REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION - Interim evaluation report on the results achieved and on the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the implementation of the second phase of the Community action programme in the field of education 'Socrates' {SEC(2004)230}

Summary

1. Background to the programme

The current Socrates programme (2000-2006) [1] follows on from the first phase of this programme (1995-1999) [2]. While it retains the same principal objectives, it is redefined to make it more easily comprehensible for the public and to allow greater account to be taken of the political and operational priorities related to the principle of lifelong learning.

[1] Decision No 253/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council - OJ L28, 03.02.2000.

[2] Decision No 819/1995/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council - OJ L87, 20.04.1995.

In addition to the 15 Member States, participants include three EFTA countries and 12 associated candidate countries.

The budget for the period in question is EUR 1,850 million, not including the annual contribution from the 15 associated countries. In total, 680 staff, full-time equivalent, are employed in the programme's administration (63 within the Commission, 38 in the Technical Assistance Office and 579 in the National Agencies).

2. General points concerning programme implementation

All of the programme's objectives are relatively clear. However, programme evaluation is made more difficult because of the lack of indicators.

The programme responds well to the challenge of lifelong learning, thanks to its inclusive structure. Its flexibility is reduced, however, by the excessive detail given in the Annex to the Decision in order to clarify the arrangements for implementation.

The types of activity proposed (mainly support for mobility and for cooperation between educational institutions) meet the needs of educationalists and help to fulfil the programme's objectives.

3. Programme management

Socrates is a complex programme consisting of many actions and sub-actions which are managed in different ways. In order to ensure that greater account is taken of national circumstances and to make the programme more accessible to the public, the number of decentralised actions has been increased in the current programme, to the satisfaction of the users and national authorities; according to the reports submitted by the authorities in the participating countries, this decentralisation has brought about a slight increase in efficiency.

All aspects of management have incorporated mechanisms which ensure greater reliability and transparency and reinforce monitoring activities.

A side-effect of these strict controls is to make the system cumbersome for both administrators and users. However, work is currently under way to simplify the process, although this is limited by structural and regulatory constraints which have been strengthened by the recent introduction of the new Financial Regulation. The principle of proportionality should be applied more extensively in order to achieve the required simplification.

A simpler programme structure would ease the administrative burden and lead to greater efficiency.

4. Conclusions on the implementation of the programme's actions

The national reports on programme implementation reflect a very positive opinion of the programme and stress the relevance and usefulness of each of its actions. These views are shared by the users. Opinions are more mixed concerning the fact that not all activities carried out are equally effective: most are very successful but corrective action is needed for some.

4.1. Relevance

The policy objectives and priorities agreed at Community level are reflected in the programme's objectives. They relate mainly to the principle of lifelong learning and the need for high-quality education systems in order to promote, in Europe, a knowledge-based society that is competitive on a global scale. It emerges from the national reports that it would be desirable in future for the programme's actions to play a greater role in terms of European education policy priorities, both on the ground and through the studies which the programme supports.

The programme also takes into account the more specific needs on the ground. These revolve around the following: knowledge of other education systems, exchange of educational experience, creation of the appropriate tools for meeting international educational policy objectives, and support for national policies.

The limitations underlined are related to the fact that the programme is difficult to evaluate and to the lack of a sufficiently hierarchical structure of objectives and their related indicators. They are also due to the excessively hermetic nature of the actions and of the programme compared with other similar Community programmes. The absence of a link between vocational training and education is often mentioned as one of the major structural weaknesses of the two programmes concerned, thus limiting their relevance.

4.2. Efficiency

Based on the ratio of financial resources to results achieved, the programme is very efficient, with a great many activities of a small or medium scale having been carried out. The great diversity of the results achieved means that the field of education is widely covered. Moreover, the distribution of beneficiaries across the 30 participating countries is satisfactory, thus ensuring that the programme has a truly European dimension.

It should be noted that programme administration has become more rigorous at all levels (projects, national and Community management structures). Increased decentralisation of the management of certain actions has made the programme more accessible to the public and has simplified procedures for users.

However, the programme's efficiency is regarded as rather more moderate when comparing the procedures with the nature and scale of most of the activities. The cost in terms of staff to manage and monitor the activities is very high and cannot be reduced under the current circumstances, neither at the level of projects nor at the level of the programme's management structures. The delays at all stages of the procedure are regrettable, although the situation has improved since the beginning of Socrates 2.

Several of the national reports point out that the profusion of actions and sub-actions makes the programme less efficient by discouraging potential users with interesting projects.

4.3. Effectiveness

The programme as a whole is capable of meeting its specific and operational objectives. However, its effectiveness varies according to the type of activity in question.

Mobility activities are highly effective and beneficiaries are largely satisfied with their results. The European added value is significant, in terms of awareness of cultural diversity and greater understanding and tolerance of differences. There is a probable benefit in terms of employability and a definite one in terms of professional skills. Teacher and trainer mobility, which is considered to be highly desirable for all categories of staff, is not as high as it could be, however. Solutions should be sought together with the Member States in order to reduce the obstacles.

Activities involving interinstitutional cooperation are also effective. Partnerships between schools and adult education institutions have become firmly established, as have transnational cooperation projects; their quality has improved, partly because of better information and improved procedures for the selection and monitoring of projects. The networks serve as a single forum for the exchange of experiences and analysis between a very broad range of European institutions.

However, the programme's effectiveness still leaves something to be desired when it comes to the visibility and dissemination of results. The Commission has undertaken to rectify this situation.

Some synergies with other Community programmes have been achieved, empirically, but these remain inadequate.

Preamble

Socrates is the Community action programme in the field of education. It is currently in its second phase, the first having begun in 1995. Before that, individual programmes, the most famous being without doubt the Erasmus programme, had introduced a European dimension to certain areas of education.

Today, all sectors of education are involved, ranging from school education and higher education to adult education. The programme is an effective instrument in meeting the needs of a policy agreed jointly by the Member States. It has adapted successfully to recent developments by incorporating the principles of lifelong learning to which Europe as a whole subscribes. It also plays a part in fulfilling Europe's goal of becoming the most competitive knowledge-based society in the world.

Socrates consists of a series of actions which offer teachers and learners the opportunity to experience scientific, educational and social situations which are different from those they know in their own country or region. Individual mobility and partnerships between institutions of all types allow participants to share a direct and specific European experience: this is the distinctive feature of this Community programme, which helps to develop European citizenship. The ideal of equal opportunities and the goal of supporting linguistic diversity are an integral part of all types of activity.

Socrates has a budget of EUR 1,850 million for the duration of the programme (seven years). Almost 120,000 students per year will go to study in another European country, and almost 25,000 teachers and trainers receive funding to go to another country to work, undertake training or observe how other education systems work. More than 10,000 schools are involved in various multinational cooperation projects every year, and 2,000 universities have signed the Erasmus University Charter. And these figures are rising every year.

For several years, Socrates has played a fundamental role in the preparation for EU enlargement by including the associated countries, most of which join the Union in 2004, in its activities. As a result, 30 countries now take part in the programme.

Socrates is at the heart of a concentric geographical system; the Tempus programme involves the countries of Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Mediterranean, and the new Erasmus Mundus programme will establish links with the rest of the world in the field of higher education. Convergence and the emphasis on quality lend unity and coherence to all of these actions, at the centre of which is the Community's education programme.

By bringing its actions as close as possible to those on the ground, the Socrates programme provides a concrete response to the growing demand for resources to create a united Europe.

1. Introduction

1.1. Justification for the report

Article 14 of Decision No 253/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the second phase of the Community action programme in the field of education 'Socrates' provides for the Commission to submit to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, by 30 June 2004, an interim evaluation report on the results achieved and on the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the implementation of this programme.

1.2. Objectives of the report

The objectives of this report, which is accompanied by a statistical document on the realisations achieved under the programme between 2000 and 2003 [3], are as follows: to verify that results are in line with the programme objectives, improve programme implementation and administration and contribute to the discussion under way on the next generation of education programmes (2007-2013). It is because of this third objective that the deadline for submission of this report has been brought forward to spring 2004.

[3] SEC(2004)230.

1.3. Methodology

The report was drawn up within the Commission. The sources used are the following: the key data on the programme's implementation, the conclusions of the national evaluation reports on programme implementation, also provided for in the Decision and which the 30 participating countries agreed to submit by 30 September 2003 [4], the available conclusions of the external evaluations initiated by the Commission [5] and the data available within the Commission services [6].

[4] Reports have been received from the following countries: Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovenia , Slovak Republic.

[5] The data which could be taken into account at the time the report was written were from the external evaluations of the following actions: Arion, Eurydice, NARIC, Comenius 1 and Comenius 2, impact of the language actions in the Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci programmes.

[6] The budget figures and details of the main activities taken into account in this report are set out in document SEC(2004)230.

The reporting period is from 1 January 2000 to 30 June 2003. While sufficient data are available to evaluate questions related to resources and achievements, it is not possible at this stage to draw meaningful conclusions concerning the results and impact of the programme, as many multiannual projects have not yet been completed. However, certain trends are emerging, and these will be discussed below.

2. Overall context of the programme

2.1. Background

This programme (hereafter referred to as Socrates 2), which runs for seven years (2000-2006), follows on from the first phase of the programme, which covered the period 1995-1999 (hereafter referred to as Socrates 1). It retained the main objectives of Socrates 1 and continued some of the actions. Its structure has been adjusted, however, in order to make it clearer and simpler for users and the various parties involved. Begun in the previous programme, the participation of the partner countries (CEECs, Baltic States, Malta and Cyprus), all accession candidates, has been extended and intensified. Negotiations are under way with Turkey and should lead to this country's participation in the programme in 2004. Education practices have thus gone ahead of policy-making and set up a platform for experimentation in European partnerships for the countries involved.

2.2. Objectives

Article 2 of the Decision sets four general programme objectives, which may be summarised as follows: to strengthen the European dimension in education, to promote an improvement in the knowledge of EU languages, to promote cooperation and mobility in the field of education and to encourage innovation in education.

The Annex to the Decision gives a fairly clear explanation of the specific objectives of each of the eight actions and the individual activities they involve. It should be noted that the specific objectives are generally just an application of the general objectives to the individual areas covered by the programme actions.

2.3. Resources

Article 10 of the Decision sets the budget for the implementation of the programme, for the period in question, at EUR 1,850 million [7]. This does not include the annual contributions of the three EFTA countries and 12 associated countries. The figures for the years 2000 to 2003 are given in the statistical document SEC(2004)230.

[7] It should be noted that this budget will be increased for the period 2004-2006 to take account of the anticipated impact of enlargement.

Staff employed for the implementation of the programme are spread across the three bodies involved in the administration: the Commission, the Technical Assistance Office (TAO) and the National Agencies (NAs). Taking all categories together, the Commission employs 63 staff, the TAO 38 and the NAs 579, full-time equivalent. The programme's low budget seems to be out of proportion with the high number of staff required to manage the activities it funds. This is linked to the special nature of the Socrates programme, which is based on very diverse actions and sub-actions and a wide variety of projects and activities, each of which receive relatively small grants.

2.4. Factors which may influence the programme

Since the current programme was established, the political debate on education in Europe has made spectacular progress, with the following documents submitted by the European Commission in 2001: the Communication Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality [8] and the Report on the concrete future objectives of education systems [9], adopted by the Council and submitted to the Stockholm European Council in March 2001. In addition, a series of reports and communications published in 2002 and 2003 concerned the implementation of some of the specific objectives set in these two key texts. Some of these priorities and guidelines were included in the annual calls for proposals (for example, Grundtvig, Comenius, Action 6), as the Socrates programme was flexible enough to allow these adjustments.

[8] Reference COM (2001) 678 final.

[9] Reference COM (2001) 59 final.

In the field of higher education, the Bologna process is not likely at present to have a significant influence on the content of the Socrates programme, but it makes it more relevant and confirms the usefulness of certain innovative initiatives from the Commission (e.g. in the area of validation).

3. General aspects of programme implementation

3.1. General points

3.1.1. Clarity of the objectives and evaluability of the programme

The first conclusions of the individual external evaluations, either under way or completed, of the programme actions reveal that the programme's general objectives have the advantage of allowing a certain operational flexibility because they are indeed so general. Also, although the precision of the specific and operational objectives varies according to the programme action, users find these quite clear, on the whole, largely thanks to the Guidelines for Applicants. Nevertheless, the apparent clarity of terms such as "quality" and "European dimension" disguises the fact that these concepts are imprecise, both for users and for the programme administrators.

The programme's evaluability, therefore, is limited by certain shortcomings: the legal texts do not explain the link between the specific, operational and general objectives, nor do they quantify the objectives or justify the resources. This weakness will not be continued in the next programme proposal, as the Commission now requires an "impact analysis" to be provided.

However, the Commission has addressed this problem by working closely with the programme committee to finalise, in 2001, a list of indicators for each of the programme's actions.

3.1.2. Programme structure

Compared with Socrates 1, the current programme is well-structured and fully covers all forms of education related to lifelong learning. It consists of two types of actions: the first three relate to the three basic stages of education (school, university and other educational pathways, in particular adult education), and the remaining five relate to fundamental cross-cutting aspects.

According to the initial evaluations, this structure is clearly understood by those involved and is an improvement over the previous programme. However, this clarity of understanding does not prevent some users from criticising the programme, for example because of overlaps between the stages of study and the cross-cutting aspects.

The programme's flexibility is restricted, however, by the excessive detail included in the Annex to the Decision concerning its implementation arrangements.

3.1.3. Main types of activity supported

For each area of study, the programme proposes mobility activities which are targeted at learners as well as teachers or trainers. The national reports note that, for most actions, the activities offered are those which are most highly regarded and considered to be most likely to provide European added value. As far as gender balance is concerned, women make up the majority of participants in the individual mobility actions within Comenius, Erasmus and Grundtvig, ranging from some 60% to 85% depending on the action concerned.

In addition, each of the programme's actions supports activities involving collaboration between institutions or bodies, whether in the form of cooperation projects of various kinds or in the form of networks. The objectives of the projects supported are varied: in some cases the very process of collaboration, often interdisciplinary, between institutions from several European countries is the main objective; in other cases the objective is to create products which are often innovative (mainly educational methods or tools but also studies on subjects of common interest). It should be noted that these projects or networks also involve mobility for some participants, which proves to be very useful in terms of building long-term international relations based on a common objective.

For each of these activities, the Commission checks compliance with the principle of equal opportunities for men and women and for people with special needs. This is a criterion in project selection, and financial incentives are available for mobility activities involving people with disabilities.

3.2. Programme administration: operational implementation

3.2.1. Administrative structures

Administrative arrangements and structures differ for centralised and decentralised actions [10]. There are more decentralised actions now than there were in Socrates 1. The national reports more or less unanimously express a clear preference on the part of the national authorities and participants themselves for decentralised management, as it is thought to be better suited to taking into account national circumstances and to making the programme accessible to citizens. However, where centralised management applies, the majority of states recommend retaining this form in order to ensure that compliance with the European dimension and the public view of it are consistent.

[10] The distribution of centralised/decentralised actions is set out in part III of the Annex to the Decision.

3.2.1.1. Centralised actions

The Commission is responsible for the selection and contract procedures for this type of action. For most of these actions, the Commission is assisted by a TAO, as it has been since the beginning of Socrates 1. However, because of a change in the Commission's policy regarding TAOs, which involves no longer awarding public service tasks to private companies, the administrative arrangements for the current programme have been revised. Pending the creation of an executive agency, which will not be before 2005, as its precise role and function are still under discussion, a new TAO was chosen for Socrates 2 following an open call for tender.

3.2.1.2. Decentralised actions

The Decision stipulates that the national authorities must establish structures to coordinate the Socrates programme's actions at national level (National Agencies). Given the programme's new structure, there are fewer NAs in each country than there were under Socrates I, with some even having joint agencies for the Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci programmes. Moreover, the mutual responsibilities of the Commission and the NAs, which relate mainly but not exclusively to the management of decentralised actions, are henceforth set out clearly in a formal framework [11].

[11] Commission Decision C(2000)1537 of 06.06.2000.

The principal tool used in this new management system is the operating agreement, which is signed after the NAs have submitted an annual work programme (biennial as of 2003) in line with a framework drawn up by the Commission. The result has been positive, with procedures harmonised successfully.

3.2.2. Consultation processes

Under the Decision [12], the Commission is assisted by a Committee in implementing the administrative and consultation procedures. With regard to the administrative procedures [13], the Committee issues an opinion and then the European Parliament (EP) exercises its right of scrutiny. Unless the EP comments within 30 days, the Commission may proceed with the adoption of implementing measures. In practice, since this procedure was introduced, the EP has not commented on any of the measures submitted to it. Because of the duration of the adoption process (which may range from three to six months, depending on the dates of the EP's part-sessions), and the additional time needed for the selection process, all of those who have submitted proposals agree that the length of time between the application and the project promoters receiving a response is too long.

[12] See Article 8 of the Decision.

[13] These procedures are set out in Article 7 of the Decision.

In view of this shortcoming, the Commission has endeavoured to simplify the programme's administrative procedures. However, its efforts have been restricted by the interinstitutional consultation (see above) and by the requirement for strict financial/contractual checks.

3.2.3. Programme budget

Annual appropriations are authorised by the budgetary authority within the limits of the financial perspectives. The tables in document SEC(2004)230 illustrate the increase in the annual budgets to take account of the growth in activity in the initial years of the programme.

The overall distribution of the budget between the various actions is subject to the guidelines specified in the Decision. Approximately 70% of the Socrates budget is allocated to decentralised actions, and this is distributed essentially on the basis of statistics reflecting the socio-economic situation in the Member States and the three EFTA countries. The limitations of this principle become obvious when appropriations not used by certain NAs must be returned to the Commission, while other NAs are unable to satisfy demand. A more flexible mechanism, such as that used in the Grundtvig action (see 4.3 below), would make it easier to adjust to demand and to make optimum use of the appropriations available.

Because of the high number of expenditure items, the different methods of operation for different actions, the many different budget sources and the fact that some projects run for several years, the organisation and budgetary management of the Socrates programme are particularly complex. Additional factors are the introduction of the new Financial Regulation and internal control procedures.

3.2.4. Information and dissemination policy

The responsibility for disseminating information on the programme is shared between the Commission and the NAs. However, more authority has been decentralised to the NAs than was the case under Socrates 1, as the funding of information activities is now incorporated in their operating agreements. The advantage of this approach is that it makes it easier to adapt information to suit the individual needs of each country or even each region.

The Socrates 1 evaluations, which were subsequently confirmed by the Marcom report (2003) on the quality of publications, highlighted the fact that increasing participation in the programme depends on the quality of information provided. Taking account of these comments, the information policy was restructured to make it more effective. The information strategy presented to the Socrates Committee in 1999 and 2000 has been followed systematically and updated regularly. All types of media have been used to disseminate information on the programme and what it has achieved.

Some media events have had a major impact, for example the Comenius Weeks and the celebration of one million Erasmus students. Of the tools used, it is worth highlighting the usefulness of the project databases, whose quality and coverage have increased noticeably in the course of the first three years of the current programme. These are used not only for programme administration purposes but also to raise public awareness of the projects. In the evaluations of the programme's first phase, the dissemination of results was regarded as one of its main weaknesses. In response to this criticism, the Commission mobilised the various actors involved. Project promoters are better informed about the importance of this aspect of their activities and are asked to indicate in their applications the dissemination measures they plan to take. The Commission and the NAs now make greater use of the tools at their disposal for the publication of results: the Internet, practical guides for distribution, highlighting the best projects, publication of articles, presentation of products at various events related to the programme or to the education sector in general (trade fairs, exhibitions, conferences and seminars) In addition, a call for proposals on the dissemination of the products and results of the centralised projects was issued in 2002 and another for decentralised projects in 2003.

3.2.5. Project selection processes

3.2.5.1. Centralised actions

At the beginning of the current programme, with a view to making it accessible to as many people as possible and ensuring procedures are transparent, the Commission introduced a series of changes to the methods and tools used, which led to the situation described below.

The calls for proposals, which are published every year with a view to setting out the priorities for each of the centralised actions, have become more explicit in order to reduce the risk of errors in applications and the resulting disappointment. These calls are the first step in the creation of the projects, and they not only affect their quality but also help to strengthen the link between the objectives and the implementation of the programme.

The application forms have been standardised for activities of the same type, for example the transnational cooperation projects (TCP); these forms are available on the Commission's Europa website and may also be obtained from the TAOs and NAs. While these forms are now improved in terms of being standardised and requiring more precise information, thus making it easier to assess the applications, they have become cumbersome to the point that they risk discouraging potential applicants. The Commission has chosen to adopt a two-phase procedure for the submission of applications, as provided for in the Decision. This applies to all transnational cooperation projects, with the exception of Comenius 2 and Erasmus projects. Applicants submit a relatively brief pre-application dossier at the beginning of November, and those who pass the first selection stage are asked to submit a definitive application in March of the following year. In a survey, the level of satisfaction (88%) was so high that it was decided to retain this procedure in order to encourage potential participants.

A group of independent external experts is responsible for the evaluation of proposals; as of 2003, experts are selected from a list drawn up following a public call for applications. Each application is assessed by two different experts and, if their assessments differ significantly, provision is made for a conciliation procedure.

In addition, the NAs are asked to submit project evaluations for the centralised actions; these are taken into account in the selection by an ad hoc committee. Applicants receive notification of the selection results together with comments summarising the experts' assessment and advice on submitting a definitive application or a new application at a later date.

3.2.5.2. Decentralised actions

The selection of decentralised actions is the responsibility of the NAs, in agreement with the national authorities. The Commission has sought to harmonise national approaches by introducing basic criteria, which are set out in operating manuals.

The selection process has become much more formal, and the NAs have had to introduce technical tools to keep track of procedures and decisions with a view to facilitating the monitoring and auditing of projects. This is a contractual obligation which is now much stricter than in the past.

3.2.6. Contract and financial management processes

This is the aspect of the programme which has been most criticised by users since the beginning of Socrates 1. Taking all actions together, the evaluation reports, including those relating to Socrates 2, highlight the dissatisfaction caused by the unwieldy bureaucratic procedures and the disproportion between the size of many of the grants and the administrative obligations involved. The Commission has attempted to simplify these, and a recent evaluation of Comenius 1 reveals that beneficiaries have noticed that procedures have become less cumbersome. The entry into force of the new Financial Regulation has brought with it stricter rules on financial management controls, and the next series of evaluations will gauge how effective these are.

3.2.6.1. Issuing of contracts

A standard model contract has been adopted for the centralised actions. This model as a rule contains the formal approval of the project, a booklet of guidelines for beneficiaries, a contractual schedule, bank details, a model for reports and a model letter accompanying the contract.

For decentralised actions the situation is more complex, with disparities, particularly in terms of deadlines, resulting from the variety of NAs and actions involved. From now on, operating agreements must be drawn up prior to the signing of the various agreements related to the funding of decentralised actions. The year 2000 proved to be a very difficult transition year for the NA contracts, with a delay in the drafting of operating agreements, which in turn led to a delay in the agreements for decentralised actions. The accession countries suffered most, because of the delay in the Association Councils' decisions. The problems persisted, to a lesser degree, in 2001, particularly for the countries outside the EUR 18. In 2002 and 2003, however, the situation regarding contractual procedures was more satisfactory.

The above difficulties had a negative impact on the final recipients of grants for the decentralised actions. The delays led to a significant number of withdrawals, especially in relation to individual mobility, and mainly by accession country nationals. As the situation returns to normal, however, the implementation of the new procedure should lead to fewer delays than under Socrates 1.

3.2.6.2. Accounting management

Monitoring of the use of public funds has been increased for all activities in receipt of Community funding, with greater insistence on constraints related to financial management and audit activities. This development has been reinforced by the entry into force of the new Financial Regulation (NFR) on 1 January 2003. Some of the rules for the Socrates programme are proving to be too bureaucratic or problematic in practice. These new restrictions have a very strong impact in terms of the level of human resources required to operate a programme characterised by the large number of activities supported and often very modest grants. The introduction of a corrective proportionality principle would be invaluable in managing the programme effectively and efficiently.

3.2.7. Monitoring and evaluation policy

In accordance with the Commission's general policy on monitoring and evaluation, the evaluation component of the Socrates programme has been strengthened and restructured. A system of coordination has been set up to ensure that principles and results are consistent. The question of evaluation has also been addressed at Commission level and at project level, to ensure that both are consistent and working together.

Monitoring and evaluation of the projects have become, formally and contractually, an important part of the activities and are an integral part of each phase of these projects. In addition, the NAs have been given special training to help them in advising project promoters in their countries or in conducting evaluations at their own initiative. The objective is to develop an evaluation culture among all those contributing to the programme. It is evident from initial observations that real progress has been made and that this should help improve the overall quality of the project results.

The Commission, for its part, has drawn up an evaluation plan for the period 2001-2004, together with the Socrates committee. In response to comments from evaluators of the previous programme, it was decided to carry out a series of specific external evaluations rather than one broad global evaluation, thus providing a better understanding of the reality of each action or even sub-action. Ten evaluations will have been carried out by the end of 2004, following a separate invitation to tender for each. Cooperation between the Commission and the Socrates committee was exemplary in the drafting of a framework document for the national reports on the programme's implementation, which are required of the Member States under the Decision. These reports were submitted to the Commission by the end of 2003.

A new evaluation programme will be submitted for the period 2004-2006.

3.2.8. Conclusions

Socrates is a complex programme which consists of a large number of actions and sub-actions and involves different types of administrative arrangements. All aspects of its management have incorporated mechanisms to ensure greater reliability and transparency and to strengthen monitoring activities.

This strictness makes procedures more cumbersome, both for those involved in the programme's administration (Commission, National Agencies, etc.) and for users. However, efforts are currently being made to simplify procedures, although this is limited by regulatory and structural constraints. A simpler structure would lighten the administrative burden and lead to greater efficiency. The proportionality principle should also be applied more extensively.

The increase in the number of decentralised actions in Socrates 2 resulted in a slight increase in efficiency. This is the form of management preferred by the participating countries, as it makes the programme more accessible to the public and allows greater account to be taken of national circumstances and priorities.

4. Implementation and achievements of each action

All the actions under the programme are governed by the general principles set out in points 3.1 and 3.2. The remarks which follow therefore focus on the specific features of each action and partly reflect the evaluation of the programme by the operational units in charge of it.

4.1. Comenius

4.1.1. General points

The specific objectives of Comenius can be considered to be relevant in that they mirror the general objectives of the programme. Work is under way to set out the objectives of certain sub-actions more clearly; this applies to the Comenius networks, for instance, because the distinction between their objectives and those of Comenius projects was not clear at the outset.

The structure of the action is more coherent than it was under Socrates 1. Comenius has acquired a higher profile vis-à-vis the target group because it now comprises most of the activities available to schools. Moreover, the complementarity of Comenius with other actions within the programme has proved useful, particularly with Lingua, or between the Comenius and Grundtvig networks within the same subject area. As a result of meetings between the coordinators of these actions, it has been possible to link the results obtained with different levels of study and different branches of the education sector. Comenius also complements other Community programmes, although far too little has been done to exploit this considerable potential.

Specific measures are planned to take account of cross-cutting priorities, particularly the promotion of equal opportunities; there is scope, for example, to double the funding provided to disabled people involved in Comenius partnerships; those taking part in Comenius are reminded of the need to promote equality between men and women, but no specific measures are taken in this regard. This issue could be made one of the specific thematic areas of Comenius.

4.1.2. Operational mechanisms

The ratio of centralised to decentralised actions is good, as is the sharing of budgetary resources between them. The only anomaly which causes problems is a structural one: mobility placements, which form part of centralised projects under Comenius 2.2.a (initial teacher training), are managed on a decentralised basis. This hybrid management structure is very ineffective (the number of applications is negligible) and should be avoided in future.

Comenius is run in accordance with the joint management rules for the Socrates programme. The exception is Comenius 2 -- a centralised action which, unlike the other actions of the same kind, involves a one-stage selection procedure. This has proved worthwhile because of the small number of applications received and has been more economical from a staffing point of view, without leading to complaints from applicants.

The standardisation of management procedures for decentralised actions has been very beneficial; the remaining source of problems or difficulties is the inter-agency consultation procedures for the selection of applicants ("matching"), particularly for language assistants. The complex nature of the procedure is probably the main reason for the regrettably high number of cancellations.

4.1.3. Achievements

It is too early to tell from the data available whether the changes made as a result of the changeover from Socrates 1 to Socrates 2 have been beneficial or not in terms of outputs. However, hypotheses can be drawn from the evidence to date. The decision to incorporate into Comenius some of the priorities identified separately under Socrates 1 -- as regards language projects, for example -- seems not only to have made these projects less visible for the target groups but also to have reduced the number of specific projects in this area.

Overall, the achievements of the action prove that it is providing a structured response to demand from schools; the quality of projects is also improving. The decision to extend the programme to categories of staff other than teachers is promising but efforts in this regard must be continued. A preliminary assessment of what has been achieved can also serve as a stimulus to continue the work to provide information and disseminate results, and in certain cases improve the definition of operational objectives for certain sub-actions. This applies most of all to initial teacher training in conjunction with a mobility placement: this is clearly a very innovative arrangement which seeks to improve the quality of teachers, and thus of teaching itself, by giving future schoolteachers more opportunity for teaching practice. However, for reasons which have not yet been entirely explained (some are linked to the restrictions imposed by national legislation and others to the structure of the action), the number of applications received and projects funded is disappointingly low.

4.1.4. Conclusions

Comenius is relevant as regards both the requirements of European education systems and the general objectives of the programme. The efficiency of the action is good on the whole.

The effectiveness of Comenius is also encouraging. The subjects with which Comenius deals are very relevant to Europe's policy priorities in the field of education, which the activities supported under Comenius are helping to achieve. Further efforts are required in areas where supply exceeds demand, particularly where supply reflects European and Community policy objectives. The apparent drop in the number of language projects and projects aimed at children with special needs should be monitored and steps taken to correct this development. Finally, the effectiveness of the networks could be improved by clarifying some of the objectives and rules in order to extend their influence and secure their future in the long term.

4.2. Erasmus

4.2.1. General points

Erasmus is the action which, in terms of content and form, has changed the least following the transition from the first to the second phase of the Socrates programme. The Erasmus student mobility scheme is one of the most well-known and best appreciated parts of the programme.

The efforts to extend Erasmus to the new participating countries have been consolidated. Although, understandably enough, the number of students from the candidate countries taking part in the Erasmus mobility scheme is rising steadily and the vast majority of new Erasmus students still come from these countries, more and more new Erasmus students are choosing to complete their mobility placements in the candidate countries.

Work was undertaken in 1996 to set up intensive courses for the least frequently taught languages in order to prepare students for their Erasmus placements in the countries concerned. These courses have continued and there has been a considerable increase in the number of students taking them, which has contributed to the policy of promoting linguistic diversity and striking a balance between the destinations chosen.

4.2.2. Operational mechanisms

Although the content of Erasmus has changed relatively little, its operational mechanisms have undergone significant changes since the completion of Socrates 1. The system of Institutional Contracts (ICs) for higher education institutions, which was introduced at the beginning of the previous programme, has been replaced by the Erasmus University Charter (EUC). The universities are required to subscribe to the charter so that they can apply for funding for Erasmus activities. The charter focuses on three areas: compliance with operating conditions, quality assurance and consideration of across-the-board priorities (such as equal opportunities, languages, etc.). Unlike the IC, the EUC does not confer funding for any specific activity; once an institution receives a Charter, it has to apply separately for funding for the activities it wishes to organise in accordance with the standard procedures for managing centralised or decentralised activities.

The other administrative innovation has been the decentralisation of support for the organisation of mobility placements, including those for teachers. In the latter case, a more realistic management approach has proved beneficial and has resulted in a large and steady increase in the number of teachers involved in the mobility scheme, thus remedying what was perceived to be a relative shortcoming when the previous programme was evaluated.

Special attention has been paid to across-the-board priorities. A higher proportion of women take part in Erasmus than men. The need to guarantee equal opportunities for people with special needs has always been treated with particular attention because of the important role of individual mobility placements in Erasmus. A special fund for severely disabled students was managed centrally under the old programme -- a procedure which proved to be very unwieldy and slow. It was decided to decentralise this task to make the management process more flexible; from now on, the NAs are advised to set aside part of the overall mobility budget for applications from students or teachers with severe disabilities.

Information activities for the higher education sector have been organised well, not only because of the experience acquired over the years by the NAs in particular but also because the target group is more clearly defined than for Comenius or Grundtvig. Moreover, the administrative organisation of higher education institutions, which have strengthened their international relations departments often because of the managerial pressures brought about by the implementation of Erasmus, has provided effective relay mechanisms for circulating information within the institutions. However, the dissemination of the results of joint curriculum development projects and intensive short-term programmes still does not go far enough. The list of projects published on the Internet does not include the results. A solution to this problem will be sought in order to raise the profile of the activities for which funding is provided and thus to increase their impact.

4.2.3. Achievements

Under the current programme, there has been a steady fall in the number of joint curriculum development projects and, to a lesser extent, intensive short-term projects, which began already under Socrates 1. The reasons for this loss of interest are not yet clear but it should be possible to identify them once the current evaluation of this part of the action has been completed. The fall in the number of projects, however, has gone hand in hand with an improvement in their quality; this is borne out by the results of the expert evaluations performed during the selection procedure. In spite of this, however, the growing lack of interest in the joint curriculum development projects and intensive short-term projects means that serious thought should be given to the way in which these activities are organised during a future phase of the programme.

The work to introduce the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) in universities is moving forward steadily. This system, which was created by the Commission, is one of the cornerstones of the efforts to implement the policy defined in the Bologna Declaration of achieving the convergence of European higher education systems.

The number of mobility activities has continued to increase, although not to the same degree in all the participating countries. Where the number of these activities has fallen, some of the national reports give several reasons for this. These are, first and foremost: competition from mobility schemes in other parts of the world, the lack of adequate grants and unfamiliarity with foreign languages. In 2002, the Commission celebrated the milestone of one million Erasmus students; it marked the occasion by setting an ambitious goal: namely, to exceed the target of three million Erasmus students by 2010. This will call for a significant increase in Erasmus resources because it will be necessary not only to boost student numbers but also to make individual grants more attractive -- the average grant (some EUR 150 per month) has hardly changed over the past ten years.

As with the student mobility scheme, good progress has been made with the teacher mobility scheme; this has strengthened the European dimension of the scheme in order to benefit students from host universities who are not themselves involved in a mobility scheme.

Because of their nature, the thematic networks (TNs) have functioned on two levels: firstly, they have sought to stimulate and, if necessary, change disciplinary strategies in higher education institutions; secondly, they have contributed to the wider political objective of creating a European society which is culturally, economically and technically competitive. In other words, they have helped to improve the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of higher education systems. To attain these ambitious objectives, the TNs, in 2002, adopted the methodology developed as part of the Tuning [14] project. This key Community project addresses several of the Bologna action lines and aims to identify points of reference for the general and subject-specific skills which should be covered by university degrees in a number of disciplines. In the interests of quality assurance, each of the TNs will seek to define the general and specific skills in their particular subject area and to develop and/or put into practice teaching and appraisal methods.

[14] http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/ policies/educ/tuning/tuning_en.html

4.2.4. Conclusions

The Erasmus action has continued to be as successful as it was under the former programme. The various individuals involved in Erasmus and the public authorities are unanimous in the view that the specific objectives of the action are relevant. Erasmus can provide crucial operational support for the major European objectives set out in the Bologna Declaration.

As with the other Socrates actions, the efficiency of the Erasmus action must be seen in relative terms because some of the management procedures are costly and unwieldy, not only for the Commission and the management bodies assisting it but also for the higher education institutions themselves. However, efficiency has been improved by decentralising some of the activities.

The action has been very effective when it comes to individual mobility, particularly bearing in mind the relatively low level of Community financial investment. Conversely, short-term intensive programmes and, in particular, joint curriculum development projects are far less effective than they could be and are gradually becoming less so. The Commission will consider how this tendency might be rectified.

4.3. Grundtvig

4.3.1. General points

Of all the actions within the Socrates programme, Grundtvig is the one which been most innovative vis-à-vis Socrates 1; indeed, only Grundtvig 1 (Transnational cooperation projects) can be considered to be the true successor of the Adult Education action under the previous programme. This may be said to encapsulate the strengths and weakness of the rules governing the programme as a whole.

As Grundtvig concerns adult education and other educational pathways, its objectives are particularly relevant in view of the growing importance of lifelong learning. Although Grundtvig's objectives are highly relevant, they are not as explicit as they could be and this causes problems for the public: because the objectives have been kept relatively general in order to preserve the inclusive nature of the action, people find it difficult to distinguish them from other closely-related areas, with the result that many of the projects proposed fall within other areas of Community action (particularly vocational training or regional development outside the education sphere).

The structure of Grundtvig has already proved to be very coherent and capable of creating synergies between the four complementary sub-actions, although work still has to be done to strengthen this complementarity further. For example, those involved in the Learning Partnerships (Grundtvig 2) -- small-scale activities designed to introduce organisations which do not have experience at European level to transnational cooperation -- decided to submit much more ambitious applications for Grundtvig 1 at a later stage (accounting for 8-10% of applications in 2003).

Grundtvig also perfectly complements Erasmus and Comenius by helping to extend the school and higher education sectors to new target groups and new tasks in line with the objective of lifelong learning. Beyond the Socrates programme, Grundtvig has highlighted the need to combine cultural and youth-oriented activities with the vocational training sectors.

4.3.2. Operational mechanisms

The distribution of activities managed centrally and on a decentralised basis is particularly relevant in the case of Grundtvig.

The proximity of the target group, which is inexperienced and often comes from the informal sector, is a particularly important asset for the decentralised sub-actions. The NAs play a key role in terms of information provision, management, advice and monitoring and it is largely due to them that Grundtvig has gained momentum so rapidly. However, certain shortcomings have been identified which call for remedial action. The adult education sector is more varied and less well known than the more traditional formal education sector; the effectiveness of the NAs can vary depending not only on the staff available for Grundtvig but also on the way in which adult education is organised nationally, i.e. the extent to which it is formally structured and/or provided by education institutions. There are certain variations in the way in which the scope of Grundtvig is perceived and additional training should be provided for the NAs in order to standardise the approaches and criteria used.

Grundtvig is subject to all the management principles which apply to decentralised actions; however, one initiative in particular which is unique to Grundtvig and has proved very useful deserves to be mentioned. Unlike the other actions, Grundtvig is not bound by the rules laid down in the Decision on the distribution of the budget for decentralised actions. In order to ensure that the available budget is used up completely and that demand is met, only 20% of the budget is allocated in accordance with the formula based on the usual social, economic and geographical criteria, while 75% of it is allocated in accordance with demand. This has proved to be a very effective arrangement, particularly for new activities, which develop at different rates in different countries Another innovative aspect of Grundtvig is that 5% of the reserve funds are placed in a joint pool for the 30 countries involved. This has benefited the candidate countries, in whose development adult education has a crucial role to play.

4.3.3. Achievements

Except for the Grundtvig 3 sub-action (individual training grants for staff involved in adult education), Grundtvig has achieved very good results. In quantitative terms, participation in activities -- and new activities in particular -- has increased; in qualitative terms, progress has been made as regards not only the management and monitoring of activities but also their content.

The most striking success has been achieved by the learning partnerships and reflects the extent to which they have met the expectations of those in the adult education sector. Their success can be attributed to the fact that, although the grants are fairly small, the procedures and methods used for managing the decentralised actions are relatively simple and a considerable effort was put into promotional activities thanks to the NAs and the network of promoters set up when the action was launched.

Unlike the partnerships, the demand for training grants for educators remained much lower than expected during the first two years, despite the usefulness of this training for the varied, not to say disparate groups of staff involved. However, following remedial action, the number of applicants rose sharply in 2003.

The Grundtvig networks have got off to a good start, given that it was decided at the outset to fund a limited number of carefully selected networks.

Because of its specific nature, Grundtvig has played a key role in efforts to take account of people with special needs and ensure equal opportunities. Both these issues are central to the problems addressed by several projects and networks; all project promoters have to explain how these aspects are taken into consideration. Similarly, the diverse nature of the target groups and the desire to support activities relating to the language and culture of migrants mean that the issue of languages receives special attention. The languages covered by the other actions have therefore been extended in order to promote interculturality and social inclusion.

4.3.4. Conclusions

At the half-way stage, the Grundtvig action can be judged to be largely successful. It has quickly established an identity of its own and has been positively identified in the countries involved. It has played a special role in paving the way for the integration of the pre-accession countries. It has also proved capable of adapting to Europe's new policy priorities concerning lifelong learning.

In terms of management, however, there is a chance that the complications brought about by the introduction of the new Financial Regulation will create more problems for many of the institutions involved in the action, particularly those which do not benefit from public financial guarantees and which are often ill-prepared for carrying out complicated management tasks (NGOs for instance). Steps should be taken to simplify these procedures for small-scale projects, which often involve people from the voluntary sector.

4.4. Lingua

4.4.1. General points

The specific objective of Lingua is identical to one of the general objectives of the programme, i.e. to promote a quantitative and qualitative improvement in language knowledge; this objective is also pursued by the other actions, however. Although the effectiveness of the action can be evaluated where it is possible to assess the quality of the products concerned, it will be very difficult to assess the impact of Lingua. This is because, for one thing, the objective is so general and, for another, there are a number of factors which influence language knowledge and which are beyond the Commission's control. The European Year of Languages has made it possible to assess the relevance and complementarity of the various component parts of the action and to identify more clearly what is required in terms of the language knowledge of European citizens. In particular, it is clear that activities which involve providing information and raising awareness have a crucial role to play; the work undertaken in this regard might help to resolve one of the contradictions concerning the need to learn more than one foreign language: while the vast majority of language professionals believe that this is necessary, the public generally seems to be content to learn only one foreign language. The promotion of linguistic diversity can thus be achieved through the awareness-raising activities which form part of Lingua and the other actions within the programme, each in its own area. Lingua's complementarity with closely related programmes, particularly Leonardo da Vinci, is effective in practice. Lingua has the potential to complement other Community policies too (e.g. e-content, Structural Funds, research, etc.) but, as with other aspects of the programme, the existing structures and the relatively hermetic nature of the Community programmes make it impossible to identify exactly what kind of synergies might develop, let alone to exploit their potential.

4.4.2. Operational mechanisms

Lingua is managed on an entirely centralised basis, which is logical because, under the current programme, the linguistic aspects of projects concerning those involved in schools and adult education have been incorporated into the actions which are aimed specifically at these groups. Lingua is subject to all the procedures which are common to centrally managed projects. The two-phase application procedure is considered advantageous for Lingua and advice from experts is useful with regard to the quality of the projects once they are completed.

4.4.3. Achievements

More will be known about the impact of the structural changes which accompanied the transition to Socrates 2 once the conclusions of the current evaluation on the linguistic impact of Socrates and Leonardo become available.

The sub-action Lingua 1 (promotion of language learning) is new and accompanies Lingua 2 (development of tools and materials). Although it has been rather slow to get started because it is not aimed exclusively at those in the education sector, it has made good progress and funding is being provided for interesting projects. The third part of the action (dissemination of information) will have to be expanded further.

4.4.4. Conclusions

The action is developing in accordance with the relevant objectives.

The role of languages throughout the programme could be monitored more closely. It might also be useful, at the meetings of the NAs, to have a special discussion about languages as they relate to the various actions which do not focus primarily on languages.

4.5. Minerva

4.5.1. General points

The main objective of Minerva is to promote the use of ICTs (information and communication technologies) for teaching and learning purposes and to encourage distance learning. It is clearly a relevant action in terms of national requirements and the priorities of European cooperation in these areas. Its objectives are clear, judging by the number and type of proposals received for it each year.

The complementarity of Minerva with the other Socrates actions and with other programmes run by DG EAC has been confirmed. Minerva also complements Community action in the research field and some research validation projects are, in fact, funded under Minerva. They are sometimes put forward by those who do not have the resources to submit large projects for funding under the Framework Programme on Research and Technological Development.

4.5.2. Operational mechanisms

As far as management is concerned, the general rule applies.

Given the expertise acquired through the Minerva projects in terms of innovation, more should be done to make the most of the projects concerned and to develop synergies between European and national projects or between Minerva projects and projects funded through the other Community actions.

4.5.3. Achievements

The changes made since the completion of Socrates 1 have been beneficial in that the objective of the action has been broadened to cover all ICT-related issues in the sphere of education. The projects are therefore more elaborate and complement each other better than they did before. The number of projects submitted each year has been rising steadily; however, the geographical distribution of project coordinators is still uneven, with fewer coordinators coming from the acceding countries.

In terms of quality, it is good to see that more projects are focussing on teaching methods and the development of new approaches involving ICTs.

Coverage of across-the-board priorities is good, particularly for issues relating to special education. It has been possible, on several occasions, to reap the benefits of the projects relating to handicapped pupils.

4.5.4. Conclusions

The Minerva action is relevant and effective. It responds perfectly to the programme objective of encouraging innovation in the development of teaching practices and materials.

4.6. Observation and Innovation

4.6.1. General points

Because of its specific objectives, this action should play a special role within the programme and help to fuel political debate on education systems and their objectives in Europe. The action as a whole is designed to improve the quality and transparency of education systems and to promote innovative teaching methods.

Observation and Innovation is aimed at decision-makers at all levels of the education sector; this makes it the action which has the potential to promote the closest cooperation with the relevant national authorities.

In order to reach as wide a range of decision-makers as possible, the action is subdivided into a number of different activities: exchanges of experience, studies and analyses in connection with the observation of education systems; study visits for decision-makers; and support for European networks operating in specific areas. The intrinsic link between these networks (Eurydice and Arion) and the national authorities is generally much closer than for the rest of the programme.

4.6.2. Operational mechanisms

Observation and Innovation is subject to the general management methods which apply to centrally managed actions. Only the Arion sub-action, which largely concerns individual mobility placements and therefore has a very practical slant, is managed on a decentralised basis.

Issues relating to Eurydice and the NARICs are discussed at meetings which are held regularly by these networks. The Commission then uses the discussions and the results of specific calls for proposals as a basis for its decisions on the support to be given to initiatives mounted by national units or the networks as a whole.

4.6.3. Achievements

The general actions of observation and analysis have generated a degree of interest among academics and networks of researchers, as can be seen from the steady rise in the number of responses to calls for proposals. However, certain reservations must be expressed concerning the clarity and visibility of these actions. The problem with clarity is largely due to the fact that it is difficult to identify how action 6.1 (observation of systems) and action 6.2 (innovatory initiatives responding to emerging needs) complement each other. Although both actions concern the implementation of objectives which affect the Commission, no specific budgetary allocation has been given to action 6.2 since the start of the programme; it therefore only exists as a subject area, pending further developments. With an eye to the launch of a new programme, consideration should be given to whether a distinction should continue to be made between these two complementary aspects of an activity which aims to improve and modify education practices and systems.

The visibility of these actions depends on how well the results are disseminated, particularly among decision-makers. The dissemination process has a bearing on the way in which the products of the action influence the political debate on education. In the case of this specific action, the effectiveness of the dissemination process depends not only on the intrinsic quality of the product but also on whether it is relevant to the current debate on education.

Separate external evaluations have been conducted for the activities which fall under Arion (study visits for decision-makers), Eurydice (information on education) and NARIC (information on the recognition of qualifications). Coincidentally, the evaluators concluded that the activities supported were relevant and worthwhile. However, they recommended that in future, and particularly when a new programme was drawn up, the subject areas chosen should bear a clearer relationship to the policy priorities set out at European level.

4.6.4. Conclusions

The objectives of the action are very relevant and, overall, it has already proved its worth. It also has the scope to play a key role with regard to the priorities recently established in the field of education policy. To achieve this, the activities promoted in this context will have to focus more sharply on these policy priorities so that the action can become one of the key elements on which policy discussions and proposals are based. With a view to developing a new programme, the experience acquired with this action should serve as a basis for defining one of the key measures to be introduced by the Community.

4.7. Joint Actions

The Joint Actions were set up in accordance with the Decision. The first call for proposals was launched in 2001 for projects lasting 15 months; a new call for proposals is published each year and no more than four subject areas are selected. Because of delays in the procedures, the projects funded under the first call for proposals in 2001 could not begin until June 2002. It is therefore not possible to draw any conclusions on what has been achieved by this first generation of projects.

However, the management structure for the Joint Actions, which reflects the joint financing method used for the three programmes concerned (education, training and youth) and therefore has to pass before the three programme management committees, is very unwieldy.

The validity of the Joint Actions is directly linked to the shortcomings in the current programmes, which are too hermetic and do not allow an interplay between the various fields they represent. An effort could be made, however, to simplify the way in which they are managed.

4.8. Accompanying Measures

In accordance with their purpose, the Accompanying Measures have been implemented to support projects which contribute to the programme's objectives but do not strictly fall within the scope of the other actions. They have been used to organise information seminars and awareness-raising events for all the groups at whom the programme is aimed. These are the most common type of activities supported by the Accompanying Measures. Assistance is also provided for projects involving research, the development of teaching material and the training of staff.

As a general rule, the most numerous projects proposals are in the field of higher education and it is through the Accompanying Measures in particular that the Commission provides financial assistance for activities relating to the Bologna process. However, projects involving schools and adult education are also among those normally selected for funding.

5. Conclusions

The national mid-term reports show that, on the whole, the programme has been very well received. They all conclude that the programme is useful and relevant, although this favourable view is attenuated somewhat by a number of criticisms about management procedures in particular.

The following points provide a summary of the present report.

5.1. Relevance

The priorities and policy objectives established at Community level are reflected by the objectives of the programme. They mainly concern the concepts associated with the principle of lifelong learning and the need to improve the quality of education systems, with a view to fostering a knowledge-based society in Europe which is globally competitive. The relative flexibility of the programme definition means that several emerging priorities have been incorporated into the programme en route.

The programme also takes account of more practical requirements relating to the following points: knowledge of other education systems, exchange of teaching experience, development of appropriate tools for achieving transnational objectives in education policy, and support for national policies. These diverse requirements are the reason for the wide range of activities proposed under the programme.

The limitations of the programme, as described in this report, can be ascribed to two factors: firstly, the programme cannot be evaluated in full because the hierarchy of objectives and related indicators is not clear enough; and secondly, the Socrates actions are extremely hermetic compared to other Community programmes. The fact that there is no link between vocational training and education is often cited as one of the main structural weaknesses of the two programmes concerned.

Proposals concerning the future programme

Greater consideration should be given to the Community's major policy objectives in the field of education and training.

The programme's flexibility, which was already appreciated within the limits of Socrates 2, should be further reinforced so that the programme can absorb the changes which will necessarily take place between now and the expected conclusion of the new programmes (2013).

The programme should be structured in such a way as to show more clearly the hierarchy of objectives and should be easy to understand so that those involved in the education sector can clearly identify the actions which best correspond to their requirements.

5.2. Efficiency

In terms of the ratio of financial resources to achievements, the programme is very efficient. A considerable number of small and medium-sized activities have been carried out. The wide variety of activities funded under the programme has allowed a broad swathe of the education sector to be covered. Moreover, the distribution of beneficiaries among the 30 participating countries is very good, thereby ensuring that the programme has a true European dimension.

As far as management is concerned, a greater degree of rigour has been introduced at all levels (projects, national and Community management structures). The increased decentralisation of the management of certain actions has gone hand in hand with a more pragmatic approach and the simplification of procedures for users, as borne out by all the national reports, which express a clear preference for this type of management.

However, the programme is considered to be much less efficient when the procedures used are compared with the nature and scale of most of the activities: in this regard, "bureaucracy" is a term often mentioned by users. The staffing costs for the management or monitoring of activities are very high and impossible to reduce at present, as regards both the projects and the programme's management structures. Users feel that far too much information is required for the submission of applications and the monitoring of project development; the risk which has been identified is that a category of applicants will emerge who are well versed in the application procedure, which would in fact curtail the extension and impact of the programme by shrinking the pool of potential applicants. There is also disappointment about the delays which occur at all stages of the procedure, although the situation has improved since the start of Socrates 2.

It is unfortunate that an effective electronic management tool is not in place; it should be possible to alleviate this problem when more powerful software is introduced.

Several national reports point out that the proliferation of actions and sub-actions undermines the efficiency of the programme by discouraging potential users who have relevant projects to promote.

Proposals concerning the future programme

The work to streamline procedures should be continued during the present programme and borne in mind when preparing the next one. This can be done, above all, by giving more thought to the principle of proportionality, particularly in the application of the Financial Regulation.

5.3. Effectiveness

The programme as a whole is able to achieve its specific objectives. However, its effectiveness varies depending on the types of activities considered.

The mobility activities funded through the programme are very effective and their results are very widely appreciated by the beneficiaries. They bring considerable European added value by raising awareness of cultural diversity and improving understanding of and tolerance for differences. The mobility schemes produce a probable benefit in terms of the employability of participants and certainly improve their professional skills. However, the number of teachers and educators participating in the mobility scheme -- which is considered to be of great benefit to all categories of staff -- is not as high as it could be. Yet this is an area in which the programme can help to improve the quality of teaching in Europe. Most of the obstacles to mobility activities are outside the programme itself and concern the way in which mobility activities are organised nationally, the operating methods of educational establishments and, to a lesser extent, insufficient knowledge of languages. The Commission will have to work with the Member States to eliminate these obstacles and with those in the education sector to expand the availability of language training.

The programme is also effective in terms of interinstitutional cooperation. The partnerships involving schools and adult training bodies have been strengthened, as have the transnational cooperation projects; their quality has improved, partly as a result of better information and an improvement in procedures to select and monitor projects. The networks have also found their place after, in some cases, a redefinition of their objectives and specific characteristics during the programme. They represent a unique forum for the exchange of experiences and analyses between a very wide variety of European educational establishments.

However, the programme is still not as effective as it could be as regards its visibility and the dissemination of its results. The efforts already undertaken to improve the situation do not go quite far enough, although they show that the Commission is aware of the importance of this factor with regard to the programme's immediate effectiveness and its impact in the longer term.

Synergies with other Community programmes have been partly established on an empirical basis, but they are not yet as extensive as they should be.

Proposals concerning the future programme

Efforts to tie the programme more closely to the vocational training sector should be stepped up in order to respond properly to the political challenge of creating a European area of lifelong learning. More generally, action should be taken to improve the conditions for capitalising on the complementary nature of Community programmes.

To make the programme more effective, the Commission will have to propose to those involved in the programme a methodology and basis for the dissemination of results. It will be essential for the national authorities to participate in the dissemination of the results which are directly linked to EU's major objectives in the field of education and training; this dissemination process can help to reinforce the exchange of information on education systems in Europe and thus also contribute to the implementation of the open method of coordination.

If the expectations of the participating States are to be met, a future programme will have to attach greater weight to activities which aim to support the European policy priorities.