcomes, and also increase the appeal of
the programme to head teachers;
6. A future action should be de-centralised and existing National Agency
infrastructure used where possible, although a more centralised approach to the
partner-searching and partnership building component should be considered
(building on the success of eTwinning for example). This would capitalize on
existing knowledge and expertise;
7. Eligible mobility activity should include preparatory meetings, periods abroad of a
minimum of six weeks and maximum of 12 months. Periods of three to six months
should be promoted as the norm. A distinction should be made between discrete
and cumulative mobility periods, where for example a number of stays are
undertaken over a two or three year period, which together amount to one year.
In preparing the long-term term education staff mobility action, the European
Commission should:
- Implement an action with the characteristics listed above, within the
framework of the proposed new Erasmus for All programme;
- Consider targeting a minimum of 300 participants (depending on the
available budget);
- Consider how the new action can be given a distinctive brand and presented
as such to the sector and to potential participants. It would need to be
promoted actively and strongly to reach as many potential participants as
possible, even were it to be an integrated part of the wider Erasmus for All
programme from 2014;
- Make a contribution to management costs of participating institutions via a
lump sum at a flat rate of up to €1,000 per head to cover the necessary coordination, administration and preparation activities (which may include a
contribution towards meeting the costs of procuring a replacement
teacher). In most cases the assumption should be that participating
teachers would retain their home salary during any mobility, although this
may not be feasible in all Member States to begin with;
- Together with Member States and other stakeholders, further explore the
implications of the future mobility scheme outlined to address issues
concerning retention of salaries and legal frameworks for permitting leave
of absence. While it is not considered that this has an impact on the study
findings at this stage, should a proposed scheme be pursued by DG EAC
beyond this feasibility phase, it will be important to engage with national
ministries on all the relevant issues.
The reach and impact of the action will depend on the commitment of National
Authorities, which should therefore:
- Review relevant legal frameworks, rule and regulations with a view to
removing any obstacles to long-term mobility of school education staff
where possible;
- Work to ensure recognition of qualifications and validation of formal, nonformal and informal learning as a result of long-term mobility;
- Promote and encourage take-up of long-term mobility opportunities,
including as part of school internationalisation strategies.
May 2013
60
Annex One: Research
Questions
May 2013
54
1. Demand, motivation and benefits (SO1)
1a. Potential participants
What is the likely demand in total from school education staff?
What is the likely demand for long-term mobility by home country?
What is the likely demand for long-term mobility by destination country?
What is the likely demand from teachers by subject?
What is the level of demand for different types of activities that could be undertaken during a longterm mobility period?
What do potential applicants envisage are the main benefits of a period of long-term mobility?
1b. School head teachers/schools
What is the likely number or percentage of schools or head-teachers that are likely to favour the longterm mobility of their staff?
To what extent is demand driven by individual staff members or by schools themselves?
What do schools or head-teachers envisage are the main benefits of their staff undertaking a period
of long-term mobility?
What do schools or head-teachers envisage are the main costs and disadvantages of their staff
undertaking a period of long-term mobility?
To what extent do or schools make mobility a regular part of their working practice and culture?
Do sending schools typically act as (or wish to act as) receiving organisations? (and vice versa)
1c. State school authorities at local and national level
What do school authorities envisage are the main benefits of long-term mobility?
What do school authorities envisage are the main costs and disadvantages of staff undertaking a
period of long-term mobility?
To what extent do authorities facilitate long-term mobility (sending and receiving) in their territory?
To what extent does long-term mobility relate to or promote the policy priorities of school authorities?
May 2013
62
Annex Two: Research tools
May 2013
63
May 2013 A64
May 2013 A65
May 2013 A66
May 2013 A67
May 2013 A68
May 2013 A69
May 2013 A70
May 2013 A71
May 2013 A72
May 2013 A73
May 2013 A74
May 2013 A75
May 2013 A76
May 2013 A77
May 2013 A78
May 2013 A79
May 2013 A80
May 2013 A81
FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS WITH ONLINE SURVEY RESPONDENTS
(SCHOOL EDUCATION STAFF)
Sampling framework
Primary
Family status
Check
Age
No
Single
Partner,
no
depende
nt
children
Partner
with
dependent
children
Single
parent
Languag
e
teachers
Nonlanguage
teachers
Head
teacher
s
20-29
10
3
4
2
5
30
35
10
30-39
25
5
8
10
40-49
25
5
10
10
50+
15
5
5
3
75
18
27
25
5
30
35
10
Topic Guide
1. Demand appears high, but we need to probe how firm or soft this really is,
including:
a. What lengths of time teachers are really willing to spend abroad (towards the
lower or higher end of the range, running from six weeks up to a year)?
b. What are some of the reasons for this (for example teachers can take up
mobility opportunities during school holidays to avoid disruption)?
c. Is there a case for saying that for longer-term mobility (6 weeks or more) it
might be more sensible to go away for a significantly longer period (e.g. six
months or a year), or to fit in with term times?
2. What are the primary motivating factors for individuals...?
a. What would the top two factors be: for example the desire for a change,
learning, career enhancement, gaining knowledge and skills, curriculum
development, learning about other teaching methods, intercultural exposure,
language, management or commercial experience, increased motivation and
enthusiasm?
b. Probe why this is the case (background detail) and if possible relate to the
age profile – what reasons do young/older people have in spending time
abroad (boost career, on jobs at home, nearing retirement, no dependents,
seeking new challenges etc.).
May 2013 A82
3. A major obstacle from a school point of view is finding a replacement for a
teacher who has gone away on a mobility scheme. One potential solution is
to exchange jobs (each keeps their own salary).
a. How attractive would that be in practice, and
b. Would people be happy to exchange accommodation as well?
4. The survey highlights concerns around the administrative burden that tends
to fall on participants and on schools for these types of schemes.
a. How important is this issue to the individual and why?
b. How should the administration and management of any new mobility scheme
be organised to address these concerns?
The particular significance of two issues appears to have been re-enforced by the survey
results: the importance of personal circumstances in the decision-making process for those
contemplating mobility; and the role of language. Consequently the following specific topics
were explored with interviewees who have dependents on tone hand, and non-language
teachers on the other:
5. For those with dependents in particular we need to know what factors
would affect their decision to go. It may be difficult in some situations than
in others - for example it may be easier for those with younger children.
a. If you don’t mind me asking, how does your specific family status influence
your views on mobility and longer-term mobility in particular?
b. What level of financial support would be needed to make it possible for you to
participate in such a scheme?
6. Current EU programmes include large numbers of language teachers (for
obvious reasons). But the survey suggests there is also interest among
teachers of other subjects.
a. How significant a barrier would language be for non-language teachers?
b. For non-language subjects how could this work in practice?
May 2013 A83
Study of the feasibility of a long-term education staff mobility action (DG EAC)
TOPIC GUIDE: Interviews with EU-LEVEL strategic stakeholders
CEC, EACEA, EU umbrella organisations, academics and wider stakeholders
Objectives: to gather views concerning the need for a mobility scheme for school
staff (where the length of stay is longer than current measures 103 provide for),
likely level of demand (including from whom), factors potentially preventing uptake
of such a scheme and opinions on whether producing a new scheme is sensible and
if so what format it should take to make it work, despite any obstacles. We are also
seeking views on the likely benefits of such a scheme, specifically to institutions
rather than individuals. The context is that any scheme will be set within an
institutional framework to facilitate its operation, so the (strategic) key might be to
engage schools and other relevant institutions: individuals are likely to think it is a
good idea but they are not necessarily the ones who will have to find ways to
overcome any barriers.
Introduction
There is evidence that there are a range of positive benefits to teachers
participating in mobility and exchange schemes (at national and EU level); and that
positive impacts increase with the duration of the mobility.
We are interested (on behalf of DG EAC) to understand whether a new EU measure
to facilitate the long-term 104 mobility of school staff 105 is feasible. Assessing
feasibility requires that we address three main areas: firstly demand, motivation
and benefits; secondly obstacles and how these might be overcome; and thirdly the
key features of any new scheme.
The study is considering a number of challenges to teacher mobility that must
underpin any attempt to develop such a new scheme, notably attracting a diverse
range of staff (in particular non-language teachers); lengthening periods of mobility
(beyond six weeks, mobility cannot usually be fitted into school holidays so some
‘absence’ is then necessary 106 thus inconveniencing the sending institution and
requiring replacement staff); personal arrangements (family commitments, tax and
pensions, professional recognition etc.); geographical imbalances (three ENspeaking
countries
host
two-thirds
of
Comenius
In-service
Training
107
beneficiaries ); expanding the choice of mobility activities beyond the current
narrow range; and finally how to create ‘critical mass’ (i.e. what if the extent of
demand is not sufficient to justify a dedicated scheme?108)
103
Comenius, Grundtvig, Leonardo etc.
Defined as longer than six months
105
Defined as qualified school staff (teachers, headmasters, management) employed in an
educational capacity by a relevant organisation. However we understand that hosts are not
limited to schools, so this may include HE institutions, vocational and teacher training
establishments, local authority education departments, research organisation, commercial
organisation etc. Student teachers are not within the frame of reference at this stage.
106
Two-thirds of In-Service Comenius Training is done in term-time. Comenius
Assistantships provide for periods of up to 12 months, but these are dominated by EN
language teachers.
107
This is a decentralised Action so the EC cannot control geographical mobility patterns
108
To some extent this might be addressed by the approach taken to the delivery of any
new scheme
104
May 2013 A84
About the interviewee
Name, organisation, organisation type, interest and experience of the issues
Part 1: Demand, motivation and benefits
1) Overall, what is your assessment of demand for the type of mobility
proposed?
For example, what percentage of schools and/or head teachers do you think
would be interested?
2) Are you able to break this down by...?
a. Type of educational professional (teacher, head teacher, administrator,
researcher etc.)
b. Country (sending and receiving)
c. Subject area (language and non-language)
d. Type of activity (job shadowing, training, work experience)
e. Host organisation (school or other bodies)
3) What kinds of benefits do you think would motivate the following target
groups to participate in long-term school staff mobility...?
a. Individual members of staff
b. Head teachers/schools
c. Local, regional and national authorities
4) What would say the following target groups would consider the main
disadvantages of such a scheme...?
Part 2: Identifying obstacles and measures to overcome them
5) What can we learn from existing schemes already providing opportunities for
long-term mobility across the EU?
What are some key success factors and examples of best practice if any? For
example types of participating individuals and organisations, types of
activity, length of mobility period, financing, recognition of qualifications,
management and support etc.
Do any success factors depend on country or on the types of organisations
involved (e.g. schools)?
6) What are the main obstacles facing...?
a. Individuals
b. Sending schools
c. Host organisations
May 2013 A85
d. School authorities (local, national, regional)
Examples: financial, administrative, language issues, personal/family
circumstances, legal, disruption, curricula differences, lack of experience etc.
7) What measures and incentives have been successful in terms of addressing
some of these obstacles faced by....?
a.
b.
c.
d.
Individuals
Sending schools
Host organisations
School authorities (local, national, regional)
Part 3: Views on how a future mobility action might look
8) In terms of a general framework, do you have any views on...?
a. Structure, management and support (centralised, decentralised, direct
decentralised, outsourced, project-based etc.)
b. Minimum, maximum and optimum duration of mobility
c. Eligible costs covered
d. Financing – form, level of grant, beneficiary of grant
(individual/institution), EU contribution etc.
e. Viable scale – number of participants
f. Training and support elements needed
9) Who might the key players be for implementation?
Potential roles and responsibilities, for sending/receiving, as co-ordinating
intermediaries of schools, school authorities, other stake holders such as trade
unions.
10)
What types of organisations should be eligible to receive school staff
on mobility actions?








11)
Schools;
Education authorities;
Teacher training institutions;
Other training or research institutions;
Research bodies or institutions;
Commercial enterprises;
Civil society organisations;
Other. Please specify.
What requirements might be set for sending organisations?
For example responsibilities as an employer (salary, social costs etc.), pastoral
support, contact/co-ordinator, protocols/charter etc.
12)
What requirements might be set for receiving organisations?
May 2013 A86
For example finance (disbursement), personal and practical support, mentoring
and supervision, training provision (e.g. languages), quality assurance,
monitoring and reporting, protocols/charter etc.
13)
What requirements might be set for participating individuals?
Attendance and performance, reporting, protocols/charter etc.
14)
What measures might schools themselves take to better facilitate
long-term mobility (sending and receiving) for their staff?
Publicity, dissemination and good practice, support and advice, managing
applications, adjusting professional and/or legal requirements (trans-national
professional recognition)
May 2013 A87
Study of the feasibility of a long-term education staff mobility action (DG
EAC)
TOPIC GUIDE: Interviews with NATIONAL-LEVEL stakeholders
National ministries, National Agencies, Member State school authorities,
local decision makers, key associations, organisations managing national
schemes
Objectives:
- Explore the national context and how national policies may support the
development of mobility schemes;
- Collect and learn from national schemes including target groups, strategic fit,
success factors and challenges, key characteristics and their management
structures; and
- Gather views concerning the need for an EU mobility scheme for school staff
(where the length of stay is longer than current measures 109 provide for), likely
level of demand in their country/region (including from whom), factors potentially
preventing uptake of such a scheme;
- Seek opinions on whether producing a new scheme is sensible and if so what
format it should take to make it work, despite any obstacles;
We are also seeking views on the likely benefits of such a scheme, specifically to
institutions rather than individuals.
The context is that any scheme will be set within an institutional framework to
facilitate its operation, so the (strategic) key might be to engage schools and other
relevant institutions: individuals are likely to think it is a good idea but they are not
necessarily the ones who will have to find ways to overcome any barriers.
Introduction
There is evidence that there are a range of positive benefits to teachers
participating in mobility and exchange schemes (at national and EU level); and that
positive impacts increase with the duration of the mobility.
We are interested (on behalf of DG EAC) to understand whether a new EU measure
to facilitate the long-term 110 mobility of school staff 111 is feasible. Assessing
feasibility requires that we address three main areas: firstly demand, motivation
and benefits; secondly obstacles and how these might be overcome; and thirdly the
key features of any new scheme.
The study is considering a number of challenges to teacher mobility that must
underpin any attempt to develop such a new scheme, notably attracting a diverse
range of staff (in particular non-language teachers); lengthening periods of mobility
(beyond six weeks, mobility cannot usually be fitted into school holidays so some
109
Comenius, Grundtvig, Leonardo etc.
Defined as longer than six months
111
Defined as qualified school staff (teachers, headmasters, management) employed in an
educational capacity by a relevant organisation. However we understand that hosts are not
limited to schools, so this may include HE institutions, vocational and teacher training
establishments, local authority education departments, research organisation, commercial
organisation etc. Student teachers are not within the frame of reference at this stage.
110
May 2013 A88
‘absence’ is then necessary 112 thus inconveniencing the sending institution and
requiring replacement staff); personal arrangements (family commitments, tax and
pensions, professional recognition etc.); geographical imbalances (three ENspeaking
countries
host
two-thirds
of
Comenius
In-service
Training
beneficiaries 113); expanding the choice of mobility activities beyond the current
narrow range; and finally how to create ‘critical mass’ (i.e. what if the extent of
demand is not sufficient to justify a dedicated scheme?114)
About the interviewee
Name, organisation, organisation type, interest and experience of the issues
Part 1: Demand, motivation and benefits
15)
Overall, what is your assessment of demand for the type of mobility
proposed?
For example, what percentage of schools and/or head teachers in their
country, region etc do you think would be interested?
16)
Are you able to break this down by...?
a. Type of educational professional (teacher, head teacher, administrator,
researcher etc.)
b. Country (where would participants wish to go)
c. Subject area (language and non-language)
d. Type of activity (job shadowing, training, work experience)
e. Host organisation (school or other bodies)
17)
What kinds of benefits do you think would motivate the following
target groups to participate in long-term school staff mobility...?
Gaining knowledge and skills, curriculum development, learning about other
teaching methods, intercultural exposure, language, management or commercial
experience, increased motivation and enthusiasm
18)
What would say the following target groups would consider the main
disadvantages of such a scheme...?
112
Two-thirds of In-Service Comenius Training is done in term-time. Comenius
Assistantships provide for periods of up to 12 months, but these are dominated by EN
language teachers.
113
This is a decentralised Action so the EC cannot control geographical mobility patterns
114
To some extent this might be addressed by the approach taken to the delivery of any
new scheme
May 2013 A89
Typically costs, finding replacement staff, disruption to pupils education, risk of
staff not returning, lack of experience etc.
19)
How common or customary is mobility in schools in your
country/region?
20)
Do you have a sense of whether activity in your country/region mostly
involves sending or receiving school staff?
21)
What steps if any do national school authorities in your country take to
promote and facilitate long-term school staff mobility?
22)
Does long term school staff mobility feature as a policy priority in your
country?
Part 2: Identifying obstacles and measures to overcome them
23)
At the moment what schemes are addressing this issue in your
country?
Sending: Include types of schools involved, beneficiaries, duration of mobility,
activity, number of participants, outcomes, financing, approach to recognition of
qualifications, QA, management and support.
Receiving: types of organisations (may not just be schools), period, activity etc.
24)
What can we learn from these?
What are some key success factors and examples of best practice if any?
Do any success factors depend on the types of organisations involved
25)
What are the main obstacles facing...in terms of national schemes?
a.
b.
c.
d.
Individuals
Sending schools
Host organisations
Examples: lack of awareness, financial, administrative, language issues,
personal/family circumstances, legal, disruption, curricula differences, lack of
experience etc.
26)
What are the main obstacles facing...in terms of EU schemes (like
Comenius etc)?
a.
b.
c.
d.
Individuals
Sending schools
Host organisations
May 2013 A90
Examples: lack of awareness, financial, administrative, language issues,
personal/family circumstances, legal, disruption, curricula differences, lack of
experience etc.
27)
What measures and incentives have been successful in terms of
addressing some of these obstacles faced by....?
a.
b.
c.
d.
Individuals
Sending schools
Host organisations
Part 3: Views on how a future mobility action might look
28)
In terms of a general framework, do you have any views on...?
a. Structure, management and support (centralised, decentralised, direct
decentralised, outsourced, project-based etc.)
b. Minimum, maximum and optimum duration of mobility
c. Eligible costs covered
d. Financing – form, level of grant, beneficiary of grant
(individual/institution), EU contribution etc
e. Viable scale – number of participants
f. Training and support elements needed
29)
Who might the key players be for implementation?
Potential roles and responsibilities, for sending/receiving, as co-ordinating
intermediaries of schools, school authorities, other stake holders such as trade
unions.
30)
What types of organisations should be eligible to receive school staff
on mobility actions?








31)
Schools;
Education authorities;
Teacher training institutions;
Other training or research institutions;
Research bodies or institutions;
Commercial enterprises;
Civil society organisations;
Other. Please specify.
What requirements might be set for sending organisations?
For example responsibilities as an employer (salary, social costs etc.), pastoral
support, contact/co-ordinator, protocols/charter etc.
32)
What requirements might be set for receiving organisations?
May 2013 A91
For example finance (disbursement), personal and practical support, mentoring
and supervision, training provision (e.g. languages), quality assurance,
monitoring and reporting, protocols/charter etc.
33)
What requirements might be set for participating individuals?
Attendance and performance, reporting, protocols/charter etc.
34)
What measures might schools themselves take to better facilitate
long-term mobility (sending and receiving) for their staff?
Publicity, dissemination and good practice, support and advice, managing
applications, adjusting professional and/or legal requirements (trans-national
professional recognition)
May 2013 A92
Annex Three: Survey results
May 2013 A93
Survey of school education staff - long-term mobility
Status:
Closed
Partial completes:
1,798 (19.7%)
Start date:
20-04-2012
Screened out:
115 (1.3%)
End date:
30-07-2012
Reached end:
7,211 (79%)
Live:
102 days
Total responded:
9,124
Questions:
47
Languages:
de, en, es, fr, it,
pl
Panel
Bounced
0 (0%)
Reached end:
2 (100%)
Declined
0 (0%)
Responses:
2 (28.6%)
Responses:
9,122
Partial completes:
1,798 (19.7%)
Start page views:
15,953
Screened out:
115 (1.3%)
Reached end:
7,209 (79%)
Non-panel
Filter is Off
1. What is your gender?
(Each respondent could choose only ONE of the following responses.)
Response
Total
Male
2192
24 %
Female
6891
76 %
Would rather not say
41
0%
Skipped question: 0
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A94
2. What is your age?
Response
Total
20-29
673
7%
30-39
2378
26 %
40-49
3174
35 %
50 and above
2841
31 %
47
1%
11
0%
Skipped question: 0
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A95
3. In which country are you located?
Response
Total
% of responses
%
Austria
9
0%
Belgium
163
2%
Bulgaria
14
0%
Croatia
117
1%
Cyprus
136
1%
Czech Republic
482
5%
Denmark
4
0%
Estonia
6
0%
Finland
471
5%
France
541
6%
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
2
0%
Germany
623
7%
Greece
44
0%
Hungary
194
2%
Iceland
1
0%
Ireland
78
1%
Italy
1985
22 %
Latvia
35
0%
Liechtenstein
25
0%
Lithuania
20
0%
Luxembourg
1
0%
Malta
296
3%
Netherlands
11
0%
Norway
6
0%
Poland
18
0%
May 2013 A96
Response
Total
Portugal
772
8%
Romania
67
1%
Slovakia
209
2%
Slovenia
3
0%
Spain
1633
18 %
Sweden
544
6%
Switzerland
4
0%
Turkey
384
4%
United Kingdom
180
2%
46
1%
Skipped question: 0
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
4. Previous research has suggested that family circumstances can influence the take-up of
mobility opportunities. If you are willing, we would be grateful if you could please indicate your
family status.
Response
Total
Single, living with family
643
7%
Single, living alone
1304
14 %
Single living with friends or sharing
170
2%
Living with partner/spouse with dependent children
3634
40 %
Living with partner/spouse with no dependent children
2503
27 %
Lone parent
392
4%
160
2%
318
3%
Skipped question: 0
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A97
5. Which of the following categories most closely matches your professional status?
Response
Total
Teacher
6693
74 %
Head Teacher/School Leader/Director/
623
7%
Deputy Head Teacher/ Deputy School Leader
288
3%
Trainer
591
7%
Administrative or other non-teaching staff
174
2%
Education manager
63
1%
Counsellor or careers advisor
74
1%
Educator/mediator/learning facilitator or assistant
80
1%
Staff involved in inter-cultural education
34
0%
Staff working with pupils with special educational
needs
108
1%
301
3%
Skipped question: 0
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
6. Please indicate the type of organisation at which you are employed
Response
Total
Pre-primary school
203
2%
Primary school
2325
26 %
Secondary school (lower or upper secondary)
4401
49 %
Vocational or technical secondary school
1257
14 %
Establishment for learners with special needs
79
1%
Other type of educational establishment
267
3%
497
6%
Skipped question: 0
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A98
7. Please indicate the size of the school by the approximate number of pupils
Response
Total
1-20
50
1%
21-50
135
2%
51-250
1591
18 %
251-500
2445
28 %
501-2000
4221
48 %
2001-5000
172
2%
More than 5000
44
1%
Not applicable
124
1%
Skipped question: 0
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
8. Are you employed full-time or part-time?
Response
Total
Full-time
8062
92 %
Part-time (defined as less than 90% of the statutory
full-time number of hours)
631
7%
Unsure or would rather not say
36
0%
Not applicable
53
1%
Skipped question: 0
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A99
9. How many years of experience do you have as an education professional?
Response
Total
Less than 5
724
8%
5-10
1630
19 %
10-20
3001
34 %
More than 20
3400
39 %
10
0%
Not applicable
17
0%
Skipped question: 0
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
10. Is bilingual teaching possible in your school?i.e. conducting lessons in a language other than
your institution's main language of instruction
Response
Total
Yes
4395
50 %
No
3398
39 %
Don't know
690
8%
Not applicable
299
3%
Skipped question: 0
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A100
11. Please indicate which of the following subject areas you teach
(Each respondent could choose MULTIPLE responses.)
Response
Total
Arts and crafts
879
10 %
Biology
657
7%
Chemistry
426
5%
Civics
598
7%
Economy and business
236
3%
Environmental education
504
6%
Geography
958
11 %
Health education
447
5%
History
1150
13 %
Languages (foreign)
4319
49 %
Language and literature (the institution's main
language of instruction)
1862
21 %
Mathematics
1577
18 %
Music
660
8%
New technologies/ICT
942
11 %
Physics
461
5%
Religion/ethics
507
6%
Social sciences
546
6%
Sport
658
7%
Vocational subjects
395
4%
1289
15 %
Not applicable
495
6%
Skipped question: 0
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A101
12. Please specify which language(s) you teach
(Each respondent could write a single open-ended response of maximum 255 characters.)
Response
Total
Open answer
5138
Skipped question: 3609
% of total respondents
%
56 %
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
13. Do members of the education staff at your school already participate in European mobility
programmes? For example: Comenius In-Service Training, assistantships or school partnerships
Response
Total
Yes
4497
51 %
No
2786
32 %
Don't know
1363
16 %
Not applicable
88
1%
Skipped question: 0
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
14. What is the name of the mobility scheme that education staff at your school participate in?
Response
Total
Open answer
4108
%
45 %
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A102
15. Does your school have an established relationship with a school in another country (i.e.
sending and/or receiving staff over a period of several years)?
Response
Total
Yes
2402
28 %
No
5259
61 %
Don't know
832
10 %
Not applicable
129
1%
Skipped question: 0
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A103
16. If your school has established relationships with schools in other countries please indicate
where they are located
Response
Total
% of responses
%
Austria
195
8%
Belgium
170
7%
Bulgaria
112
5%
Croatia
36
2%
Cyprus
61
3%
Czech Republic
187
8%
Denmark
164
7%
Estonia
125
5%
Finland
250
11 %
France
688
30 %
5
0%
Germany
834
36 %
Greece
209
9%
Hungary
173
7%
Iceland
56
2%
Ireland
132
6%
Italy
518
22 %
Latvia
95
4%
Liechtenstein
3
0%
Lithuania
116
5%
Luxembourg
20
1%
Malta
29
1%
Netherlands
213
9%
Norway
130
6%
Poland
526
23 %
May 2013 A104
Response
Total
Portugal
193
8%
Romania
252
11 %
Slovakia
119
5%
Slovenia
89
4%
Spain
534
23 %
Sweden
195
8%
Switzerland
40
2%
Turkey
400
17 %
United Kingdom
544
23 %
271
12 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
17. How long have these relationships with other schools been in existence for?
Response
Total
Less than 2 years
482
23 %
2 - 5 years
785
37 %
5 - 10 years
413
20 %
More than 10 years
267
13 %
Don't know
163
8%
otal respondents: 2110
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A105
18. Do you have direct/personal experience of taking part in a mobility scheme?
Response
Total
Yes
4161
49 %
No
4397
51 %
Skipped question: 0
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
19. Which mobility scheme(s) do you have direct/personal experience of?
(Each respondent could write multiple open-ended responses of maximum 255 characters.)
Response
Total
Mobility schemes for school education staff
3126
85 %
Other types of mobility scheme
1378
37 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A106
20. How long did you spend abroad through this scheme?(If you have experience of more than
one scheme or mobility period, please answer for your most recent experience)
Response
Total
Less than a month
3344
84 %
1 month
211
5%
2 months
47
1%
3 months
41
1%
4 months
24
1%
5 months
21
1%
6 months
32
1%
7 months
9
0%
8 months
8
0%
9 months
27
1%
10 months
23
1%
11 months
7
0%
12 months
31
1%
More than 12 months
77
2%
92
2%
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A107
21. Where did you go?(If you have experience of more than one scheme or mobility period, please
answer for your most recent experience)
Response
Total
% of responses
%
Austria
172
4%
Belgium
146
4%
Bulgaria
80
2%
Croatia
17
0%
Cyprus
64
2%
Czech Republic
138
4%
Denmark
100
3%
Estonia
52
1%
Finland
193
5%
France
465
12 %
Former Yugolav Republic of Macedonia
3
0%
Germany
479
12 %
Greece
178
5%
Hungary
102
3%
Iceland
51
1%
Ireland
299
8%
Italy
424
11 %
Latvia
70
2%
Liechtenstein
6
0%
Lithuania
79
2%
Luxembourg
17
0%
Malta
98
3%
Netherlands
140
4%
Norway
116
3%
Poland
312
8%
May 2013 A108
Response
Total
Portugal
176
5%
Romania
151
4%
Slovakia
68
2%
Slovenia
64
2%
Spain
453
12 %
Sweden
164
4%
Switzerland
20
1%
Turkey
301
8%
United Kingdom
1338
34 %
182
5%
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
22. Even if you are not personally interested in participating, do you think that a mobility period of
over six weeks would benefit school education staff?
Response
Total
Would definitely be of benefit
5840
71 %
Would probably be of benefit
1419
17 %
Might be of benefit
752
9%
Would probably not be of benefit
81
1%
Would definitely not be of benefit
30
0%
129
2%
Skipped question: 0
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A109
23. How interested would you be personally in in taking part in a mobility scheme for school
education staff?
Response
Total
5241
64 %
1423
17 %
1063
13 %
253
3%
138
2%
133
2%
Skipped question: 0
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
24. How interested would you be personally in in taking part in a mobility scheme for school
education staff, where the placement lasted for longer than six weeks?
Response
Total
3919
47 %
1614
20 %
1417
17 %
714
9%
413
5%
174
2%
Skipped question: 0
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A110
25. Are there any countries in particular where you would personally be interested in spending
time through a long-term mobility scheme? Please select all that apply
Response
Total
% of responses
%
Austria
1249
19 %
Belgium
1191
18 %
Bulgaria
223
3%
Croatia
516
8%
Cyprus
577
9%
Czech Republic
544
8%
Denmark
1436
21 %
Estonia
398
6%
Finland
1914
28 %
France
1960
29 %
190
3%
Germany
1838
27 %
Greece
717
11 %
Hungary
403
6%
Iceland
1013
15 %
Ireland
2567
38 %
Italy
1517
22 %
Latvia
354
5%
Liechtenstein
385
6%
Lithuania
368
5%
Luxembourg
761
11 %
Malta
1315
19 %
Netherlands
1435
21 %
Norway
1669
25 %
Poland
575
9%
May 2013 A111
Response
Total
Portugal
892
13 %
Romania
307
5%
Slovakia
298
4%
Slovenia
393
6%
Spain
1806
27 %
Sweden
1826
27 %
Switzerland
1631
24 %
Turkey
591
9%
United Kingdom
4428
66 %
290
4%
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A112
26. Please tell us if there are any particular reasons for this interest, for examplePlease select all
that apply
Response
Total
I have already been there on a previous school
mobility scheme
1320
20 %
I have gone to other countries on a previous mobility
scheme but want a change
589
9%
I can speak the language (it is the same as my
mother tongue)
402
6%
I can speak the language (it is not the same as my
mother tongue)
3844
58 %
I am interested in a specific area of teaching and
learning practice in that country
2795
42 %
There are many similarities between schools in that
country and my own
449
7%
There are some differences between schools in that
country and my own, which I would like to explore and
learn from
3976
60 %
I know someone from my school who went there and
had a positive experience
419
6%
I know someone from another school who went there
and had a positive experience
667
10 %
Family connections (friends and family)
679
10 %
747
11 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A113
27. What type of organisation would you be most interested in a placement in?Please select all
that apply
Response
Total
Pre-primary school
521
8%
Primary school
2205
33 %
Secondary school (lower or upper)
4225
63 %
1577
23 %
2447
36 %
1204
18 %
Local education authority
943
14 %
Regional/national education authority (e.g. national
ministry)
916
14 %
264
4%
530
8%
279
4%
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A114
28. What type of activity would you be interested in pursuing there?Please select all that apply
Response
Total
Working professionally in a school (teaching,
curriculum development, pastoral care)
4702
70 %
Job shadowing
3442
51 %
Research
2011
30 %
Social work
775
11 %
Management
748
11 %
Teacher training
3791
56 %
Policy making
555
8%
Service delivery/administration
398
6%
139
2%
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A115
29. What is the maximum length of time would you be willing to spend in the host organisation?
Response
Total
Less than a month
370
5%
1 month
1002
15 %
2 months
969
14 %
3 months
877
13 %
4 months
103
2%
5 months
29
0%
6 months
756
11 %
7 months
8
0%
8 months
33
0%
9 months
229
3%
10 months
166
2%
11 months
15
0%
12 months
1163
17 %
More than 12 months
738
11 %
374
5%
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A116
30. What do you think is the maximum length of time your school would be willing to let you
spend on mobility / at the host organisation?
Response
Total
Less than a month
1089
16 %
1 month
784
11 %
2 months
352
5%
3 months
346
5%
4 months
37
1%
5 months
25
0%
6 months
278
4%
7 months
3
0%
8 months
15
0%
9 months
107
2%
10 months
101
1%
11 months
7
0%
12 months
739
11 %
More than 12 months
268
4%
2681
39 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A117
31. Would you be interested in long-term mobility on a reciprocal basis between school education
staff?This would most likely take the form of a direct exchange between individuals or post-topost swap
Response
Total
Would definitely be interested
3344
42 %
Would probably be interested
1779
22 %
Might be interested
1685
21 %
Would probably not be interested
478
6%
Would definitely not be interested
311
4%
341
4%
Skipped question: 0
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
32. Would long-term mobility on a reciprocal basis between school education staff offer any
advantages or disadvantages?
Response
Total
Advantages
4890
98 %
Disadvantages
3121
62 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A118
33.1. What potential benefits could mobility schemes for school education staff bring (where the
duration is more than six weeks). And what potential benefits would be most likely to motivate
you personally to want to take part? Please select all that apply
• Enhanced professional skills
Response
Total
For school staff in general
4844
70 %
For me personally
6268
90 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Increased employability and/or career progression
Response
Total
2681
58 %
For me personally
3501
76 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Learn about new teaching and learning methods
Response
Total
5966
81 %
For me personally
6618
90 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A119
• Improved language skills
Response
Total
4691
64 %
For me personally
6758
92 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Establish long-term relationships with schools in other countries
Response
Total
6070
89 %
For me personally
4603
68 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Better intercultural understanding
Response
Total
5909
83 %
For me personally
5859
83 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A120
• Learn new ways to approach specific challenges (e.g. working with migrant children, identifying
special needs, reducing early school leaving)
Response
Total
5174
82 %
For me personally
4978
79 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Increased motivation and enthusiasm for school education
Response
Total
4926
76 %
For me personally
5141
80 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Gain professional accreditation or certificate
Response
Total
2995
58 %
For me personally
4184
81 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A121
• Other, please specify
Response
Total
132
62 %
For me personally
171
81 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
34.1. What benefits do you think might motivate your own school/ institution to either send or
host members of staff on a mobility scheme (where the duration is more than six weeks)? Please
select all that apply
• Enhance professional skills amongst own staff
Response
Total
Benefits for a sending institution
5701
92 %
Benefits for a hosting institution
4809
78 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Enhanced career progression for staff
Response
Total
3898
92 %
2657
63 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A122
• Learn about new teaching and learning methods
Response
Total
6349
93 %
5935
87 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Improve language skills amongst own staff
Response
Total
5977
90 %
5088
77 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Establish long-term relationships with schools in other countries
Response
Total
6035
96 %
5787
92 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A123
• Better intercultural understanding
Response
Total
6134
92 %
6180
93 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Learn new ways to approach specific challenges (e.g. working with migrant children, identifying
special needs, reducing early school leaving)
Response
Total
5071
92 %
4446
81 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Increased motivation and enthusiasm of own staff
Response
Total
5627
91 %
4874
78 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A124
• Introduce pupils to new experiences
Response
Total
5398
81 %
6132
91 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Foster a more European outlook amongst own staff
Response
Total
5119
91 %
4829
86 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Promote an explicit school policy to become more European in outlook
Response
Total
4743
91 %
4519
87 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A125
• Help to influence national/regional education policy
Response
Total
3093
87 %
2871
80 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Raise awareness of European issues
Response
Total
5278
92 %
5187
90 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Help to access funding
Response
Total
3024
87 %
2663
77 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A126
Response
Total
100
83 %
95
79 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
35. What factors might prevent you from taking part in a mobility scheme?Please select all that
apply
Response
Total
Personal or family circumstances
4708
64 %
Language barriers
1682
23 %
Financial/administrative costs of applying
4583
62 %
Legal and social protection issues (employment
status, tax, pensions, health cover, insurance, social
costs)
2670
36 %
Effects on professional status (e.g. recognition of
qualifications)
1009
14 %
Potential disruption to current job
2377
32 %
Potential disruption to pupils
1527
21 %
Negative attitude of employer
2696
36 %
Legal factors (e.g. restrictions resulting from national
law/authority)
1615
22 %
282
4%
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A127
36. Is there anything that could be done to overcome these and make it more likely that you would
participate?
Response
Total
Open answer
4057
%
44 %
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
37.1. What obstacles do such schemes pose to the school as either a sending or hosting
institution? Please select all that apply If you are unsure about how to answer this question (e.g.
you have no responsibility for or experience of school management) please leave all options
unselected and move on to the next question
• Practicalities (e.g. accommodation, subsistence etc.)
Response
Total
For sending institutions
1973
65 %
For hosting institutions
2653
88 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Language barriers
Response
Total
1670
72 %
1984
86 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A128
• Quality of the individual hosted (e.g. teaching competences)
Response
Total
994
46 %
1981
91 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Potential for personal conflict
Response
Total
769
76 %
733
72 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Financial/administrative costs of supervising the individual who is visiting
Response
Total
2537
73 %
2906
83 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A129
• Legal and social protection issues (employment status, tax, pensions, health cover, insurance, social
costs)
Response
Total
2107
87 %
1892
78 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Potential disruption to pupils
Response
Total
1676
86 %
1173
60 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Negative attitude of local, regional, national education authorities
Response
Total
1364
83 %
1186
72 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A130
• Lack of support/information from the scheme’s managing body
Response
Total
1869
88 %
1681
79 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Difficulties linking up with schools with enough experience of mobility
Response
Total
1532
87 %
1329
75 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
• Legal factors (e.g. restrictions resulting from national law/authority
Response
Total
1504
84 %
1371
77 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A131
Response
Total
58
79 %
44
60 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
38. Is there anything that could be done to overcome these and make it more likely that an
institution would participate?
Response
Total
Open answer
1940
%
21 %
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
39. Would you be prepared to host education staff from another country in your
school/organisation?
Response
Total
Definitely
3498
47 %
Probably
2035
27 %
Might be
1083
15 %
Probably not
181
2%
Definitely not
55
1%
Don't know / not applicable
612
8%
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A132
40. If yes, for how long would you be prepared to host participants from another country?
Response
Total
Less than a month
742
11 %
1 month
1009
15 %
2 months
492
7%
3 months
601
9%
4 months
73
1%
5 months
56
1%
6 months
499
8%
7 months
7
0%
8 months
61
1%
9 months
369
6%
10 months
290
4%
11 months
15
0%
12 months
727
11 %
More than 12 months
477
7%
1034
16 %
16 Other, please specify
147
2%
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
41. Please explain your response
Response
Total
Open answer
3312
%
36 %
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A133
42. To what extent do you agree that the internationalisation of school education should be
encouraged?
Response
Total
Strongly agree
4638
63 %
Agree
2202
30 %
Neither agree nor disagree
405
5%
Disagree
52
1%
Strongly disagree
21
0%
97
1%
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
43. What is your general view of proposals to establish a new EU-level scheme to support long
term mobility of school education staff?
Response
Total
Strongly support
5170
70 %
Moderately support
1618
22 %
Neither support nor disapprove
405
5%
Moderately disapprove
65
1%
Strongly disapprove
30
0%
127
2%
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A134
44. Please provide further information on your responses
Response
Total
Open answer
2655
%
29 %
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
45. Are you aware of any national mobility schemes for school education staff that work well and
from which best practice lessons might be learned?
Response
Total
Open answer
2405
%
26 %
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
46. We are planning to arrange a number of telephone interviews with respondents, to follow up in
more detail any issues highlighted by the results. Would you be willing to take part in further
research at a later stage?(Please note: not all will be contacted)
Response
Total
Yes
4651
63 %
No
2737
37 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
May 2013 A135
47. Thank you, please provide details of your preferred method of contact below
Response
Total
Name
4293
95 %
Email Address
4472
99 %
Telephone Number
3383
75 %
Any further information on preferences or availabilty
974
21 %
% of responses
0%
20%
%
40%
60%
80%
You have now reached the end of the survey. Click here to view your responses or click on
"Finish" to submit your responses and finish the survey
May 2013 A136
Annex Four: List of consultees
May 2013 A137
Country
LLP National Agencies
Consultees
Belgium/FR
Agence francophone pour l’éducation et la formation
tout au long de la vie AEF-Europe
National Agency for European Educational
Programmes
Nationale Agentur für EU-Bildungsprogramme in
Schulbereich, Pädagogischer Austauschdienst der KMK
Ms Manoëlle JOOS
Centre for Educational Programmes, Archimedes
Foundation
Organismo Autónomo Programas Educativos Europeos
Mrs Made KIRTSI
Czech
Republic
Germany
Estonia
Spain
Mr. Petr CHALUS
Stefan Schaaf
Mrs Ana Carmen
DEL CANTO
MR Adrien LeLeon
Mrs Sara PAGLIAI
France
Italy
Agence Europe Education Formation France
Agenzia Scuola - AS (Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig,
Visite di Studio)
Cyprus
Foundation for the Management of European Lifelong
Learning Programmes
Mrs
Sylvia
SOLOMONIDOU
Lithuania
Education Exchanges Support Foundation
Hungary
Tempus Public Foundation
Mr
Vytautas
PACIAUSKAS
Ms Tímea KÁRMÁN
Netherlands
Nationaal Agentschap Leven Lang Leren: Europees
Platform - internationaliseren in onderwijs
Mrs Judith DAYUSBROUWER
Poland
Foundation for the Development of Education System
Ms
Aleksandra
Długosz
Portugal
Agência Nacional para a Gestão do Programa de
Aprendizagem ao Longo da Vida
Mrs
MENDES
Márcia
Romania
National Agency for Community Programmes in the
Field of Education and Vocational Training
Mrs
POPESCU
Corina
Slovakia
Slovak Academic Association for International
Cooperation
Ms
Andrea
VOJTKOVA
Finland
Sweden
Centre for International Mobility (CIMO)
Internnationella programkontoret för
utbildningsområdet (in charge)
Ms Nina REKOLA
Gunnel
Rydholm
OLSSON
UK
British Council
Liechtenstein
Agentur für Internationale Bildungsangelegenheiten
Norway
Norwegian Centre for International Cooperation in
Higher Education - Senter for Internasjonalisering av
høyere utdanning - SIU
Mr
Simon
WILLIAMS
Ms Ursula OEHRYWALTHER
Nina
Corinne
Handing
Turkey
The Centre for EU Education and Youth Programmes
Mr. Onur AYDEMIR
May 2013 A138
Other Stakeholders
Consultees
Organisation
Dr. Nikolaus Douda
Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture
Margit Timakov
Estonian Association of Teachers
Rossella Benedetti
UILScuola-Italy
Monika Konczyk
Solidarnoshe - Poland
Ton Duif
President of ESHA
Kevin Robinson
UK National Agency, Grundtvig Staff Mobility
Simon William
British Council
Tatiana Babrauskiene
Education Trade Union in Lithuania
Martin Romer
ETUC Education Committee
Joke van der Leeuw-Roord
Euroclio
Dr. Thomas Spielkamp
PAD, Germany
Clive Byrne
ESHA Vice President (NAPD Ireland)
Mariagrazia Tagliabue
ATEE aisbl
Marc Durando
Schoolnet
Nick Morgan
Consultees
on
mobility schemes
Scotland Education
specific
Organisation
Helene Sall Mattson
Nordplus, Head of Department
Rosveta Melzer
Nordplus Junior Programme Manager
Tim Hill (Head)
Croyland Primary School (Participant in Fulbright UK/US)
Trish Wilson
Croyland Primary School, UK
Jenny Fyffe
Lucy Deakin
Kelly Hare
Alison Williams
Fulbright participant UK/US
Katalin Gyori
Fulbright Participant Hungary/US
Terhi Mölsä
Manager of the Fulbright Center, Finland
Mr. François Neuville,
Délégué
Académique
aux
Relations
Européennes,
Internationales et à la Coopération (DAREIC) (Jules Verne)
Mrs. Anne Darmouni
Professor of Italian (Jules Verne Italy)
Mr. Khaled Yahiaoui
Professor of electro-technology (Jules Verne Finland)
Rottschalk
Teacher (German French Primary School)
Böttcher
Teacher (German French Primary School)
Aebli
Supervising teacher, Primary school at Arkonaplatz
Böhmer
Head teacher, Primary School Rainbow
Schöneburg
International affairs (Head) Ministry of Education
Bölke
International affairs (Secretary) Ministry of Education
Granoux
Coordinator, DFJW
May 2013 A139
Annex Five: Workshop materials
May 2013 A140
WORKSHOP: Making long-term mobility work for education staff
Briefing Paper
INTRODUCTION
The European Commission’s Directorate-General for Education and Culture (DG EAC) has
asked Ecorys (www.ecorys.com) to carry out research to assess the feasibility of
establishing a new EU action focused on school staff. Longer-term mobility (defined here as
lasting longer than six weeks) clearly presents a number of practical and financial
challenges. The purpose of the workshop is therefore to:
•
Identify and prioritise potential solutions to the specific challenges identified by the
research (which options are practical and viable?);
•
Agree a set of key principles for their implementation (what characteristics should a
new EU action have?);
PRELIMINARY STUDY FINDINGS
There is strong demand for more opportunities for longer-term mobility: the results of the
survey indicate that, overall, 88% of respondents believe that mobility of longer than six
weeks would definitely or probably benefit school education staff; and 67% are definitely or
probably interested in taking part in long-term mobility themselves. The survey results also
indicate that 92% of respondents strongly or moderately support proposals to establish a
new EU-level scheme to support long term mobility of school education (70% strongly
support). This suggests that there are at least 3,800 school education staff who are
potentially very interested in taking part in a long-term mobility scheme themselves.
However the evidence to date also confirms that there are significant practical obstacles
with the potential to significantly reduce the likelihood of this demand being translated into
activity: language/subject area; personal circumstances; structures and partnering; and
replacement teachers.
Language/subject area
The evidence so far suggests a number of positive and negative aspects in the context of a
potential long-term mobility scheme: to teach a subject in another language successfully
requires a high level of competence in that language; not only in terms of everyday
conversation, but in terms of the detail of the specific subject terminology and ability to
follow and interpret the relevant curriculum requirements and us the local tools and
methods. School authorities, and above all parents, will not countenance compromising the
quality of pupils’ education, however significant any inter-cultural or other benefits may be.
On the positive side, the survey data suggests a potentially sizable group of teachers who,
while not language teachers as such (although in some countries there are commonly
teachers who are qualified in two subjects including a foreign language), may have the
May 2013 A141
necessary skills (perhaps augmented by support for additional training and preparation) to
teach their subject in another language. CLIL also offers significant lessons and perhaps the
elements of a way forward on this issue for longer-term mobility. Taking a wider
perspective, developments in Europe include increasing multi-lingualism, including
increasing bi-lingualism in schools and initiatives to introduce language learning at an
earlier age in schools. At the same time, teachers themselves are becoming more proficient
in another language (this is likely to apply to younger teachers in particular).
Personal circumstances
The issue of personal circumstances is a recurring theme in any consideration of mobility
that lasts more than a few weeks. In one sense this need not be an obstacle: there are
examples from other EU schemes (Marie Curie Actions in particular) where a significant
minority of participants are accompanied by spouses and children. However this approach
would have significant implications on the funding required. There is no doubt that some
level of additional support could be provided, where the impact delivered by the mobility
justifies the cost. The question that must be addressed is the level at which such support is
set; to encourage wider participation (and avoid discrimination) and ensure costeffectiveness. In terms of the length of mobility, it might be argued that the longer the
period, the more likely it is that families will be able to commit to the necessary re-location.
Equally, if the popularity of long-term mobility scheme proves significant (and it becomes
widely known), then the diversity of family and personal circumstances amongst teachers
would mean the scheme will appeal to a sufficient number of willing participants without the
need for any substantial additional support.
Replacement teachers
The need to find a replacement for a member of staff who is participating in a mobility
action is central to debates about the feasibility of longer-term mobility for school education
staff. This need can impose additional administrative burdens and costs on a school and risk
disruption to pupils – a major consideration for school authorities, school heads and above
all parents. There are various possible routes to address this issue:
•
The sending school must use its own resources to pay for a replacement teacher,
which will be an additional cost where the mobile teacher is still being paid their
‘home’ salary;
•
The cost of providing a replacement is, in whole or part, met from national resources
or EU resources, (i.e. from outwith the school’s own budget);
•
A post-to-post exchange approach is employed, where reciprocity implies a neutral
effect on both schools’ budgets – this option also offers additional benefits in the
form of reduced costs where accommodation can also be exchanged;
•
Existing staff cover the commitments of the absent teacher; although this is unlikely
to be viable in most cases where the duration of the mobility is greater that a few
weeks.
•
Within a long-term relationship between schools, the period of mobility is cumulative
rather than continuous (i.e. a series of shorter mobility periods is spread throughout
an extended period of one or two years).
A number of other options may be available, including a situation where an exchange is
between clusters of schools (one teacher is sent and one hosted, but not on a one-to-one
May 2013 A142
school basis and the teacher may spend time working in more than one school within the
cluster).
Structures and partnering
The frameworks and organisational structures within which any new mobility scheme might
operate are important because they have the potential to help address several of the
obstacles that exist. Specifically, partnership approaches and structures that foster trust,
commitment and knowledge-sharing over and extended period offer an organisational
environment conducive to overcoming any structural, personal, academic and practical
difficulties faced by both individuals and institutions. A framework that provides the ability
and opportunity to plan ahead is likely to produce better results.
Many schools across Europe already take part in a range of partnerships and projects (not
least through Comenius School and Regio Partnerships and eTwinning). Many of these may
be very productive, but equally they may suffer from weaknesses, such as being projectspecific, ephemeral and lacking in the management resources needed to keep them going.
Long-term mobility is better served by stable management and support structures, such as
those that might be encouraged and supported by the EU via the new Erasmus for All
programme with its emphasis on institutional approaches. There may also be a need to offer
any new mobility action together with structure and frameworks that allow new entrants to
build confidence and learn from more experienced participants. Consideration might also be
given to how schools might benefit from economies of scale and increased access to
partners in other countries (and a wider choice of mobility opportunities to meet their
needs), if they cluster together with other schools in their local area or region.
May 2013 A143
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION
Language/subject area
•
•
•
How significant is this issue compared with the others listed here (1-5)?
How can the participation of education staff from as wide a range of subjects as
possible be encouraged?
What measures and support would be required to make this work and what current
practices and tools might support this?
• How significant is this issue compared with the others listed here?
• What value should we place on the participation of school staff with a wide range of
personal circumstances in long-term mobility?
• What key principles need to be built into any new mobility action to address this
issue?
Replacement staff
•
•
•
How significant is this issue compared with the others listed here?
Which of the potential solutions to this challenge are the strongest and why?
How might stakeholders (e.g. head teachers, parents, local authorities) be reassured?
Financial and other support
•
•
•
What are the various elements of funding support required (salaries, social costs, for
management, for additional expenses etc)?
What factors should be taken into account in setting levels of financial support?
Structures and partnering
•
•
•
•
•
What scope is there for greater collaboration between schools, based on an action
like the one being proposed?
What organizational arrangements would achieve the best results?(e.g. partnership
model compared to individual mobility.)
Would non school hosts be possible places for staff long term mobility? What kind of
institutions? Within what kind of arrangements?
How should the content of these placements be defined? What should it involve (only
teaching, or also training, job-shadowing etc)?
May 2013 A144
Friday 28 September, 2012
9.30-15.00
ECORYS Brussels Office
PARTICIPANTS
Name
Organisation
Agnes Roman
ETUCE
Joke van der Leeuw-Roord
European Association of History Educators
Nina Rekola
CIMO
Sara Pagliai
Italian NA
Manoëlle Joos
Belgium NA
Stefan Schaaf
PAD
Dimák Dávid
Comenius coordinator HU
Matt Cresswell
EU Programmes, UK
Katerina Kapounova-Bavorova
European Commission
Margarita Lago
European Commission
Heiko Kastner
ZSB (Expert)
Prof. Dr. Hartmut Wenzel
ZSB (Expert)
Laura Veart
Ecorys
Neil McDonald
Ecorys
May 2013 A145
Saturday 29 September, 2012
9.30-15.00
ECORYS Brussels Offices
PARTICIPANTS
Name
Organisation
Maria
Henriksson
Pavlidou
Despoina
Sylvana
Zammit Pulo
Sanja
Čop-Barbarić
Wendy
Rush
Melinda
Holczinger
Emilia
Marina Alexe
William
O'Gorman
Sharalyn
Brumwell
Luis Filipe
Gomes Neto
Ivana
Pavloic
Diana
Oliveira
Katerina
Margarita
KapounovaBavorova
Lago
Heiko
Solängsskolan,
Gävle, Sweden
4TH
Veroia
High
School
Sweden
Malta
Kastner
Department
of
Education, Malta
Ekonomska
škola
Mije
Mirkovića
Rijeka
Beverley
School
and
Service
for
pupils with Autism
Dr. Mező FerencThúry
György
secondary grammar
and
vocational
school
Scoala cu cls. I-VIII
Vadu-Parului,
Prahova
Kalajoki
municipality
Irlam
and
Cadishead College
EB23 Padre Alberto
Neto
don
Lovre
Katic
Elementary School
Agrupamento
de
Escolas Guilherme
Stephens
European
Commission
European
Commission
ZSB
Prof. Dr. Hartmut
Wenzel
ZSB
Research Team
Laura
Veart
Ecorys
Research Team
Neil
McDonald
Ecorys
Research Team
Greece
Croatia
UK
Hungary
Romania
Finland
UK
Portugal
Croatia
Portugal
Research Team
May 2013 A146
Workshop with stakeholders - Friday 29th September 2012
Main findings of the workshop with stakeholders which included six NAs
(UK, DE, FI, HU, BE, IT), the ETUCE and Euroclio.
Languages/subjects
 Overcoming the language issue is not a major concern; teachers will only volunteer if
they are confident to teach in a second language or can teach in their own native
language. Support in language learning should be provided as part of a 3-6 month lead
in period to the mobility period.
 The issue applies in varying degree to different subjects (e.g. more relevant to
history/literature than to science or maths perhaps)
 Testing language skills of the teachers who propose to undertake mobility is an option,
but would limit potential demand. In any case it should be left to the school to select the
teacher, using whatever method that see fit.
 Teachers and schools themselves are best placed to address any issues that arise within a
specific long-term mobility project, but sufficient flexibility needs to be allowed to make
this feasible.
 Experience of other schemes including those run by PAD and the Fulbright programme in
Finland was that personal circumstances did make long term mobility inaccessible to
many teachers.
 However it is not possible to design a scheme which can support all teachers, since,
realistically, not enough money could be provided to support families fully etc.
 In the end it’s up to individual choice, but it should be possible to ensure that if teachers
did want to take their partners/families they have the opportunity, as far as resources
allow (there is also a ‘quality vs. quantity’ issue here that needs to be balanced).
 If teachers can take their home salary with them, than that might also help to address
this issue and in most cases should be sufficient without any additional allowances for
dependents.
 Top-up payments may be required where there are significant differences in costs of
living between home and destination countries.
Replacement teachers
 Support will be needed for replacement teachers. In the UK, 30% of the cost of replacing
a teacher has been available from national resources in the past. The general consensus
was that some support would be required, but practically NAs felt it would be too
expensive to meet the costs in full.
 Schools are creative and could meet some or all of these costs by various mechanisms,
either from any lump sum payment from the Commission into a project (management
component) and/or by using other sources such as Structural Funds.
 Reciprocity is a possibility but has limited potential if it is synchronous.
 Different schools across Europe are in different positions according to legal structures and
financial autonomy, which affects the ability to use project funding for replacement
teachers or to employ a replacement teacher (e.g. not all schools have a bank account).
Financial
 Lumps sums for the preparation period would be useful, since there needs to be an
element of getting to know each other, potential for visits or web meetings to ensure
there is a trusted relationship first before the mobility period takes place.
 It was agreed that the most appropriate way of funding the teachers whilst on the
mobility period was if they kept their existing salary. This would mean that their pension
May 2013 A147
and other social security associated with their salary would be kept. This is the model
used in other schemes such as Jules Verne and Fulbright.
 It is important to ascertain from national ministries whether it is feasible to pay salaries
and keep benefits and social entitlements intact for the period of any long-term mobility.
Structure and partnering
 The model of exchange or mobility period would be within a project or partnership
approach, it was felt by the group that this approach would diminish the risks associated
with long term mobility as the schools and teachers will already know each other.
 There needs to be some sort of management fee included in the budget, so that the
schools have some financial assistance with the extra admin burden or leave it more
flexible so that partnerships can allocate some of the budget to management.
 Suggestions that the matching of the schools could take place through etwinning or a
similar portal.
 The structure and process of a new action needs to be innovative - there needs to be
something new about this programme.
 The idea that teachers could potentially go to other institutions such as teaching training
colleges was generally supported. Flexibility for the individual was seen as important.
 Comenius pupil mobility provides some useful lessons, in terms of the added value of
learning agreements, building the trust of parents and taking care of issues such as
insurance cover.
May 2013 A148
Workshop with teachers - Saturday 30th September
Views from teacher representatives from the following countries; Croatia,
Finland, Greece, Hungary, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Sweden and the UK
Languages/subjects
 This is a significant challenge and is linked to the need to teach in line with the
curriculum.
 Need to have some language training – 2 weeks prior to going on the mobility but this
would require the teacher’s level of a second language to be quite good already. The InService training should provide the skills a teacher would need to teach a particular
subject in a different language.
 In Finland and Germany other subject lessons are taught in English. Hungary has schools
which are bilingual Hungarian/English.
 Some kind of selection process based on language ability might be necessary, although a
number of other solutions for addressing the potential lack of language competences in
some languages (i.e. the lack of other countries learning Finnish, Latvian or Slovak) were
suggested including;
- Team teaching with one country teacher and a teacher from another country
might work well and over come the need to know every word in another language.
- Job shadowing would also be another way of ensuring a teacher was supported in
a foreign school.
 Webinars are a good way of meeting the class and teacher before the mobility takes
place.
 The groups agreed they would need to choose the classes of students that would be
taught by a foreign teacher carefully – i.e. not those in their final year before exams. The
teachers felt some year groups/classes may benefit more i.e. most appropriate stage in
their education.
 The base salary needs to be retained during mobility to ensure continuous service and
access to pensions and other entitlements.
 Some additional allowances should be available to cover any gaps in the cost of living
between different countries.
 The teachers felt that a year would be feasible to take your family, although they did say
it depended in personal circumstances - some families would do it, but not all could.
 Overall it is likely that the strongest demand would be from younger teachers (without
families) or older teachers who’s children have left home.
 Must ensure families are not discriminated against, but it is not necessary to support
families directly i.e. through specific additional funding for dependents and the system
should be as simple as possible.
Replacement Staff
 Direct exchanges would be difficult for the majority of teachers, other options such as
spending time in each school together or undertaking mobility periods within a group of
schools would be preferable.
 Schools would need to be provided with the full amount of funding needed to replace the
teacher that goes on the mobility. The consensus was that there is no additional money in
education across the EU that can pay for extra teachers at this time.
May 2013 A149
Finances
 Teachers would need to keep their base salary otherwise it has implications for their
pensions and social security.
 Participating schools should be given funding as a contribution to their management
costs.
 Where schools are not in a position to manage funds (e.g. where they have no bank
account) it might be possible to use charitable bodies to mange project funding, for
example on behalf of a project partnership.
Structure and partnering
 Some countries such as Portugal and Croatia are limited by the amount of leave they can
take in the academic year. This highlighted that there are a number of national (legal)
issues to be resolved.
 There are issues in some countries as to who can hire new teachers i.e. the local
government or regional authority not always the school. The question then is where
would the replacement money go? To the regional administration not the school?
 It was agreed a 6 month lead in time to prepare for a mobility visit (perhaps within a
partnership) would be required.
 Head teacher’s support and ‘buy in’ is really important. The programme must sell the
benefits of the mobility period to the sending and receiving school, otherwise teachers will
not be able to undertake these sorts of mobility periods.
 International coordination/development officers and international policies in schools are
becoming more common and would help to support his kind of initiative. However, overall
it seemed that participation in international projects was dependent on the enthusiasm of
the individual.
 Qualified teachers with experience, but who are currently unemployed could be employed
to replace teachers who go abroad for a mobility period. Thus supporting the EC’s greater
priority of tackling unemployment.
 The teachers were interested in the possibilities of undertaking periods of mobility in
other institutions other than educational institutions. Suggestions included NHS in the UK
or industry placements, which related to the subject a teacher taught.
 Generally flexibility within the action was supported; this would ensure the maximum
amount of teachers would be able to participate.
 Mobility needs to be embedded in the curriculum not ‘an extra’.
May 2013 A150
Annex Six: EU mobility schemes
May 2013 A151
The figure below illustrates the diversity of the current EU mobility schemes administered by
various DGs. Certain elements of these schemes may also offer lessons for any potential
new long-term EU-wide mobility scheme.
Figure: Mobility schemes within the EU
The Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) is the EU's principal funding mechanism for
improving education and supporting the lifelong learning agenda within European Union.
The programme aims to modernise education and training systems across the 31 European
countries that are participating in the programme 115, primarily through transnational
learning mobility and cooperation projects. The programme budget for 2007 – 2013 is €7
billion which funds a range of activities including exchanges, study visits and networking.
There are four specific programmes within the wider LLP targeting different education levels
from schools to adult education. All four promote mobility in some form or other; both for
staff and for learners, details of the mobility activities supported by the programme vary
from short term exchanges to long-term study or work periods in the other country.
One of the education oriented programmes containing special provisions for supporting
mobility of educational staff is the Comenius programme, which is intended to “address the
teaching and learning needs of all those in pre-school and school education up to the level
of the end of upper secondary education and the institutions and organisations providing
such education” 116.
115
Eligible countries are the 27 EU Member States, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, and
Turkey. Participation by Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Swiss
Confederation is defined in the annual call for proposals.
116
See Official Journal of the European Union, Decision No 1720/2006/EC of the European
parliament and of the council of 15 November 2006 establishing an action programme in the
field of lifelong learning.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:327:0045:0068:en:PDF
May 2013 A152
Within the Comenius programme a special action is devoted to contribute to the
professional development of teachers and educational staff: Comenius In-Service
Training (IST). The objective of this action is the improvement of the European dimension
of teacher training as well as the quality of pedagogical approaches and school management
by enabling teachers and other school education staff to undertake training of up to six
weeks in a country other than in which the participant normally works. The training can take
the form of a structured course for school education staff with a strong European focus in
terms of subject matter and profile of trainers and participants, participation in European
conferences and seminars or job-shadowing in a school or in another relevant organisation
involved in school education.
Another Comenius action intended to promote assistantships for future teachers is
Comenius Assistantships, which formerly focussed purely on future language teachers.
The main objective of the Comenius Assistantships are firstly to give future teachers the
opportunity of gaining a better understanding of the European dimension of teaching and
learning, to enhance their knowledge of foreign languages, of other European countries and
their education systems and to improve their teaching skills. Secondly, the assistantships
are intended to contribute to the improvement of the language skills of the pupils at the
host schools and increase both their motivation to learn languages and their interest in the
assistant’s country and culture. Another key aspect of the Comenius assistantships is their
potential to introduce or reinforce a European dimension into the host schools and their
local community. The duration of assistantships supported by the European Commission is
between three and ten months.
The table below summarises the main characteristics of these two Comenius actions.
Table: Comenius actions for school staff
Programme
Activities
Benefits highlighted by
recent impact
117
assessments
Financial Support
Comenius
Assistantships
Work placement in a
school abroad for future
teachers.
The duration is between
three and ten months
Assistants receive a flat-rate
grant to help cover their
preparation, travel and living
costs while abroad. These
rates depend on the country
to be visited but range
between €3000 -€5800 for 13
weeks with a subsequent
reduced weekly rate
thereafter.
Comenius InService Training
(IST)
Structured training
courses, European
seminars and conferences
and job shadowing, work
placements, observation
periods.
The duration of the activity
could be up to six weeks
but those lasting more than
two to three weeks are the
exception.
Programme significantly
contributes to the
personal and professional
development of
participants and to the
employability of
participants. The duration
is flexible but appears to
be less advantageous if
the placements last less
than six months.
Increased knowledge in
area of specialisation,
knowledge and skills in
other areas and
opportunity to reflect on
teaching and working
methods, increase of
foreign language
knowledge, intercultural
understanding, and
contact with colleagues.
Travel, course or seminar
fees are supported based
upon actual expenditure.
Living costs are supported by
a flat rate allowance
determined by the duration of
training and the country in
which the activity takes place;
linguistic preparation is
supported by lump-sums
117
Study of the impact of Comenius In-Service Training Activities (Kassel 2010) and Study
of the impact of Comenius Assistantships GES (Kassel 2010)
May 2013 A153
The key features to note here are that Comenius work placements provide mobility
opportunities of the longest duration (up to 10 months), but only apply to assistantships for
future teachers, i.e. those who are not yet employed as fully qualified teachers 118. The
component aimed at practising teachers (In-Service Training) is of shorter duration
(commonly two or three weeks) and focuses on a mixture of activities (including work
placements).
Within the Comenius programme there is not yet an action for long-term mobility for
educational staff other than future teachers. There is therefore a potential gap in terms of
opportunities for qualified teachers to undertake work placements of a significant duration
for example (at least six weeks and probably 12 weeks and upwards). This does not confirm
demand for such opportunities; since it might be argued that because most in-service
mobility is biased towards the lower end of the duration range, there is limited scope for
longer mobility. However this is not necessarily the case, since the types of activities on
offer in IST (courses, conferences, job shadowing and seminars) are consistent with
relatively short-term stays abroad. It is therefore useful to review some of the detailed
findings concerning duration and types of activities within Comenius.
The findings of the recent impact study of Comenius In-service Training55 give some
information on the types and the duration of the activities under the actual guidelines. The
survey data suggests the majority (89% of respondents) applied for a training course and
only about 5% took part in a seminar/conference, or carried out a period of job-shadowing.
The duration of the Comenius In-Service Training activities was on average 11 days in the
case of training courses; 12 days for job-shadowing and seven days in the case of European
seminars or conferences (see Table 3.2, below).
Table: Duration by type of Comenius In-service Training activity
Duration
Training
Job
European
Courses
shadowing conference/
seminar
Total
Up to 7 days
24
29
72
27
8-12 days
52
25
19
49
13 days and more
24
46
9
24
100
100
100
100
Count (n)
2833
169
178
3180
Average duration
(days)
10.9
12.1
7.4
10.8
Total
Source: Data provided by the European Commission
In most cases the mobility period took place during the holidays (62%) or overlapped termtime and the holiday period (6%). While training courses were usually undertaken in the
holidays (71%), it is in the nature of the type of training that job-shadowing has to be
carried out during term-time. However, because of the different time frames for holidays
that apply across Europe, a substantial proportion of trainees were able to use their own
holidays to observe colleagues in other countries at work. More than half of the participants
in European conferences and seminars attended the event during term-time.
From this evidence we can conclude that although Comenius supports in-service training of
up to six weeks, in practice training periods of more than two or three weeks are the
exception, with the average training lasting 11 days. It was even shorter in the case of
118
These opportunities overwhelmingly benefit trainee language teachers
May 2013 A154
seminars (seven days on average) and slightly longer in the case of a job shadowing (12
days).
Comenius Individual Pupil mobility is a European initiative allowing secondary school
pupils to spend from 3 - 10 months in a host school abroad. The action aims to develop
pupils understanding of the diversity of European cultures and languages and to help them
acquire competences necessary for their personal development. The initiative also aims to
strengthen cooperation between participating schools and allows them to recognise the
studies undertaken at the partner school abroad. Secondary schools that are located in
countries which are participating in LLP (except Cyprus, Germany, Ireland and United
Kingdom) can apply for grants for organising Individual Pupil Mobility. There is a
prerequisite that these schools must be or must have been involved in a Comenius School
Partnership. The participants are selected by the schools and must be at least 14 years old
and be enrolled in full-time education.
Sending schools apply for funding from their National Agency and the sending school is
responsible for managing and distributing the funds.
The grant contributes to the following costs:





Administrative costs incurred by the sending school;
Cost of linguistic preparation of the pupil;
Administrative costs incurred by the host school, including costs for mentoring;
One return journey for the pupil (domestic travel included);
A monthly allowance for the pupil.
Costs related to compulsory training for pupils and teachers will be paid directly by the
National Agency.
The operation of the initiative is facilitated by ensuring a range of measures are put in
place. For example the host and sending school must nominate contact teachers and
mentors for the pupils before the mobility takes place. The host school must sign up to a
Learning Agreement and the host family, where the pupil will stay, must sign up to a Host
Family Charter which lays down the expectations and responsibilities of the family whilst
they are hosting the foreign pupil.
Comenius Regio Partnerships adopt a different approach based on linking together two
partner regions (involving local or regional authorities) as well as well as schools and other
relevant partners. The main purpose is not to involve pupils directly, but rather to focus on
"structured cooperation" between participating regions. There is scope within these
partnerships for exchanges of school education staff, however at this stage the extent and
duration of this type of mobility is unclear and will be explored in the next phase of
research.
A number of relevant staff mobility schemes operate in other parts of the LLP, for example
Grundtvig for staff in the adult learning sector (comprising visits and exchanges,
assistantships, in-service training and learning partnerships). These opportunities provide
for mobility periods ranging from five days (for training) to 45 weeks (Assistantships).
Evidence from Grundtvig 119 suggests that many beneficiaries are taking time out from their
current job, with a view to enhancing their professional development and employability.
They are often not practising teachers and so have greater flexibility in terms of
accommodating a mobility period, than might be the cases for school teachers for example.
Funding for Grundtvig depends on the destination country but can be in the range €10,000
to €15,000 per year. As an example, in the UK there are 30-40 applicants a year for six
119
Interview with UK National Agency for Leonardo, Grundtvig & Transversal Programmes
May 2013 A155
places, a relatively small number. The Grundtvig scheme offers a choice of activity including
teaching, job shadowing, research or simply job seeking (in the UK there are a significant
number of applications from those who are unemployed).
Erasmus for Higher Education staff provides for mobility under two measures: teaching
assignments lasting up to six weeks and training-based secondment periods of five to six
weeks duration. Erasmus also includes the Intensive Programme (IP), which focuses on
joint research and curriculum development (for example to establish new trans-national
joint or double degrees).
The other LLP component of interest in terms of long-term school staff mobility is the
Leonardo da Vinci action, which enables Vocational Education and Training (VET)
professionals to spend between one and six weeks on a period of mobility. Again, in
common with Grundtvig and Erasmus actions above, this activity may have some lessons to
offer for any new scheme for school education staff, primarily in the area of practical
implementation and funding models. There may also be lessons to learn from, for example,
the call under the Youth in Action programme for the mobility of youth workers (in 2010
and 2011) 120, where there appears to evidence that some potential beneficiaries considered
the minimum of a two month mobility period to be too long 121.
120
121
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/youth/funding/2010/index_en.php
Information from DG EAC
May 2013 A156
Annex Seven: Programme fiches
May 2013 A157
French-German Primary School Teacher Exchanges
Background
This annual exchange programme is available to primary school teachers from France
and Germany, implemented in the context of agreements between the French
Education Ministry and the agents for cultural affairs of the Federal Republic of
Germany under the Treaty on Franco-German cooperation.
The programme aims to familiarise children of primary school age with the German
and French languages, also helping to improve the language skills of participating
teachers and introduce the teaching of foreign languages in elementary or primary
schools. Participants can also collect knowledge about a different school system;
deepen their knowledge of the neighbouring country and its culture and expand their
personal and professional horizons.
Overall responsibility lies with the Franco-German Youth Office (DFJW), though it is
implemented by the participating federal states (Baden-Wuerttemberg, Berlin,
Brandenburg, Hamburg, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North RhineWestphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia)
plus the French Education Ministry. The DFJW coordinates and monitors the
programme.
Host schools from both countries are selected at a meeting of the “distribution
committee” composed of representatives from German ministries, the French
Education Ministry and the Franco-German Youth Office.
Once they have
responsible for all
German ministries
and for everything
starting work in France, the French Ministry of Education is
official matters in relation to the teaching in French schools. The
are responsible for leave of absence, continued payment of salaries
else associated with recruitment and employment.
Description of activities
The German participants usually teach German as a foreign language at French
primary schools, with knowledge of French deemed desirable, but not essential. In
France, the participants usually teach children in years four and five and in Germany
years three or four. The activities begin in early September (the start of the school
year) and last for one academic year.
There are mandatory introductory and accompanying events for the programme
participants, which are carried out by the DFJW in collaboration with the other
agencies involved. These include:
•
•
•
•
•
an information conference
an educational introductory course
a bi-national language course (joint course)
a bi-national seminar
an evaluation meeting
All participants must submit a final report at the end of the school year.
May 2013
A158
The German teachers are tasked with introducing children to German, who often have
no prior knowledge of the language, whilst taking account of the realities of the French
school system,. For schools where German teachers have already been employed or
French teachers have been teaching German, they can build on existing knowledge.
Participants should teach the language of their host country when they return home.
Findings/ Lessons
The participants continue to be paid by their home authorities for the duration of the
scheme. The Franco-German Youth Office pays some travel expenses, though the
difference between the flat-rate reimbursement of travel expenses by the DFJW and
actual travel costs must be borne by participants. The same is true of all costs arising
from moving to France.
Usually living arrangements must be made independently by participants, though the
school may help in some cases (sometimes it is possible to take over from a former
participant). In some (rare) cases the provision of an official residence is possible.
Key aspects of the scheme include:
•
•
•
•
•
focus on primary schools
structured, on-going support programme
flat-rate reimbursement of travel expenses
continuation of salary payment by the sending country
potential for greater individual and institutional impacts from long-term
commitment
Contacts
Deutsch-Französisches Jugendwerk (DFJW)
Referat Interkulturelle Aus- und Fortbildung
Dominique Granoux
Molkenmarkt 1, 10179 Berlin
Tel.: +49 30 288 757-22
[email protected]
www.dfjw.org/grundschullehreraustausch
May 2013 A159
Distinguished Fulbright Awards in Teaching Program
Background
The Fulbright Center in Finland is a private organisation which is funded by a number
of sponsors, including the Finnish Government, the US State Department and the
Canadian Government. They are the US State Department’s partner in Finland to
deliver the international teacher mobility programme on the ground in Finland, they
pay for the local recruitment costs (in Finland).
Previously, the Center was engaged in setting up one to one mobility periods or
exchanges of teachers. These kinds of exchanges had many benefits, as the teacher
not only exchanged schools, but also accommodation which could make the logistics
much easier. However, this was sometimes challenging, because if the teachers did
not want to, or could not exchange accommodation then finding additional
accommodation was often a challenge. The Center was also finding that there were a
lot of very good candidates, but if you were unable to find a good match (i.e. a
teacher in the same subject area and with other similar requirements) they were not
able to take part in the programme.
The difficulty was how this programme could be changed to meet the needs of the
teachers better and ensure more of the good candidates were able to participate, this
was a particular challenge because it was a State Department programme, so could
not be changed solely by the Finnish.
The first step towards making the changes was to consult previous participants in the
programme, as well as schools and local authorities. Those questioned said that they
wanted more flexibility to do what they wanted during the period in the U.S. Teachers
were interested in researching certain aspects of teaching in the country and
comparing it with their own system, they were also looking to benchmark good
practice and perhaps undertake some study whilst they were there.
This information was presented to the State Department and the original Fulbright
programme was changed, as the State Department were aware that a number of
countries had had similar issues. So the new programme, ‘Distinguished Fulbright
Awards in teaching’ was launched.
Description of scheme
The Distinguished Fulbright Awards in Teaching has now been running for four years
and they are sending approximately four people a year to the US. The programme
covers all costs including living expenses, accommodation, fees at the institution the
teacher attends and full travel costs. This means that teacher don’t necessarily need
to have a salary or keep their salary from their school as was required by the other
Fulbright post to post programme. Teachers are enrolled in an academic institution in
the US and they are able to undertake a mixture of study, research and spend some
time in a school.
The aim of the Fulbright Center is now to expand the programme, they have the
infrastructure to send four teachers a year and they now want to increase the
numbers – economies of scale.
The Center are keen to monitor the impact the programme is having, they ensure all
May 2013 A160
teachers complete two questionnaires during the course of the period of mobility to
assess how it has impacted on them and their future career. They stay in touch with
all Alumni and have a database, so they can track teacher’s careers over the years.
The countries which also participate in this programme are as follows; Argentina,
India, Mexico, Morocco, Singapore, South Africa.
http://www.fulbrightteacherexchange.org/program-overview-da
Findings/lessons
•
•
•
•
•
Programmes should evolve if they are no longer fit for purpose or outdated.
Once the robust systems for these kinds of exchanges are in place they can be
expanded
This programme is based on quality not quantity and the hope is that good
quality candidates who have a good quality experience will have a greater
impact on the education system/school/pupils.
Monitoring and evaluation are important and should be an integral part of any
programme, especially in terms of long term impact.
The funding structure means teachers do not have to leave a position or the
school does not have to fund the teacher as the programme covers the costs.
Contacts/interviewees/references
Terhi Molsa - Fulbright Center Finland
http://www.fulbright.fi/
May 2013 A161
Fulbright Teacher Exchange
Background
The Fulbright programme has established over 50 years ago as an international
flagship exchange programme sponsored by the U.S Government; although in recent
years funding from the U.S side has declined as a result of budget pressures. The aim
is simply to provide opportunities for teachers to undertake exchanges with colleagues
from other countries for up to one academic year.
Description of activities
U.S teachers exchange positions with a teacher in an eligible country for a period of a
minimum of one term, so in that sense the programme is firmly in the realm of longterm mobility. This method of matching up teachers who wish to spend time in
another country solves a number of common barriers to mobility. For example it
provides institutions with an instant replacement and therefore there is no need to
invest in additional cover or support whilst their usual teacher is away. The institution
and students also benefit from having an international teacher in terms of global
awareness and potentially the opportunity for students to learn a foreign language
from a native teacher. It is also easier for the teachers if accommodation can be
swapped or at the very least the teachers can provide support to each other in finding
accommodation in the destination country.
Teachers from the following countries are able to participate in the exchange
programme; the Czech Republic, France, UK, Hungary, India, Mexico, Switzerland; the
agreement is between each individual country and the US. Full time America teachers
can apply for a year long or semester long exchange with a teacher in one of the
partner countries. It is the Fulbright Commission that is responsible for matching
American candidates with candidates in the partner countries. It should be noted
however, that the numbers of participants in this programme are fairly small. The UK
has the largest number of exchange places with 22 a year; the other six countries
have 10 places or less.
An important feature of the Fulbright programme is that each country which
exchanges with the U.S is able to stipulate their own specification for the teachers
they require i.e. India requests English or Maths teachers at secondary school level
and Hungary asks for teachers of English as a foreign language.
Exchange teachers are granted a leave of absence from the school in their home
country and retain their usual pay and benefits, so that their normal salary covers the
cost of their daily expenses whilst abroad. The U.S Department of State provides
supplementary maintenance allowance to teachers from the Czech Republic, Hungary,
Mexico and India to cover the additional living costs in the U.S ($33,000 for a year
long exchange). All exchange teachers also receive a travel award which covers the
cost of their travel to their exchange country.
Findings/ Lessons
• Post to post can be extremely successful and efficient in terms of solving
teacher replacement issues if the right match were found. However, it can
also cause numerous difficulties if a teacher does not fit into the school or
accommodation is not appropriate.
• Countries can request specific subject teachers according to their own
requirements.
• Supplementary maintenance allowance to account for differences in cost of
May 2013 A162
•
living – lump sum with no variation
High individual and institutional impacts from long-term mobility and
commitment. Teachers who have taken part will continue to be involved in
international projects for the rest of their careers. Often supporting other
teachers to participate in mobility activities.
Contacts
Fulbright UK/US Teacher Exchange
British Council
Norwich Union House
7 Fountain Street
Belfast
BT1 5EG
[email protected]
May 2013 A163
Jules Verne Programme
Background
The Jules Verne International mobility for teaching staff Programme was launched in
2009. The programme provides mobility opportunities for primary and secondary
school teachers, who want to teach in a school in another country for one academic
year. The programme has benefited 118 teachers in its first year, 160 in its second
and 102 in 2011-2012 (against an annual objective of 350 participants for that
year) 122.
Description of scheme
The overarching aim is to contribute to the “internationalisation of the educative
system”. The programme also contributes to EU level objectives such as to promote
cultural and linguistic diversity. The Jules Verne programme complements mobility
opportunities provided by the Lifelong Learning Programme (e.g. complementing a
Comenius grant).
The other objectives are to:
• Take part in the daily life of a foreign school;
• Increase teachers’ skills and knowledge, particularly language skills for
primary school teachers;
• Contribute to academies’ (“teaching regions”) international policies by
developing exchanges and partnerships through the staff on mobility;
• Develop the reciprocal availability of foreign teachers in French schools;
• Increase bilateral staff exchanges;
Description of the scheme
Whilst the Jules Verne scheme is not an exchange programme (in which teacher would
only undertake a mobility period on a reciprocal basis with the host institution), it is
intended that the Jules Verne Programme is embedded in a “global movement of
increasing bilateral exchanges”, and academies are encouraged to offer placements for
foreign teachers for a similar duration as that of Jules Verne mobility periods. Host
countries and institutions should be chosen according to wider internationalisation
strategies and cooperation programmes.
The basic principle of the mobility period is that teachers undertake whatever activity
their counterparts have to do in the host country, so that upon their return, primary
school teachers should be able to get involved in language activities at primary
schools; and secondary school teachers to deliver / get involved in non-language
courses in a foreign language. What they teach and in which language depends on
individual agreement between the home and host institutions.
122
Circulaire
n°
2011-058
http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid55719/menc1106349c.html
du
23-3-2011
available
at
May 2013 A164
Teachers are seconded to the host country for a full academic year. There is no need
for teachers to be involved in language teaching. To the contrary, non-language
teachers from vocational high schools (lycées technologiques et professionels) are a
priority target of the programme. Language teachers cannot teach the host country’s
language during their mobility period if that is the language they teach in their home
country (e.g. A German teacher from France cannot teach German in Germany).
Prior to their mobility, participants receive two-week training course organised by the
Ministry of Education, 123 focusing on interculturalism, pedagogies in partner countries
and international mobility.
The programme is open to primary and secondary school teachers from state schools,
covering any subject.
Other requirements include;
•
•
•
•
Teachers must have level B2 of Common European Framework of Reference
for Languages in the host country’s language and/or in English, Spanish,
German, Italian or Portuguese (the five languages most commonly taught in
France).
Teachers must pledge to “integrate” what they have learnt during their mobility
period into their teaching and to participate to the internationalisation of the
educative system.
Teachers must go back to their home academy (teaching regions) after their
mobility period, but not necessarily to their home schools. They may be sent to
a new position which better suits their profile (e.g. in bilingual / international
schools).
Teachers must provide an activity report upon their return.
Apart from the transport costs of the teachers (not their family), there is no specific
funding for the teachers undertaking the mobility period (no specific allowance).
Teachers are guaranteed a teaching position in their home teaching region upon their
return.
Findings/lessons
•
•
•
•
Jules Verne is a new and experimental programme; administrative procedures
could be simplified.
It is closely linked to the French Governments aim of internationalisation of the
education system
Long term mobility needs a longer preparatory period to ensure sustainability,
potentially six months (from March to depart in September).
It is a very innovative programme, which attracts Chinese, American and
Brazilian universities.
Contacts
Michel Le Devehat
123
DREIC, Direction des relations européennes et internationales et de la coopération.
http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid1181/direction-des-relations-europeennes-internationales-cooperatio.html
May 2013 A165
French National Ministry of Education
François Neuville,
Délégué Académique aux Relations Européennes, Internationales et à la Coopération
(DAREIC)
–
May 2013 A166
Nordplus Junior
Background
Nordplus is the Nordic Council’s lifelong learning programme, it was set up in the later
1980’s and in 2008 the Nordplus programme was reorganised into a framework
programme and Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were invited to take part as equal
partners. In the 2012- 2016 programming period Nordplus Junior will receive
approximately 21-23% of the total annual Nordplus budget, which equate to about 2
million euros.
Nordplus Junior Programme 2012 -2016 has a number of specific aims:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Strengthening and developing co-operation and creating networks of preschools, primary, secondary and upper secondary schools (general and
vocational) in the participating countries
Promoting the development of quality, creativity and innovation in education
Learning for all; to promote equal opportunities in inclusive education
Strengthening the Nordic languages and promoting knowledge and
understanding about Nordic cultures, languages and ways of life in schools, and
in daily life
Promoting knowledge and understanding of Nordic and Baltic languages and
cultures
Promoting co-operation between schools (including pre-schools) and working
life
The number of applicants to the programme has been in steady decline over the past
few years. The latest Nordplus evaluation 124 states that the reasons for this might be
that traditional mobility schemes are not as popular as they were and that there may
be some connection to the current economic climate. The introduction of a new online
application system (ARS) is also thought to have had a small impact. According to the
evaluation, in 2009 there were just over 200 Nordplus Junior applications will 139
activities being funded. This number includes 17 preparatory visits, 69 class
exchanges and 43 individual exchanges, which could either involve teachers (or other
members of staff) or individual pupils. There are a significant number of individual
mobility events but the coordinator of the programme has confirmed that very rarely
do these mobility periods last more than three weeks.
Description of Activities
Eligible Nordplus Junior activities include;
• Teacher or staff exchange
124
Nordplus Junior Evaluation 2011: Bjørn Stensaker, Jorunn Spord Borgen, Kazimierz Musial and Vera
Schwach
May 2013 A167
•
•
•
Preparatory visits
Class exchanges
Pupil exchange and work experience
This programme is institutionally based; any application to participate in Nordplus
activities must come from an institution not an individual. Nordplus Junior Mobility
activities require two institutions from at least two countries. The length of activity is
flexible from one week up to one year and can involve individual teachers or pupils or
whole class groups. This flexibility appears to be an important factor in mobility
programmes in general, giving participants the ability to fit the mobility periods
around existing commitments.
To take part in the programme the school or institution must be based in one of the
following countries Demark, Estonia, Faroe Island, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Latvia,
Lithuania, Norway, Sweden and Aland and can include an level of institution from preschools to upper secondary schools to apprentice programmes.
The grant for mobility activities is allocated according to set maximum rates for travel
and accommodation/board. Nordplus Junior does not provide accommodation grants
for pupils, but allocates a lump sum mobility grant which enables schools to use
surplus money for other costs in the mobility activity such as covering the cost of
accommodation for pupils. For projects and networks 25% of the total approved cost
must be self financed. In addition to cash funding, in-kind contributions, such as the
number of working hours put into the Nordplus Junior network/project, can be
included in the self financing.
Findings/Lessons
• Flexibility of activities and the potential for longer timescales
• However, long term mobility is often not taken up, perhaps because there is
no specific provision for it.
• Institutional restrictions such as the cost of replacement teachers, also
limits participation in longer term mobility. Exchanges are often used if
teachers go for more than 1 week (usually maximum of three weeks).
• An institutional approach has many advantages such as embedding long
term collaborations.
• Lump sum mobility grants (linked to the simplification agenda)
Contact
Rosveta Melzer
International Programme Office for Education and Training - IPK
Box 22007, 104 22 Stockholm
Visitor address: Kungsbroplan 3A, 2 tr
Telephone: +46 (0) 8 453 72 00
Fax: +46 (0) 8 453 72 01
Email: [email protected]
www.programkontoret.se
May 2013 A168
This document has been prepared for the European Commission. However, it reflects
the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any
use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Le présent document a été élaboré pour la Commission européenne. Toutefois, les
avis qui y sont exprimés sont ceux des seuls auteurs et la Commission ne saurait être
tenue pour responsable de l’utilisation qui serait faite des informations figurant dans le
document.
Dieses Dokument wurde im Auftrag der Europäischen Kommission erstellt. Die
Verantwortung für den Inhalt tragen jedoch allein die Verfasser; die Kommission
haftet nicht für die weitere Verwendung der darin enthaltenen Angaben.
May 2013
A169
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• at the European Union’s representations or delegations.
You can obtain their contact details on the Internet
(http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal
of the European Union and reports of cases before the Court
of Justice of the European Union):
• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European
Union (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
NC-31-12-396-EN-N

Feasibility of a long-term School Education Staff Mobility Action

Transcription

Similar documents

Moderne Mobilität mit derDB Rent GmbH

UWAGA: PONIŻEJ ZAŁĄCZAMY PRZYKŁADOWY ZESTAW

Samsung SPH-a680

Untitled - Universität Bielefeld

Survey Solutions with a Human Touch

A sustainable transport vision for Germany

The Big Obstacle_Flyer_2016

Maintaining Mobility: Review of Adaptive Products, Braces and

guidelines

The Business Value of Trust

SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY REPORT 2015