EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 15.9.2010 
SEC(2010) 1048 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Youth on the Move 
Results of the consultatio n on the Green Paper on the Learning Mobility of 
Young People 
 
 
Accompanying document to the 
 
Proposal for a 
 
RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNCIL 
 
Youth on the Move: Promoting the learning mobility of young people 
 
 
  
{COM(2010) 478 final} 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ ............ 3 
2. Executive Summary of Contributions.................................................................................... 3 3. Written cont ributions....................................................................................................... ....... 5 
4. Online responses to the questionnaire.................................................................................... 6 5. Key messages from the consultation...................................................................................... 7 5.1. Information and Guidance.................................................................................................. .7  
5.2 Promotion and Motivation ................................................................................................... 8 
5.3 Languages and Culture...................................................................................................... . 10 
5.4 Legal Issues............................................................................................................... ......... 10 
5.5 Portability of Grants and Loans ......................................................................................... 11 5.6 Mobility to and from the European Union ......................................................................... 11 5.7 Quality Assurance .......................................................................................................... .... 12 
5.8 Reaching out to Disadvantaged Groups ............................................................................. 13 5.9 Mentoring and Integration.................................................................................................. 13 
5.10 Recognition and Validation.............................................................................................. 14  
5.11 Mobilising Actors and Resources .................................................................................... 14 5.12 More active involvement fr om the business world .......................................................... 15 
5.13 Virtual Mobility.......................................................................................................... ...... 15 
5.14 eTwinning................................................................................................................. ........ 16 
5.15 Engaging the ‘Multipliers’ ............................................................................................... 1 6 
5.16 Mobility Targets.......................................................................................................... ..... 17 
Annex 1: Examples of Good Practice ...................................................................................... 18 Annex 2: Contributions by Organisational Type ..................................................................... 25 Annex 3: Response Charts fo r the Online Questionnaire ........................................................ 37 
 
EN 3   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
On 8 July 2009 the European Co mmission published a Green Paper on Promoting the 
learning mobility of young people1. The aim of the Green Paper was to launch a broad public 
consultation to identify the most important obsta cles to mobility and how to overcome them.  
The Green Paper highlighted the benefits of mobility in supporting acquisition of new 
knowledge and skills. It also underlined the contribution to opening up the education and 
training institutions to a wide r world, different audiences of  learners and consequently 
contributing to enhancing the quality of educ ation and training. Other benefits noted were 
those of combating isolation, protectionism and xenophobia.  
A clear consensus in Europe has emerged at th e political level on the objective of expanding 
mobility opportunities to young people. The purpos e of the Green Paper was to open up the 
debate to stakeholders and the wider pub lic on how to achieve these ambitions.  
The public consultation closed on 15 December 2009 and met with a high response. In total 
2798 on-line responses, mainly from young people,  and 258 written responses were received, 
from a wide range of stakehol ders, including Member States au thorities, the Committee of the 
Regions2, the European Economic and Social Committee3, regional and lo cal authorities, 
European and national associations, social partners, academics and individuals.  
In line with the Commission’s general princi ples and standards governing consultation of 
interested parties, this report describes th e consultation procedure and analyses the 
contributions received. 
The objective of this re port is to provide an overview over the wide range and diversity of 
ideas, opinions and suggestions contained in th e contributions received. Without claiming to 
be exhaustive, the report identifies the main trends, views and concerns arising from the 
contributions. In order to ensure full tran sparency, the report is  complemented by the 
publication of the full text of th e contributions received on the inte rnet. This is a report on the 
public consultation. It does not aim to draw polic y conclusions from the consultation process.  
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF CONTRIBUTIONS  
The vast majority of respondents were st rongly in support of the Green Paper.  
There was a clear consensus that the quality of information and guidance  related to mobility 
needs to be improved. Some respondents saw a n eed for a single integr ated EU web portal, 
not only as a tool to provide relevant informati on but to promote the bene fits of mobility to 
learners, parents, education institutions a nd employers. There was much support for new and 
                                                 
1 http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/mobility/com329_en.pdf   
2 http://coropinions.cor.europa.eu/CORopinionDocument. aspx?identifier=cdr\educ-iv\dossiers\educ-iv-
043\cdr246-2009_fin_ac.doc&language=EN   
3 http://www.eesc.europa.eu/sections/soc /education_training_youth_culture.htm   
 
EN 4   EN creative ways to disseminate information, e.g.  through social networks, and consensus that 
teachers and trainers should themselv es be experienced in mobility.  
Promoting the benefits of mobility  for young people by providing evidence of the added value 
of mobility in terms of future employability and their professional and intercultural skills 
development was recommended by all respondents.  The cooperation betw een all stakeholders, 
from regional and local authorities to young people and their families should be improved with a view to motivating mo re young people to be mobile. 
The importance of language learning
 to begin during early stages  of education was stressed. 
Many respondents emphasised the requirement for more creative modes of language teaching as well as for higher levels of funding to promote preparatory and continued language 
learning. There was support for a mandatory m obility period for teachers and trainers. 
Difficulties associated with visa requirements, l ack of legal status of mobile learners and 
recognition problems were highlight ed as the main legal obstacles
 to mobility. 
Variations in the portability of grants and funding  arrangements from one Member State to 
another were seen as key obstacles to mobility and the need for action was confirmed by most respondents. General support, but also some rese rvations were expressed regarding the idea to 
formulate guidance at European Level applicab le to Member States in relation to the 
portability of grants, loans and access to benefits. 
All organisational types highlight ed the need to reduce administrative and legal burdens in 
order to promote mobility to and from the European Union
. More cooperation and 
partnerships with third countries and agr eements between compet ent authorities across 
Member States and bilateral agreements betwee n institutions (e.g. on recognition) could help 
in this regard. 
There was strong support for the idea of using existing quality charters  to ensure mobility is 
of high quality, for introducing monitoring a nd evaluation methods, and for the use of 
standardised guidelines and templa tes such as learning agreements. 
The main obstacles to increased mobility of disadvantaged groups  concern financial 
constraints, lack of information regardi ng specific provision for learners, and existing 
programmes not meeting the needs of learners. Teachers, trainers, youth workers and social 
workers should be aware of and experienced in dealing with specific issues facing 
disadvantaged learners. 
Good mentoring and integration  for supporting students throughout the learning mobility 
phase was considered essential by most re spondents. Peer support ("buddying") among young 
people should play an important role.  
The validation and recognition of bot h formal and non-formal learning  still constitutes a 
considerable obstacle to the mobility of young people. Existing EU instruments which 
facilitate the recognition and transfer of educ ational qualifications between Member States 
should be better promoted. One promising solution can be the development of good 
partnerships based on mutual tr ust and dialogue between differe nt educational institutions.  
 
EN 5   EN To create a new partnership for mobility , cooperation with both public and private actors 
needs to be intensified and networks for the ex change of information and best practice should 
be created. Regional aut horities should play an increasing  role in promoting mobility. A 
system with funding from different sources need s to be established. The EU should streamline 
mobility notably in the Structural Funds a nd the Research and Development Framework 
programme. It is also noted that the European Social Fund should become an additional source of funding. 
All respondent types see a strong er involvement of businesses
 as an important factor in 
strengthening youth mobility. In order to improve the motivation of businesses, incentives 
should be given, e.g. in the form of special grants or tax exemptions. 
There is a clear consensus that virtual mobility  should accompany physical mobility rather 
than replace it. ICTs can play an important role in strengthening the support for mobile 
learners during preparation and follow-up but that will often require a significant improvement of existing ICT infrastructure. 
The eTwinning approach
, according to many respondents, shoul d be extended to all forms of 
formal and non-formal learning, in particular in the vocat ional and voluntary sector.  
Mobility opportunities for ‘multipliers’, such  as teachers, trainers and youth workers  should 
be given additional support and prominence in European programmes. Many respondents suggested that teacher/trainer courses shou ld include a mandatory period of mobility. 
Employers in education and training should pr ovide incentives and recognition to staff with 
particular commitment to mobility. 
Nearly all respondents considered mobility targets
 a useful tool in defining a mobility 
strategy, though preferences varied regarding th e most appropriate level for such targets 
(European, national, regional, institutional, etc.).  There was some concern that targets in terms 
of quantity may have negatively affect quality.  
For each issue examples of good practice were provided. Those that contained web-links for 
further information are listed in Annex 1. 
3. WRITTEN CONTRIBUTIONS   
The written contributions can be grouped in to the following categories: Governments, 
Regional Authorities, Local Authorities, Eu ropean Associations, National Associations, 
Education Institutions (e.g. sc hools, universities), Politic al Groups, Individuals and 
Businesses. The contributors, except fo r the individuals, are listed in Annex 2. 
Figure 1 presents an illustration of responses by organisational type. Ho wever, these numbers 
cannot be considered as represen tative of the wider consultati on process as they do not take 
into account the consultations organised at national level. 
 
EN 6   EN 
 
Figure 2 presents the composition of responses according to country contributions. Also EU 
organisations (e.g. social partners, organisati ons, networks) responded to the consultation and 
their representation is illustrated in figure 2.  
 
4. ONLINE RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE  
2798  responses were received to the online questionnaire. By far the largest numer came from 
from individuals  (2206 - 78.8%), while 532 responses (1 9%) were sent by organisations. The 
 
EN 7   EN majority of the respondents were female (1719, or 61.4%) and young people under 35 years 
(1758 - 62.8%).  In terms of geographical distri bution, most replies come from Italy  (19.5%), France  (10%), 
Spain  (7.8%) and Germany  (7.5%), followed by Romania, Tu rkey, the UK and Belgium.  
 For a more detailed analysis of the responses see the response charts in Annex 3. 
5.
 KEY MESSAGES FROM THE CONSULTATION  
5.1. Information and Guidance 
How can the availability of information and guidance related to mobility be 
improved?  
There is consensus among all respondent types regarding the need to improve the quality of 
information and guidance related to mobility. In formation was named as the most important 
issue related to mobility by the online respondents:  77% see it as important or very important. 
Effective, clear and transparent information requires, however, the precise definition of 
potential target groups eligible for mobilit y. Good and appropriate information is more 
difficult to get hold of for young people in sch ools, vocational education and apprenticeship 
training than in higher education. 
Information should be available in a variet y of forms including dedicated, one-stop-shop 
websites, mass media routes such as television a nd also in printed form. The responses to the 
online questionnaire showed that large numbers  of respondents didn't know the various EU 
portals related to mobility, such as PLOTEUS, Study in Europe or Euraxess. The need for a single, integrated, simplified and clear EU por tal was proposed. One suggestion is for a portal 
called www.mobility.eu
 which should be linked to national systems in order to route 
information more effectively. 
The need for more creative ways and forms to disperse information for example was 
recognised, e.g. through the use of  social platforms, clubs, youth organisations, rock concerts 
and public spaces highly frequented by young people. 
Many responses emphasised the importance of promoting mobility and the benefits of 
mobility at an early age. In this context the awareness of teachers, trainers and parents of the benefits of mobility is crucial. It was suggest ed that mobility opportunities should be part of 
the core training for teachers and careers advisors.  
"Ambassadors of mobility", such as previously  mobile learners, were suggested as a good 
way to promote and make available information and guidance related to mobility in an accessible manner.  
Some respondents highlighted the importance of training centres, hubs, or centres for 
information, e.g. in the form of “European offices” within the education institutions.  
It was suggested that the EU should support more research on acquired competences during 
mobility and conduct a survey of employers’ pers pectives of mobile students across the EU, 
 
EN 8   EN as this could help inform the development of greater diversity in work placements and study 
mobility periods. 
5.2 Promotion and Motivation 
What can be done to better promote and motivate young people to be mobile?  
How should this be done to ensure maximum effect?  
Motivation (together with funding) is considered to be important or very important by 75% of 
the online respondents. Promoting the bene fits of mobility for young people by providing 
evidence of the added value of mobility in  terms of future employability and their 
professional and intercultural skills deve lopment was recommended by all respondents.  
The most important benefits of learning mo bility to online respondents were "personal 
development", "foreign language skills" and "added knowledge and skills in the area of 
specialisation".  
Many respondents stressed the need to promote th e benefits of mobility at an early stage and 
much more broadly to reach employers, teache rs, parents as well as learners, policy makers 
and civic organisations. Learners and their fam ilies should be reminded of their responsibility 
to make use of exis ting opportunities.  
Better cooperation at European level and ne tworking between agencies, regional, local 
authorities, institutions, teachers, trainers, you th workers, ex-benefic iaries, policy makers, 
employers, civic society, young people and their families with a view to a ‘joined up’ approach was encouraged. 
All respondents highlight ed the need for clear, factual, practical and targeted information 
tailored to individual learners. Peer exchange with a focus on the experiences of young people 
returning from mobility experiences was proposed  as one way to better promote and motivate 
young people.  
Most respondents agreed that  a stronger focus on systema tic preparation within the 
curriculum, e.g. by promoting the notion of in ternationalisation, and improving opportunities 
for recognition and validation of le arning is critical to persuade learners to be mobile, as are 
adequate funding and resources. 
Some contributors suggested impr oving the motivation of learners  to be mobile by removing 
age restrictions and allowing for greater flexib ility in mobility – such as access to shorter 
mobility periods and fostering mobility through sports.  
Individuals focused on a number of  practical issues in order to better promote and motivate 
young people to be mobile, ranging from fi nding suitable temporary accommodation, 
subsidised transport, simplif ying application procedures to improving foreign language 
teaching.  
Although physical mobility cannot be replaced as  such, it was suggest ed virtual mobility 
could significantly promote the concept of ‘internationalisation’  among young people at a 
 
EN 9   EN reasonable cost. It was noted that shorter-term exchanges for mobility should also be 
considered. 
EU tools such as Eurodesk, Eures, Euroguida nce and Europass should be used more to 
channel information to learners. 
What do you see as the main barriers to the motivation of young people to become 
mobile?  
Most respondents highlighted financial constrai nts as the main barrier to mobility. Among the 
online respondents, 75% considered funding to be an important or very important issue. Other 
constraints include: a reluctance to leave home,  family commitments, linguistic and cultural 
barriers, fear of lack of recognition and poten tial consequences of an interruption of study 
programmes, lack of information, administrativ e and logistical issu es (including differing 
academic calendars and lack of accommodation) and lack of involvement of businesses and 
opportunities for work placements. 
Linked to financial constraints, there is a ge neral view that the rules and regulations of 
European programmes limit the impact of  mobility opportunities and that funding 
arrangements should be simplified. 
The need to make language classes in particular  more attractive was highlighted. With regard 
to the language skills of V ET learners, teaching methods mu st be better adapted to the 
specific pre-requisites and needs of the target  group and be linked to  career objectives.  
Difficulties in obtaining a visa were highlighted as a barrier. The time taken to set up mobility 
periods is time-consuming and often acts as a barrier to the motiv ation of young people.  
The fear of leaving home is considered particularly pertinent for young people who are 
socially disadvantaged and those with low skills. More support structures are needed 
especially for these groups.  
Concerns were expressed that families and empl oyers will not support mobility as they do not 
recognise or witness the benefit of a mobility period in educational te rms. The use of ECTS 
should be improved and the development of ECVET accelerated.  
It was noted that greater public investment in education is required mo re generally, but also 
that the Green Paper does not cover the many financial and organisational measures to 
promote mobility outside the EU programmes in Member States. 
It is suggested that Member St ates should remove the administra tive and legislative obstacles 
relating to residence permits, social security ri ghts and recognition of student cards from other 
countries.  
As learners become increasingly aware of the envi ronmental effects of trav el, the principles of 
sustainable development can become an import ant criterion in deciding on mobility in the 
future.  
 
EN 10   EN 5.3 Languages and Culture 
How can the linguistic and cultural obsta cles to mobility be best addressed?  
The importance of language learning by embedding it into the curriculum , from early stages 
of education through to continued education wa s stressed by all cate gories of respondents. 
Using more creative methods for the deliv ery of language learning and ensuring 
disadvantaged learners are not excluded from languages and mobility opportunities was recommended. Many respondents emphasised the requ irement for higher levels of funding to 
promote preparatory and con tinued language learning, partic ularly for VET learners.  
There was a call for Member St ates to revisit and, where appropriate, reform national 
education polices to embed language le arning into the national curriculum.  
Several types of respondents expressed suppor t for a mandatory mobility period for teachers 
and trainers of up to a one year. 
Member States were requested to do much mo re through national educat ion policies to meet 
the target of every EU citizen speaking at least two ot her EU languages. In this context it was 
underlined that language learni ng must be credit bearing and delivered in more creative, 
social ways – for example in bars, cafes, culin ary and or cultural even ings and between native 
and foreign learners.  
5.4 Legal Issues 
What are the main legal obstacles to  mobility that you have encountered?  
Issues relating to visa requireme nts and the legal status of mob ile learners were  highlighted by 
nearly all respondents as the main legal obsta cles to mobility. Also problems linked to the 
recognition of learning were mentioned as a ba rrier to mobility. The overarching message was 
that there is no clear legal framework for learners participating in mobility periods. 
In relation to the Green Paper’s  proposal to estab lish a framework to support minors, it was 
noted that the different legal rules exist across Member States may make it difficult for a European framework to be developed and implemented.  
Further to the proposal to introduce a European  Trainee Statue, few but mixed views were 
received. Some thought that Eur opean Trainee Statute would help  to ensure equal treatment 
and provide much needed clarity on legal matter s while others insisted that it would have to 
remain voluntary as there will be national circumstances which cannot be changed.  
It was noted that within the university sect or a specific problem persists for doctoral 
students/young researchers whose status may va ry between student/sch olarship holder and 
employee. That lack of clarity about the status of mobile learners has implications for social 
security claims and can discourag e them from becoming mobile.  
 
EN 11   EN 5.5 Portability of Grants and Loans 
What kind of obstacles have you encounter ed regarding the portability of grants 
and loans and access to benefits?  
60% of the online respondents co nsider the portability of gr ants an important or very 
important issue. All respondent ty pes cited variations in the eligibility, por tability of grants 
and funding arrangements from one Member Stat e to another as key obstacles. Lack of 
information, together with administrative and bu reaucratic burdens were cited as adding to 
difficulties associated with the portability of gr ants and loans. Late payments or delays in 
funds reaching learners can be problematic  and especially difficult for economically 
disadvantaged learners. 
A number of responses discusse d the possibility to formulat e guidance at European level 
applicable to Member States in relation to the portability of grants, loans and access to 
benefits. Whilst many noted a central guidance doc ument could be beneficial, the need to be 
careful that it is not  too restrictive was emphasised. If  a central document were to be 
produced, it should be developed with Member St ates. Concerns about the added value of a 
publication of guidance from the European Comm ission on the application of European law to 
current arrangements were however raised. Th ere is a concern that common guidance may 
make it difficult for individual countries to ma ke decisions based on their own systems.  
In order to equally fund all learners and not exclude learners from poorer countries 
participating in mobility opportunities in more expensive European countries, it has been 
suggested that resources should be distributed ce ntrally by a Centralised European Institution, 
once the number of outgoing le arners has been identified. 
5.6 Mobility to and from the European Union 
What more should be done to promote mobility to and from the European Union? 
How should this be done? 
All types of respondents highlighted the need to reduce administrative and legal burdens in 
order to promote mobility to and from the European Union. Visa issues and high costs 
associated with mobility (travel, accommodation)  are considered to be the biggest problems. 
Many respondents called for grea ter cooperation and partnershi ps with third countries and 
agreements between competent authorities across Member States and bilateral agreements 
between institutions. 
There were frequent requests to improve access to quality information, enhance funding 
opportunities for non-nationals, an d create more programmes/oppor tunities for learners in 
order to promote mobility to and from the Europ ean Union. The need for greater flexibility in 
terms of the validation and recognition of mobility periods  abroad was highlighted. 
Some respondents expressed the view that a long-term, gradual expansion of learning 
mobility programmes into third countries such as China, India, Japan and the USA would be a reasonable investment. However, serious effort s should be made to avoid brain drain from 
 
EN 12   EN Europe, whilst making Europe an attractive location both for learners of European origin and 
those from outside Europe. 
It was suggested that EU exch ange programmes should better re flect the desire  of Europe’s 
young people to travel outside the EU, but that this would require furt her financial support. 
Regarding higher education, a need for greater  flexibility on the interaction of non-ECTS 
credit systems with ECTS was highlighted. 
Some considered that, if more funding were di rected to mobility beyond the EU, solutions to 
practical problems would follow suit. However, it was noted that problems exist due to the differences in legislation of Member States concerning third country nationals. One solution 
would be to harmonise the rules and create a spec ific common status for third country mobile 
learners. 
5.7 Quality Assurance  
What measures can be taken to ensure that  the mobility period is of high quality?  
Nearly all organisational types of  respondents were in support of  using quality charters (such 
as the ones used in the Leonardo da Vinci and Erasmus programmes) to ensure mobility is of high quality. There was also support for introduc ing monitoring and evaluation methods, such 
as systematic quality assurance procedures for each aspect of mob ility, continuous dialogue 
and clear contractual arrangements between a ll actors and beneficiaries, guidelines and 
templates such as learning agreements, transpar ent selection procedures, peer exchange and 
structured learner support. 
Many respondents stressed the importance of good preparation required by all actors 
including teachers, trainers, youth workers, ma nagers and schools. It was also noted that 
cultural preparation is especially important for minors and preparator y language learning for 
all learners. 
Of particular importance is the quality assura nce process associated with the recognition and 
validation of learning.  
Bilateral intergovernmental agreements can pr ovide the necessary focus and mechanisms to 
ensure the quality of delivery. On a more pr actical level, reducing administrative burdens, 
clear communication and regularly  updated partnership agreemen ts concerning the focus of 
the mobility period, together with a clear defi nition of roles and responsibilities of those 
involved in the mobility arrangements, are also necessary. 
Organisational suggestions in cluded tailored selection and monitoring arrangements, 
improving the availability of and access to practical information (particularly for 
disadvantaged learners), pastoral care to  support younger learners and ensuring mobility 
becomes a mandatory component of the curriculum. 
Wider use of qualifications frameworks a nd study and training prog rammes with clear 
objectives and based on learning outcomes can  contribute to high quality mobility.  
 
EN 13   EN 5.8 Reaching out to Disadvantaged Groups 
Which are the most important difficulti es encountered by disadvantaged groups 
with regard to learning mobility?  
Among the online respondents, more than two thirds expressed their support for an even 
stronger focus in European, national and regional programmes on providing mobility opportunities to disadvantaged groups. 
The main barriers cited by all respondent types concern financ ial constraints, lack of 
information regarding specific provision for le arners and existing pr ogrammes not meeting 
the needs of learners. It was suggested that Member States should ensure th at access to 
education is based on an ability to learn and not on the ability to pay. 
Greater flexibility in mo bility opportunities is ne eded in order to enco urage the participation 
of disadvantaged learners, but the difficult person al constraints of these learners will require 
in addition targeted learner support and appropriate levels of funding.  
It was also underlined that those involved in  mobility, such as teachers, trainers, youth 
workers and social workers, should be aware of  and experienced in dealing with specific 
issues facing disadvantaged learners.  
The notion of ‘disadvantaged’ groups should be further defined as this term encapsulates a 
wide range of learners w ith very different needs. 
It is through targeted action within the compul sory stage of education that “prior mobility” 
can be offered to all and the de sire for further “self development” and “cultural experience” 
can be imbued in all citizens irrespectiv e of gender or socio-economic background. 
It was also noted that permanent access to Eu ropean mobility for disadvantaged young people 
should be funded on a constant basis by local and national funding institutions. Here it was 
noted that the European Commi ssion could play a greater role  by setting priorities and 
indicators and assuming a dr iving and coordinating role. 
5.9 Mentoring and Integration 
Can you give some concrete exampl es of good practice in this area? 
All respondent types underlin e the importance of good mentoring and integration for 
supporting students throughout the learning mob ility phase. As examples of good practice 
respondents referred, inter alia, to academic me ntoring and peer buddying schemes. There are 
differences of opinion regardi ng the kind of accommodation in which mobile learners should 
be placed, ranging from mixed accommodati on and dormitories to host families. 
Since adaptation to the new environment is very important, particularly in the first weeks of 
arrival, specially programmed orientation ev ents should be made available to incoming 
students to orientate them in academic and prac tical matters. Such events should be organised 
by the host educational institution or by a student organisation.  
 
EN 14   EN The role of student (or other youth) organisa tions was also underlin ed as important in 
supporting their integration - through familiarising them with the culture and everyday life of 
the host country and creating a favourable  environment for social interaction.  
5.10 Recognition and Validation 
In your experience, is the validation and recognition of both formal and non-formal 
learning still a significant obstacle to mobility?  
There is a unanimous view shared by all res pondent types that the validation and recognition 
of both formal and non-formal learning constitute s a considerable obstacle to the mobility of 
young people. Among the online respondents, over one third (38%) shared this view. The 
most common problems with the validation and r ecognition of learning are associated with 
the variability of practices among institutions and the lack of a common language about them. 
Other relevant issues include: 
• Lack of information about existing EU inst ruments which facilitate the transfer of 
educational qualifications between Member States 
• Insufficient appreciation of th e value of non-formal learning 
• Lack of flexibility in validation and r ecognition in primary and secondary schools 
• Lack of flexibility in va lidation and recognition in some profession-oriented 
programmes (e.g. nursing, engineering, social work) 
• In higher education contexts, problems with ECTS in unive rsities (recognition, 
heavy learning requirements, lack of  transparency and comparability) 
• Further development of ECVET and compa tibility with ECTS should be ensured. 
In order to address the above issues respondent s emphasise as a general rule the need for 
establishing clear definitions as well as s ynergies between formal and non-formal learning. 
Furthermore, the development of good partne rships based on mutual trust and dialogue 
between different educational institutions is considered essential in  harmonising validation 
and recognition practices.  
Recognition instruments such as Europass and Youthpass should be better promoted, 
particularly among employers who are presently not  familiar with them. It is suggested that a 
common recognition tool should be established wh ich would help individuals to document all 
the knowledge, skills and comp etences acquired throughout their lifetime. A broader 
understanding of the value of non-formal learni ng for the acquisition of key competencies for 
lifelong learning should be promoted in society.  
5.11 Mobilising Actors and Resources 
How can all actors and resources at nationa l, regional and local levels be better 
mobilised in the interest of youth mobility? 
 
EN 15   EN All respondent types agree that  creating or improving partners hip involvement as well as 
improving funding opportunities and information and support structures would help to 
mobilise all actors in the interest of youth mobility. A majority of online respondents (56.4%) 
sees the European Union and its institutions as the most important actor in promoting a new partnership for mobility. 
The opportunities offered by mobility at Eu ropean level should be promoted by the 
appropriate national and regiona l organisations, since such ‘i ntermediary bodies’ are more 
likely to have effective cooperation networks with the target groups of the LLL programme. 
Successful mobility partnerships should be fo rmed with both public and private actors 
operating at local level; chambers of commerce,  business associations, and NGOs can also be 
very valuable partners.  
Regional authorities should play an increasing role in promoting mobility through networks 
and financial support. It was s uggested that a system with funding from different sources 
needs to be established. The EU should stream line mobility notably in the Structural Funds 
and the Research and Development Framework programme. 
5.12 More active involvement from the business world 
How can businesses be motivated to become more strongly involved in youth 
mobility?  
All types of respondents perceive the involvemen t of businesses as an important factor in 
strengthening youth mobility. To improve the motivation of businesses, active cooperation 
and communication (including awareness-raisin g and advocacy about the value of mobility) 
between the educational and the business sector is essential. 
The latter should not only be familiarised w ith the benefits of mobility, but also given 
incentives to engage more young people in training periods abroad. It is suggested that such 
incentives should be in the form of special grants  or tax exemptions, or ethical awards such as 
“mobile excellence labels”. 
Businesses themselves see costs, lack of info rmation and administrativ e effort as the main 
barriers against a stronger engagement of the business world for learning mobility. The procedures in programmes such as Leonardo da Vinci should be simplified in order to increase the number of SM Es taking part in it.  
5.13 Virtual Mobility 
How can we best make use of ICTs to  provide valuable virtual mobility 
opportunities to enrich the physical mobility? 
There is a clear message that virtual mobility should accompany physical mobility rather than 
replace it. Virtual mobility and ICTs play an important role in strengthening the support for 
learners when it comes to preparing them for the physical mobility phase as well as 
maintaining follow-up communication and networ king after the learner’s return. To make 
 
EN 16   EN virtual mobility and ICTs a valuable source  of preparation, there should be electronic 
guidance and counsellor services and teachers a nd trainers should under go regular training to 
ensure an adequate provision of such serv ices. In addition, online learning communities 
between teachers and learners should be estab lished to support those willing to go abroad 
through peer learning. ICTs should also offer onlin e language courses to learners prior to the 
stage of mobility.  
Several respondents alerted to the need to  introduce or significantly improve the ICT 
infrastructure at schools befo re aiming at using it for the pur pose of promoting mobility. 
5.14 eTwinning 
Can the eTwinning approach be used in ot her learning sectors e.g. voluntary 
service, vocational sector?  
The eTwinning approach is embraced by all types of respondents. They underlined that it 
should be extended to all forms of formal and non-formal learning, in particular the vocational 
and voluntary sector. eTwinning is  seen as a very good way to develop partnerships with 
educational institutions, to exchange experiences and good practice and to advance internationalisation without phys ically moving from one country to another. eTwinning can 
lead to the dissolution of barriers for students  with special educati onal needs and special 
conditions and thereby involve a wider rang e of individuals in virtual mobility. 
The eTwinning approach may be utilised with  success in other learning areas such as 
voluntary service, higher education, and VET. 
5.15 Engaging the ‘Multipliers’ 
Should mobility opportunities for "multipliers"  (teachers, trainers, youth workers, 
etc.) be given additional support and pr ominence in European programmes? 
What do you see as the main obstacles to a stronger engagement of teachers and 
trainers in promoting mobility? 
Most respondents clearly indicated that mob ility opportunities for ‘multipliers’ should be 
given additional support and prominence in European programmes. ‘Multipliers’ such as teachers, trainers and students who previously pa rticipated in a mobility stage can be a great 
source of inspiration for their students or pe ers and helps to promote young people’s mobility 
in Europe.  
To provide more mobility opportunities for multipliers, teacher/traine r courses should be 
modernised to include a mandatory period of mobility. Employers in education should 
accommodate teachers/trainers’ professional mobility involvement so that additional 
workload is avoided and should provide incenti ves and recognition to staff with particular 
commitment to mobility. 
 
EN 17   EN It was also suggested that more accurate statistical information a bout the experience of staff in 
mobility should be compiled, and databases gath ering the testimonials of students who have 
experienced mobility should be established/ developed. 
The importance of the Grundtvig mobility progr ammes which also enable adult education 
staff (also teachers and trainers ) to be mobile was underlined. 
The main obstacles associated with engageme nt of teachers and trainers in promoting 
mobility include: 
• Little recognition of staff commitme nt by employers. Though mobility is 
considered to enrich a t eachers’ career and experience, the benefits for career 
development are uncertain. 
• Lack of time for staff to commit to mobility and schedule mobility into the 
curriculum. 
• Staff lacks personal mobility e xperience and language skills.  
• Budgetary constraints to support mobility opportunities for staff were highlighted. 
It was suggested the CEDEFOP Study Vis its where important opportunities for 
staff working in mobility. 
• Difficulties faced by staff when balancing mobility experiences with family life.  
• Difficulties related to staff substitution.  
5.16 Mobility Targets 
Do you consider targets a useful tool in defining a mobility st rategy and if so, at 
what level (European, national, ins titutional, sectoral, etc.)?  
Nearly all respondents consider targets a useful tool in defi ning a mobility strategy, though 
preferences regarding the most appropriate level for targets varied. Many considered that 
targets should be set at European and national leve ls, while others felt they should be set at an 
institutional level.  
There is a general view that ta rgets would help to ensure coherence and efficiency. However, 
there is a concern that quantitative targets may negatively affect quality. There was a strong view that mobility targets shoul d be realistic, supported by ade quate financial tools, and not 
primarily focused on quantitative aspects at the expense of qualitative aspects. 
Those less in favour of target se tting at level felt that  targets are a very blunt instrument and 
are only of value if resources are in place to achieve them. 
 
EN 18   EN Annex 1: Examples of Good Practice  
Information and Guidance  
In Denmark, a website provides useful information for young people who are interested in study visits, 
voluntary work, practical training and employment after completing their education: 
www.udiverden.dk  
An example of good practice in making use of young people's experience of mobility can be found in Finland : 
http://www.maailmalle.net/Resource.phx/maailmalle/mainpage/mainpage.htx .  
In the Netherland s, the ‘orange carpet award’  was first introduced in 2009 for higher education institutions who 
offer elaborate support to foreign learners:  
http://www.nuffic.eu/home/news-events/newsletters/education-promotion-e-
newsletter/2010/march/news/general/delft-university-of-technology-wins-orange-carpet-award   
In Germany , an electronic information system containing information on mobility will be implemented in 
university restaurants and cafeterias: 
http://www.campustv-b2b.info/  
Promotion and Motivation 
In France , European Cartoon Animation supported by Youth in Action motivates young people at early stages 
for mobility: http://www.asso-eca.org/  
The White Paper on Internationalisation of Education in Norway  offers a platform for the further development 
of internationalisation of education in Norway: 
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KD/Vedlegg/Inte rnasjonalt/Internationalisation_14_2008_2009.pdf .  
Similarly, Finland ’s strategy for Internationalisation of its higher education recommends that higher education 
institutions incorporate a module supporting internationalisation into degree programmes:  
http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/defau lt/OPM/Julkaisut/2009/liitteet/opm23.pdf  
In France , a video was created by Onisep and Centre-info about apprenticeship and mobility:  
http://www.onisep.fr/depart/camera.html  
In Germany , a website provides a peer-learning platform  for VET students to review student web blogs on 
placements undertaken throughout Europe: 
www.mob-reg.eu  
 
EN 19   EN Languages and Culture  
Franco-German  guidelines for work placement/ vocational education abroad are available to support learners, 
also linguistically:  
http://www.plate-forme-franco-allemande.com/   
The Czech-German-Polish  website 'Trio linguale' supports the linguistic preparation of youth exchanges:  
http://www.triolinguale.eu  
In Norway , the White Paper “Languages open doors” presents a general policy on how to boost language 
learning both in a lifelong learning perspective: 
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KD/Vedlegg/Grunnsko le/Strategiplaner/LanguagesOpenDoors_07web.pdf  
In order to promote inter-cultural skills, the University of Warwick in the UK has developed Global People:  
http://www.globalpeople.org.uk/  
Legal Issues 
In Belgium , an online database allows young people to check what they need to do before being mobile they 
leave in order to be prepared in legal terms:  
www.kamiel.info   
In January 2008, Malta  enacted legislation which aims to provide fo r the issue of a visa and a residence permit, 
and allows part-time employment to those non EU higher education students who want to stay in Malta to pursue 
their studies for more than one year.  
http://www.foreign.gov.m t/Default.aspx?MDIS=539  and 
http://www.doi.gov.mt/en/legalnotices/2008/01/LN%2029.pdf  
Portability of Grants and Loans 
Danish  students have the option to use their government grant for studying abroad and may also obtain stipends 
to cover tuition fees at educational institutions abroad:  
http://www.su.dk/English/Sider/agency.aspx  
In Norway,  both temporarily mobile students and degree students at Bachelor, Master or doctoral level are 
entitled to portable grants and loans from the State Educational Loan Fund:  
http://www.lanekassen.no/Toppmeny/Languages/English/ About-the-Norwegian-State-Educational-Loan-Fund-/  
Mobility to and from the European Union 
The Scottish Government has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with China in 2008 that includes a 
number of commitments to promote mobility, including c oncrete arrangements for the exchange of students. 
Some similar initiatives are underway with India, Canada and the USA. 
 
EN 20   EN http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/04/07104858  
The Cinformi project in the autonomous province of Trento, Italy , supports third country citizens, including 
students, in administrative procedures:  
www.cinformi.it  
In Norway , the Norwegian Programme for Development, Research and Education (NUFU) supports 
independent academic cooperation between researchers and institutions in developing countries and their 
partners in Norway. Approximately 36 million Euros are available for the current programme period (2007-
2011).  
http://www.siu.no/en/Programme -overview/The-NUFU-programme  
In the UK, the International Gateway for Gifted Youth (IGGY) aims at gifted and talented 11-19 year olds from 
around the world. Through IGGY, Warwick University has sent undergraduate and postgraduate students to 
work with these young people at educatio nal programmes delivered internationally. 
http://www.warwick .ac.uk/go/iggy   
 
EN 21   EN Quality Assurance 
The National Agency of the Youth in  Action in France  organises preparation and evaluation events for 
prospective abroad students:  
http://www.injep.fr/Guide-Mont er-un-echange-de-jeunes.html  
In Germany , the Gütegemeinschaft Au pair e.V. project is aimed at increasing quality standards in Au-Pair 
programmes:  
www.guetegemeinschaft-aupair.de  
Nuffic in the  Netherlands has developed a special tool that universities can use to evaluate the quality of their 
own internationalization activities and policies, called Mapping Internationalization:  
http://www.nuffic.nl/mint .  
Together with European partners, Nuffic is now working on a similar European  tool (Indicators for Mapping 
and Profiling Internationalisation): 
http://www.impi.pl  . 
i2i (internship to industry),  a European project coordinated by a school in Sweden , focuses on enhancing the 
quality of internship projects. A webp age has been made to provide manual s and a tool box for parties involved 
in the internship process: coordinators, supervisors and trainees: 
www.internship2industry.eu  
Reaching out to Disadvantaged Groups 
Eurochance  provides language courses for blind and visually impaired: 
http://eurochance.brailcom.org/index  
The Franco-Germany Youth Office initiated a programme for single-parent children to promote their education 
abroad:  
http://www.ofaj.org   
The Agency of Youth in Action in France  elaborated a strategy to tackle the problems of disadvantaged young 
people. 
http://www.injep.fr/-Inclusion-.html  
In Scotland , the Teachability Project  (1999 – 2006) promoted  the creation of an A ccessible Curriculum for 
Students with Disabilities. It has been  widely used by academic staff in the UK and beyond to evaluate the 
accessibility of course provisi on for disabled students. 
http://www.teachability.strath.ac.uk  
 
EN 22   EN Mentoring and Integration  
Buddy schemes operate successfully in many universities in the UK. Within the University of Glasgow, the 
Student Network provides impartial advice to all students, including those considering or participating in a 
period of study abroad, on almost any aspect of  studying there, both personal and academic.  
http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/studentnetwork/  
The University of Warwick, UK, runs a 4-day residential Orientation programme for new international students 
at the start of every academic year: 
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/s ervices/international/offerholders/orientation  
At the website of the youth residences in Germany,  Auswärts Zuhause, young people find the support of 
qualified contact persons who can provide them with ongoing advice and help them in their integration in 
Germany:  
http://www.auswaerts-zuhause.de/  
The University of Gothenburg  (Sweden) developed a Peer Help Programme that trains students so that they can 
provide active listening, support and spontaneous assistance to other students. The Peer helper core training is 
now scheduled in English once a year in order to open up the programme to international students.  
http://www.utbildning.gu.se/education/st udentsupportunit/Peer_Help_Programme/  
Recognition and Validation 
European Training Services  are developing a European Skills Account system which will enable participants 
to record the development of generic employability and language skills. It will be an online portfolio divided into 
several modules. As participants progresses through the mobility project they are encouraged to think about a 
particular category of skills and to find ways to demonstr ate those skills so that they can be assessed by the host 
organisation. 
http://www.europeantrainingservices.co.uk/en/  
he Confederation of  Skilled Crafts in Germany  (ZDH) coordinates the project SME MASTER Plus. With six 
partner organisations, it works on the implementation of ECVET to support stays abroad during the master 
education of specialists and trainees. 
http://sme-master.schnittsteller.de/   
The Project 'Learn and Work Abroad', coordi nated by the Chamber of Crafts Muenster (Germany),  implements 
ECVET and e-learning structures to optimize and implement joint cross-border vocational education and training 
in crafts and skilled trades: 
http://www.lawa-quality.eu  
Mobilising Actors and Resources 
The International Programme Offi ce for Education and Training (Sweden)  offers one-year programmes enabling 
upper secondary school pupils the opportunity to study in France, Spain or Germany/Austria for one year. 
Students are allowed to use their no rmal student grants for such placem ents, including housing subsidies. 
http://www.programkontoret.se/sv/Program -Stipendier/Program1/Ettarsprogrammen/  
 
EN 23   EN The project MOBIVET-Region,  funded by the ESF and the FREREF (a network of European regions ) supports 
the mobility of young people in VET:  
http://www.freref.eu/page.php?page=66  
A network of universities in the SaarLorLux region  promotes the exchange of professors, employees and 
students and has established interregional study programmes, with full recognition of student achievements and 
academic grades: 
http://www.granderegion.net/fr/autres-cooperations-i nterregionales/f2_charte_ universitaire/index.html   
Involving Businesses more strongly  
The Franco-German  exchange programme for young people and adults in vocational education allows 
vocational school students of both countries to stay in a training centre or in an enterprise of a partner country for 
three months. 
http://www.dfs-sfa.org   
The Confederation of Employers of Galicia in  Spain  has signed a collaboration agreem ent with the University of 
Santiago de Compostela to conduct business practices. It allows foreign Erasmus to simultaneously study at the 
university and carry out work experience in companies and institutions. 
http://www.usc.es/csocial  and  
http://www.ceg.es  
Virtual Networking 
To4ka-Treff, a German-Russian  youth portal, provides information and support to young people from both 
countries who want to know more about the language and culture of the other country and would like to visit it:  
http://www.to4k a-treff.de  
ahoj.info, a Czech-German  youth portal, offers similar services to  young people from Germany and the Czech 
Republic:  
http://www.ahoj.info  
The ‘Acculturation’ pilot project is part of the Dutch  national action plan on e-learning which aims to support 
and strengthen incoming international students by providing high-quality online preparation: 
http://www.acculturation.nl/pilots /the-hague-university-app-sc-pilot  
eTwinning 
The Pizza business across Europe project was the winne r of the 2009 internatio nal eTwinning competition 
among vocational schools in the category of 16 to 19 year -olds. It investigates the sociological aspect and the 
practicability of pizza business across Europe. 
http://pizzacrosseuropet orneo.blogspot.com/   
Engaging the multipliers  
 
EN 24   EN In the Netherlands  teacher mobility in primary and secondary education is supported by funding provided 
through the European Comenius programme and the Dutch BIOS programme which allow more than 7000 
teachers annually to take part in in ternational exchanges, go on a work placement or st udy abroad and enrol in 
post graduate courses. 
http://www.nuffic.nl/international-organizations/docs/ke yfigures/internationalizatio n-monitor-of-education-in-
the-netherlands-2008.pdf  
The Swedish Government  initiated an investment of SEK 20 million in increased teacher mobility for 2010–
2011.  
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/11862/a/124195  
 
EN 25   EN Annex 2: Contributions by Organisational Type 
Government  
Ministry of Science and Re search et al  Austria 
Ministère de la Communauté française de Belgique Belgium FR 
Ministry of Education, Youth and Science Bulgaria 
Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of 
Cyprus Cyprus 
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech 
Republic Czech Republic 
Parliament of the Czech republic - Senate Czech Republic 
Danish Parliament’s Education Committee and European 
Affairs Committee Denmark 
Ministry of Education Denmark 
Estonian Ministry of Edu cation and Research and the 
Archimedes Foundation Estonia 
Ministry of Education and Culture Finland 
French Authorities, th rough France's Permanent 
Representation to the EU France 
BMBF und KMK - German Federal Ministry of 
Education and Research and the Standing Conference of 
the Ministers of Education an d Cultural Affairs of the 
German Länder Germany 
Bundesrat (Federal Council) Germany 
Hungarian Ministries' Representatives Hungary 
Department of Education and Science Ireland 
Irish Parliament - Oireachtas Joint Committee on 
European Affairs Ireland 
National Student Council - Ministry of Education, 
University and Research Italy 
 
EN 26   EN Ministry of Education and Sc ience of the Republic of 
Latvia Latvia 
Ministry of Education, Cultu re, Youth and Sport Malta 
Ministry of Education, Cultu re and Science Netherlands 
Norwegian Ministry of Edu cation and Research and the 
Norwegian Centre for Inte rnational Cooperation in 
Higher Education (SIU) Norway 
Ministry of Education Poland 
Ministry of Education, Resear ch and Innovation  Romania 
Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic Slovakia 
Ministry of Education, Andalusia Spain 
Ministry of Education, Spain Spain 
Swedish Parliament Sweden 
Scottish Government United Kingdom 
UK Government  United Kingdom 
Welsh Assembly Government EU office United Kingdom 
 
Regional and local Authority  
IFAPME - Institut wallon de Formation en Alternance et 
des indépendants et Petites et Moyennes Entreprises Belgium FR 
Flemish Department of Educa tion and Training Belgium NL 
Flemish Youth Council 090922 Belgium NL 
Flemish Youth Council 091214 Belgium NL 
VLHORA - Flemish Higher Education and Flemish 
Higher Education Board Belgium NL 
VLIR-UOS - Flemish Interuniversity Board - University 
Cooperation for Development Belgium NL 
 
EN 27   EN VSKO - Flemish Board of Catholic Education Belgium NL 
South Moravian Region Czech Republic 
Euroregion Galicia - North Port ugal EU organisations and 
networks 
Brittany Region France 
Champagne Ardennes - Region France 
Limousin Region France 
Paris Chamber of Commerce and Industry France 
Pays de la Loire Region France 
Poitou-Charentes Region France 
Regional Council Lorraine France 
Regional Council of Auvergne France 
Regional Economic Council of Ile de France (1) France 
Regional Economic Council of Ile de France (2) France 
Regional Economic Council of Ile de France (3) France 
Rhone Alpes Region France 
Ländliche Erwachsenenbildung Thüringen [Educational 
institution engaged in vocational training] Germany 
Leonardo da Vinci Koordi natoren der Hessischen 
Hochschulen Germany 
Oberrhein Conference, Upper Rhein Region Germany 
Saarland fur Grossregion Saarlorlux Germany 
ServiceBureau Jugendinformation [Eurodesk Youth 
Mobility Information Point] Germany 
Unioncamere Calabria [Regiona l Chamber of Commerce] Italy 
Buskerud County, Department of Education Norway 
 
EN 28   EN Oppland County Authority Norway 
Department of Education and sport - Region of 
Malopolska in cooperati on with the Centre for 
Improvement of teachers of Malopolska and the Employment Office of Cracow Poland 
Cambra Oficial de Comerç i Indústria de Terrassa Spain 
Government of Cataluña Spain 
City of Gothenburg Sweden 
Stockholm Region European Committee (SEU) Sweden 
Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions 
(SALAR) Sweden 
Vastra Gotaland Region Sweden 
East of Scotland European  Consortium United Kingdom 
 
European Union Bodies 
Committee of the Regions EU Body 
European Economic and Social Committee EU Body 
  
European Associations  
UEAPME - European Associat ion of Craft, small and 
medium-sized Enterprises Belgium FR 
Don Bosco International aisbl Belgium NL 
112 Foundation EU Association 
ACC - Association for Commun ity Colleges EU Association 
AEPL - Association Européenne de la Pensée Libre EU Association 
AGDF - Aktionsgemeinschaft Dienst für den Frieden EU Association 
Assembly of European Regions  / Eurodysée EU Association 
 
EN 29   EN AVSO - Association of Voluntary Serv ice Organisations EU Association 
BusinessEurope EU Association 
CEEMET - Council of the European Employers of the 
Metal, Engineering and Technology-based Industries EU Association 
CESI - European Confederation of Independent Trade 
Unions EU Association 
CEVI - Confédération Européenne des Vignerons 
Indépendants EU Association 
COIMBRA Group EU Association 
EADTU - European Association for Distance Teaching 
Universities EU Association 
EAEA - European Associa tion for the Education of 
Adults EU Association 
EARLALL - European Association of Regional and 
Local Authorities for Lifelong Learning EU Association 
EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtens tein and Norway) EU Association 
EPA - European Parents' Association EU Association 
EPSA - European Pharmaceutical Stude nts' Association EU Association 
Erasmus Student Network- International EU Association 
ETUCE - European Trade Union Committee for 
Education EU Association 
EUNEC - the European Network of Education Councils EU Association 
Eurochambres EU Association 
European Civic Forum EU Association 
European Students' Union EU Association 
European University Foundation EU Association 
European Youth Forum EU Association 
JEF Europe - Young European Federalists  EU Association 
 
EN 30   EN Merseyside Network for Europe EU Association 
NESSIE - Network for Experts in Student Support EU Association 
NRW.Europa - An Enterprise Europe  Network Partner EU Association 
Rural Youth Europe EU Association 
YES Forum - Youth and European So cial Work Forum EU Association 
CPMR - Conference of Peri pheral Maritime Regions of 
Europe France 
FREREF - Regions in Action for Lifelong Learning France 
ECIU - European Consortium of Innovative Universities Germany 
Kolpingjugend Europa Germany 
AEC - European Association of  Conservatoires Netherlands 
EUproVET - representationa l platform for European 
VET providers Netherlands 
Yc3 - Youth Cross-border Cooperation and 
Communication Project Sweden 
DIW - Disability Issues Worldwide United Kingdom 
 
National Association  
Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour Austria 
Fachhochschulstudiengänge Burgenland  Austria 
Jugend in Aktion - Austrian Agency Austria 
AEF - l’Agence Francophone pour l’éducation et la 
Formation tout au long de la Vie  Belgium FR 
Enterprise Europe Flanders Belgium NL 
JINT - Flemish Coordinating Agency for International 
Youth Work Belgium NL 
Interkultura - the Intercultural Centre Croatia 
 
EN 31   EN Institute of Hospitality Mangement Czech Republic 
CIMO - Centre for Intern ational Mobility Finland 
International Working Group of the Organisers of 
Apprenticeships Finland 
National Union of University Students in Finland Finland 
SAMOK - Union of Students in  Finnish Universities of 
Applied Sciences Finland 
Trade Union of Education Finland 
AFPEJA - l'Agence Française du Programme Européen 
Jeunesse en Action  France 
APCM - l’Assemblée Permanente des Chambres de 
Métiers et de l’artisanat France 
ASF Vivre Sans Frontieres France 
Association of French Regions France 
CIEP - International Centre for Pedagogical Studies France 
CNOUS - Centre National des Oeuvres Universitaires et 
Scolaires  France 
House of Europe Paris - Collective Response from 14 
French Associations France 
Jeunes Européens-France France 
l’ISTP - Formation d’Ingénieu rs sous Statut Salarié de 
l’Ecole Nationale Supérieure Des Mines de Saint Etienne France 
Luciole Association France 
OVE - Observatory of Student Life France 
UNMFREO - l’Union Nationale  des Maisons Familiales 
Rurales d’Education et d’Orientation  France 
AFJ und AKSB - Arbeitsstelle für Jugendseelsorge der 
deutschen Bischofskonferenz und der Arbeitsgemeinschaft katholis ch-sozialer Bildungswerke 
in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland Germany 
 
EN 32   EN AJA - Youth Exchange organisations Germany 
Association of German bishops, Ca tholic office in Berlin Germany 
Au-Pair Society e.V. Germany 
Auswaerts Zuhause - Jugendwohnen mit Zukunft Germany 
BAGF - Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Freien 
Wohlfahrtspflege [Federal Association of Voluntary 
Welfare Services] Germany 
BDA/BDI - Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen 
Arbeitgeberverbände / Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie Germany 
Catholic Youth Social Work BAG KJS Germany 
DAAD - German Academic Exchange Service Germany 
DASV - Association of Archeological Student 
Organisations Germany 
Deutsches Studentenwerk - Association of German 
Student Organizations Germany 
EKD - Protestant Church of Germany Germany 
Forum Universities and Churches Germany 
German Bologna experts Germany 
Go.for.europe Germany 
IJAB - International Youth Service of the Federal 
Republic of Germany Germany 
IN VIA Deutschland - Ka tholischer Verband für 
Mädchen- und Frauensozialarbeit  Germany 
JUGEND für Europa - Youth in Action National Agency 
Germany Germany 
Katholische Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft 
Freiwilligendienste Germany 
VDP - Verband Deutscher Privat schulverbände e. V. Germany 
 
EN 33   EN Ver.di Jugend Germany 
VIJ - Verein für Internationale Jugendarbeit Germany 
Leargas - Youth in Action National Agency Ireland Ireland 
Leargas Youth Work Service Ireland 
 ExisT - Volontari Europei [Former Evs Volunteers] Italy 
Confprofessioni - Italian Confederation of Liberal 
Professions Italy 
Consiglio Nazionale degli Studenti Universitari Italy 
Intercultura Italy Italy 
Lithuanian Youth Council Lithuania 
NAPO - Dutch Au Pair Or ganisation Netherlands 
NUFFIC - Netherlands Organisation for International 
Cooperation in Higher Education Netherlands 
ANSA – Association of Norwegian Students Abroad  Norway 
YS - Confederation of Vocational Unions Norway 
European Youth Parliament (EYP)- Regional Delegation 
of Azores Portugal 
Student Council of Higher Education of the Slovak 
Republic Slovakia 
International Programme Office for Education and 
Training Sweden 
SFS - The Swedish National Union of Students Sweden 
Swedish National Council of Adult Education Sweden 
British Council United Kingdom 
BUTEX - British Universities Transatlantic Exchange 
Association United Kingdom 
CILT - National Centre fo r Languages United Kingdom 
 
EN 34   EN FINE - European Federation of Nurse Educators UK 
Collaboration United Kingdom 
HEURO - Higher Education European Officers 
Association United Kingdom 
NASUWT - Teachers' Union United Kingdom 
NUS SCOTLAND - National Union of Students Scotland United Kingdom 
Scottish Qualifications Authority United Kingdom 
UK Higher Education Europe Unit United Kingdom 
UK Team of Bologna Experts United Kingdom 
 
Education institutions (e.g. Universities, VET schools) 
University of Graz Austria 
Haute Ecole de Namur Belgium FR 
Ghent University International Relations Office Belgium NL 
International Centre Aarhus University Denmark 
Unviersity College South Denmark 
Tallinn University - Tallinna Ülikool Estonia 
TU Dortmund University Germany 
University College Cork Ireland 
University of Limerick Ireland 
Il Liceo Scientifico Statale di  Montecorvino Rovella  Italy 
Liceo Classico "Carducci" Nola Napoli Italy 
Liceo Scientifico Statale di Melito Italy 
Liceo Scientifico Statale Filippo Brunelleschi Italy 
L'Istituto "C. A. Dalla Chiesa" di Afragola Italy 
 
EN 35   EN Serrato Istituto Tecnico I ndustriale "F. Giordani" di 
Napoli Italy 
Rotterdam Law Network Netherlands 
Students from Hogeschool va n Amsterdam Netherlands 
i2i Goteborg Technical College Sweden 
Lund University Department of  Health Sciences Sweden 
University of Gothenburg Sweden 
Aston University United Kingdom 
ESOL Cambridge, English for Speakers of Other 
Languages United Kingdom 
Kingston University United Kingdom 
Oxford Brookes University United Kingdom 
Swansea University United Kingdom 
University of Glasgow United Kingdom 
University of Strathclyde United Kingdom 
University of Sussex United Kingdom 
University of Warwick United Kingdom 
 
Political Groups 
ESP and SSU Varmland - Eur opean Social Democratic 
Party and the Swedish Social Democratic Youth League, Varmland  Sweden 
 
Businesses 
CATT Innovation Management  GmbH, Austria Austria 
DGB - The Confederation of German Trade Unions Germany 
 
EN 36   EN DGU - German Social Acci dent Insurance Germany 
DIHK - German Chamber of Industry and Business Germany 
ZDH - Central Association of German Crafts Germany 
La'Met Education Netherlands 
 
It should be noted that the na mes of individuals contributing to the Green Paper consultation 
have not been individually named in this report for confidentiality reasons. 
 
EN 37   EN Annex 3: Response Charts for the Online Questionnaire  
Response statistics for Green Paper on Promo ting the Learning Mobility of Young People  
    
Consultation period: 15 July – 15 December 2009 
2798 responses received.  
    
Profile of the respondent 
    
Do you reply as an individual or on behalf of an organisation? 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
Individual 2206 (78.8%)  (78.8%)  
Organisation 532 (19%)  (19%)  
        
If you answer as an individual please specify 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
 
EN 38   EN Pupil 184 (8.3%)  (6.6%)  
Student in higher education 657 (29.8%)  (23.5%)  
Trainee/Apprentice 90 (4.1%)  (3.2%)  
Teacher 389 (17. 6%)  (13.9%)  
Trainer 94 (4.3%)  (3.4%)  
Reseacher/Scientist 400 (18.1%)  (14.3%)  
Policy maker 70 (3.2%)  (2.5%)  
Other 479 (21.7%)  (17.1%)  
        
If answering on behalf on an organisation please specify 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
Public organisation 259 (48.7%)  (9.3%)  
Non-govermental organisation (NGO) 71 (13.3%)  (2.5%)  
Business/Enterprise (micro, small, medi um or large) 45 (8.5%)  (1.6%)  
Association 80 (15%)  (2.9%)  
 
EN 39   EN National authority 12 (2.3%)  (0.4%)  
Regional/Local authority 36 (6.8%)  (1.3%)  
Other 71 (13.3%)  (2.5%)  
       
Gender 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
Female  1719 (61.4%)  (61.4%)  
Male 986 (35.2%)  (35.2%)  
        
Your age category 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
Less than 35 years 1758 (62.8%)  (62.8%)  
Between 35 and 44 years 386 (13.8%)  (13.8%)  
Between 45 and 54 years 367 (13.1%)  (13.1%)  
Between 55 and 64 years 143 (5.1%)  (5.1%)  
 
EN 40   EN 65 years and over 25 (0.9%)  (0.9%)  
  
 
       
What is your country of residence? 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
BE Belgium 118 (4.2%)  (4.2%)  
BG Bulgaria 35 (1.3%)  (1.3%)  
CZ Czech Republic 63 (2.3%)  (2.3%)  
DK Denmark 15 (0.5%)  (0.5%)  
DE Germany 211 (7.5%)  (7.5%)  
EE Estonia 27 (1%)  (1%)  
GR Greece 71 (2.5%)  (2.5%)  
ES Spain 218 (7.8%)  (7.8%)  
FR France 279 (10%)  (10%)  
 
EN 41   EN IE Ireland 21 (0.8%)  (0.8%)  
IT Italy 545 (19.5%)  (19.5%)  
CY Cyprus 29 (1%)  (1%)  
LV Latvia 28 (1%)  (1%)  
LT Lithuania 26 (0.9%)  (0.9%)  
LU Luxembourg 10 (0.4%)  (0.4%)  
HU Hungary 29 (1%)  (1%)  
MT Malta 8 (0.3%)  (0.3%)  
NL Netherlands 36 (1.3%)  (1.3%)  
AT Austria 42 (1.5%)  (1.5%)  
PL Poland 81 (2.9%)  (2.9%)  
PT Portugal 45 (1.6%)  (1.6%)  
RO Romania 164 (5.9%)  (5.9%)  
SI Slovenia 77 (2.8%)  (2.8%)  
SK Slovak Republic 15 (0.5%)  (0.5%)  
FI Finland 34 (1.2%)  (1.2%)  
 
EN 42   EN SE Sweden 30 (1.1%)  (1.1%)  
UK United Kingdom 149 (5.3%)  (5.3%)  
IS Iceland 1 (0%)  (0%)  
LI Liechtenstein 1 (0%)  (0%)  
NO Norway 32 (1.1%)  (1.1%)  
TR Turkey 164 (5 .9%)  (5.9%)  
Other 91 (3.3%)  (3.3%)  
 
I. PREPARATION FOR A PERIOD OF LEARNING MOBILITY 
How important are the following issues in order to 
increase learning mobility?  
Please note that 1 = Very important and 5 = Not important    
Information 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 1654 (59.1%)  (59.1%)  
2 502 (17.9%)  (17.9%)  
 
EN 43   EN 3 158 (5.6%)  (5.6%)  
4 122 (4.4%)  (4.4%)  
5 286 (10.2%)  (10.2%)  
        
Motivation 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 1557 (55.6%)  (55.6%)  
2 550 (19.7%)  (19.7%)  
3 212 (7.6%)  (7.6%)  
4 148 (5.3%)  (5.3%)  
5 248 (8.9%)  (8.9%)  
        
Funding 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 1493 (53.4%)  (53.4%)  
 
EN 44   EN 2 620 (22.2%)  (22.2%)  
3 206 (7.4%)  (7.4%)  
4 148 (5.3%)  (5.3%)  
5 254 (9.1%)  (9.1%)  
        
Portability of grants and loans 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 828 (29.6%)  (29.6%)  
2 834 (29.8%)  (29.8%)  
3 535 (19.1%)  (19.1%)  
4 225 (8%)  (8%)  
5 170 (6.1%)  (6.1%)  
        
Visa procedures (international mobility) 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
 
EN 45   EN 1 757 (27.1%)  (27.1%)  
2 749 (26.8%)  (26.8%)  
3 614 (21.9%)  (21.9%)  
4 279 (10%)  (10%)  
5 214 (7.6%)  (7.6%)  
        
Administrative issues (insuran ce, social security etc.) 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 749 (26.8%)  (26.8%)  
2 880 (31.5%)  (31.5%)  
3 606 (21.7%)  (21.7%)  
4 266 (9.5%)  (9.5%)  
5 165 (5.9%)  (5.9%)  
        
Linguistic preparation 
 
EN 46   EN   Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 787 (28.1%)  (28.1%)  
2 864 (30.9%)  (30.9%)  
3 630 (22.5%)  (22.5%)  
4 282 (10.1%)  (10.1%)  
5 143 (5.1%)  (5.1%)  
        
Reception structures  (housing etc.) 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 821 (29.3%)  (29.3%)  
2 907 (32.4%)  (32.4%)  
3 563 (20.1%)  (20.1%)  
4 279 (10%)  (10%)  
5 135 (4.8%)  (4.8%)  
       
 
EN 47   EN Integration during the stay abroad 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 929 (33.2%)  (33.2%)  
2 907 (32.4%)  (32.4%)  
3 432 (15.4%)  (15.4%)  
4 267 (9.5%)  (9.5%)  
5 146 (5.2%)  (5.2%)  
        
Recognition and validation after return 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 1267 (45.3%)  (45.3%)  
2 670 (23.9%)  (23.9%)  
3 308 (11%)  (11%)  
4 203 (7.3%)  (7.3%)  
5 233 (8.3%)  (8.3%)  
 
EN 48   EN         
Exchange of existing good practices through ICT 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 636 (22.7%)  (22.7%)  
2 821 (29.3%)  (29.3%)  
3 605 (21.6%)  (21.6%)  
4 304 (10.9%)  (10.9%)  
5 163 (5.8%)  (5.8%)  
        
Other 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 217 (7.8%)  (7.8%)  
2 86 (3.1%)  (3.1%)  
3 128 (4.6%)  (4.6%)  
4 54 (1.9%)  (1.9%)  
 
EN 49   EN 5 135 (4.8%)  (4.8%)  
  
There are several European internet portals that provide 
information and guidance on existing mobility 
opportunities and related issues. How useful are they to you?       
Portal on Learning Opportunities throughout the European Space PLOTEUS: h ttp://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/ 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
Very useful 350 (12.5%)  (12.5%)  
Fairly useful 674 (24.1%)  (24.1%)  
Not useful 123 (4.4%)  (4.4%)  
Don't know the portal 1239 (44.3%)  (44.3%)  
        
Youth portal: http://europa.eu/youth/ 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
Very useful 602 (21.5%)  (21.5%)  
Fairly useful 819 (29.3%)  (29.3%)  
 
EN 50   EN Not useful 116 (4.1%)  (4.1%)  
Don't know the portal 864 (30.9%)  (30.9%)  
        
Study in Europe: http://www.study-in-europe.org/ 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
Very useful 478 (17.1%)  (17.1%)  
Fairly useful 694 (24.8%)  (24.8%)  
Not useful 118 (4.2%)  (4.2%)  
Don't know the portal 1074 (38.4%)  (38.4%)  
        
Euraxess - Researchers in motion: http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
Very useful 253 (9%)  (9%)  
Fairly useful 562 (20.1%)  (20.1%)  
Not useful 155 (5.5%)  (5.5%)  
 
EN 51   EN Don't know the portal 1319 (47.1%)  (47.1%)  
       
Your Europe: http://ec.europa.eu/youreurope/ 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
Very useful 308 (11%)  (11%)  
Fairly useful 585 (20.9%)  (20.9%)  
Not useful 144 (5.1%)  (5.1%)  
Don't know the portal 1243 (44.4%)  (44.4%)  
        
Euroguidance: http://www.euroguidance.net/ 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
Very useful 260 (9.3%)  (9.3%)  
Fairly useful 540 (19.3%)  (19.3%)  
Not useful 154 (5.5%)  (5.5%)  
Don't know the portal 1290 (46.1%)  (46.1%)  
 
EN 52   EN         
Eurodesk: http://www.eurodesk.eu/edesk/ 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
Very useful 487 (17.4%)  (17.4%)  
Fairly useful 634 (22.7%)  (22.7%)  
Not useful 143 (5.1%)  (5.1%)  
Don't know the portal 1023 (36.6%)  (36.6%)  
        
EURES - European Job Mobility Portal: eures.europa.eu/ 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
Very useful 514 (18.4%)  (18.4%)  
Fairly useful 654 (23.4%)  (23.4%)  
Not useful 165 (5.9%)  (5.9%)  
Don't know the portal 966 (34.5%)  (34.5%)  
        
 
EN 53   EN Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs: http://www.erasmus-e ntrepreneurs.eu 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
Very useful 539 (19.3%)  (19.3%)  
Fairly useful 605 (21.6%)  (21.6%)  
Not useful 181 (6.5%)  (6.5%)  
Don't know the portal 1005 (35.9%)  (35.9%)  
        
EU support for training and mobility for SMEs:  
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrepreneurship/cr aft/craft-skills_training/skills_training_main_en.htm 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
Very useful 326 (11.7%)  (11.7%)  
Fairly useful 455 (16.3%)  (16.3%)  
Not useful 139 (5%)  (5%)  
Don't know the portal 1309 (46.8%)  (46.8%)  
        
 
EN 54   EN Other 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
Very useful 150 (5.4%)  (5.4%)  
Fairly useful 76 (2.7%)  (2.7%)  
Not useful 40 (1.4%)  (1.4%)  
Don't know the portal 320 (11.4%)  (11.4%)  
  
Which of the following benefits of learning mobility do 
you consider most important? 
Please note that 1 = most important and 5 = least important       
Added knowledge and/or skills in  the area of specialisation 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 1293 (46.2%)  (46.2%)  
2 695 (24.8%)  (24.8%)  
3 340 (12.2%)  (12.2%)  
4 184 (6.6%)  (6.6%)  
 
EN 55   EN 5 168 (6%)  (6%)  
       
Foreign language skills 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 1362 (48.7%)  (48.7%)  
2 733 (26.2%)  (26.2%)  
3 233 (8.3%)  (8.3%)  
4 141 (5%)  (5%)  
5 225 (8%)  (8%)  
        
Personal development 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 1716 (61.3%)  (61.3%)  
2 507 (18.1%)  (18.1%)  
3 120 (4.3%)  (4.3%)  
 
EN 56   EN 4 101 (3.6%)  (3.6%)  
5 247 (8.8%)  (8.8%)  
        
Strengthened European identity 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 764 (27.3%)  (27.3%)  
2 808 (28.9%)  (28.9%)  
3 577 (20.6%)  (20.6%)  
4 284 (10.2%)  (10.2%)  
5 221 (7.9%)  (7.9%)  
        
Intercultural skills 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 1166 (41.7%)  (41.7%)  
2 817 (29.2%)  (29.2%)  
 
EN 57   EN 3 308 (11%)  (11%)  
4 184 (6.6%)  (6.6%)  
5 192 (6.9%)  (6.9%)  
        
 
Enhanced future employability 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 1073 (38.3%)  (38.3%)  
2 817 (29.2%)  (29.2%)  
3 374 (13.4%)  (13.4%)  
4 198 (7.1%)  (7.1%)  
5 205 (7.3%)  (7.3%)  
        
Other 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
 
EN 58   EN 1 129 (4.6%)  (4.6%)  
2 46 (1.6%)  (1.6%)  
3 34 (1.2%)  (1.2%)  
4 14 (0.5%)  (0.5%)  
5 61 (2.2%)  (2.2%)  
        
Do you think European, national and regional initiatives and prog rammes should focus even more strongly on providing mobility 
support to disadvantaged groups? 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
Yes 1922 (68.7%)  (68.7%)  
No 298 (10.7%)  (10.7%)  
I don't know 476 (17%)  (17%)  
        
 
    
II. THE STAY ABROAD AND FOLLOW-UP 
 
EN 59   EN     
"The lack of full and easy validation and recognition of a learni ng or training period abroad is still a significant obstacle t o 
mobility" - do you agree with this statement? 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
Strongly 1060 (37.9%)  (37.9%)  
Somewhat 1265 (45.2%)  (45.2%)  
Not at all 288 (10.3%)  (10.3%)  
I don't know 104 (3.7%)  (3.7%)  
        
    
III. A NEW PARTNERSHIP FOR MOBILITY 
Many actors can play a role in promoting the learning mobiiity of young people. How important do you consider each actor's role? 
Please note that 1 = Very important and 5 = Not important.    
European Union and its institutions 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
 
EN 60   EN 1 1578 (56.4%)  (56.4%)  
2 516 (18.4%)  (18.4%)  
3 232 (8.3%)  (8.3%)  
4 131 (4.7%)  (4.7%)  
5 213 (7.6%)  (7.6%)  
        
National governments 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 1252 (44.7%)  (44.7%)  
2 705 (25.2%)  (25.2%)  
3 314 (11.2%)  (11.2%)  
4 192 (6.9%)  (6.9%)  
5 173 (6.2%)  (6.2%)  
        
Regional governments and authorities 
 
EN 61   EN   Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 888 (31.7%)  (31.7%)  
2 766 (27.4%)  (27.4%)  
3 527 (18.8%)  (18.8%)  
4 263 (9.4%)  (9.4%)  
5 169 (6%)  (6%)  
        
Local authorities 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 755 (27%)  (27%)  
2 688 (24.6%)  (24.6%)  
3 623 (22.3%)  (22.3%)  
4 307 (11%)  (11%)  
5 207 (7.4%)  (7.4%)  
        
 
EN 62   EN  
Education and training institutions 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 1688 (60.3%)  (60.3%)  
2 433 (15.5%)  (15.5%)  
3 186 (6.6%)  (6.6%)  
4 116 (4.1%)  (4.1%)  
5 222 (7.9%)  (7.9%)  
        
Businesses 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 644 (23%)  (23%)  
2 810 (28.9%)  (28.9%)  
3 596 (21.3%)  (21.3%)  
4 321 (11.5%)  (11.5%)  
 
EN 63   EN 5 190 (6.8%)  (6.8%)  
        
Professional associations and networks 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 806 (28.8%)  (28.8%)  
2 766 (27.4%)  (27.4%)  
3 549 (19.6%)  (19.6%)  
4 251 (9%)  (9%)  
5 200 (7.1%)  (7.1%)  
        
Other 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
1 167 (6%)  (6%)  
2 43 (1.5%)  (1.5%)  
3 49 (1.8%)  (1.8%)  
 
EN 64   EN 4 17 (0.6%)  (0.6%)  
5 54 (1.9%)  (1.9%)  
        
"Mobility opportunities for "multipliers" (teacher s, trainers, youth workers,  etc.) ought to be give n additional support and pr ominence 
in European programmes" - do you agree with this statement? 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
Strongly 1682 (60.1%)  (60.1%)  
Somewhat 813 (29.1%)  (29.1%)  
Not at all 87 (3.1%)  (3.1%)  
I don't know 126 (4.5%)  (4.5%)  
        
Do you consider mobility targets ("x percent of mobile apprenti ces by 2020", etc.) a useful tool in defining a mobility strateg y? 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
Yes 1378 (49.2%)  (49.2%)  
No 677 (24.2%)  (24.2%)  
 
EN 65   EN I don't know 642 (22.9%)  (22.9%)  
        
If yes, at what level would targets be most useful? 
  Number of requested 
records % Requested records % of total number 
records 
European level 514 (37.3%)  (18.4%)  
National level 291 (21.1%)  (10.4%)  
Sectoral level (schools, higher education, etc.) 336 (24.4%)  (12%)  
Institutional level (school, company, etc.) 201 (14.6%)  (7.2%)  
Other 8 (0.6%)  (0.3%)