Report from the Commission - Final Report from the Commission on the implementation of the Socrates programme 1995 - 1999
Date: 2001-02-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, action programme, education, report, teaching

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 12.2.2001
COM(2001) 75 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

FINAL REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE SOCRATES PROGRAMME 1995 - 1999

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

FINAL REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE SOCRATES PROGRAMME 1995 - 1999

1.

1.1

FRAMEWORK AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The purpose of the report

This report concerns the implementation of the SOCRATES programme during
the period 1995 to 19991, which corresponds to the first phase of the programme.
It takes into account all analyses available, particularly the conclusions of the
interim evaluation2 and of four external evaluations completed in November
2000.3 In the interest of transparency, all these external evaluations are available
on the Commission’s Internet site.4 This document has undergone thorough
consultation within the SOCRATES Committee and the support group set up by
it.5 The analysis and information gathering carried out must also inform the debate
at the broadest level in order to contribute inter alia to the success of the new
phase of the SOCRATES programme6 by drawing on the experienced amassed
between 1995 and 1999.

The report comprises an examination of the results achieved by the programme in
relation to the objectives set by Decision 819/95/EC. This analysis is followed by
a summary of the main developments in the programme, considering at the same
time the transition of the programme from its initial phase to the second phase and
the political environment in which SOCRATES evolved. It is intended to be a

1

2

3

4

5

6

In accordance with Article 8(2) of Decision No 819/95/EC of the European Parliament and the
Council of 14 March 1995 (OJ L 87 of 20.4.1995) amended by Decision No 98/576/EC of
23 February 1998 (OJ L 77 of 14.3.1998).
External evaluation GMV Council (1998) and Commission report COM (97) 99 final of 14 March
1997, covering the period 1995-1996.
An overall evaluation and three specific evaluations undertaken following calls for tender were
carried out over a ten-month period. Hereinafter in the report all references to “external evaluation”
concern the overall evaluation report. This overall evaluation was conducted by Wissenschaftliches
Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung, Universität GH Kassel in conjunction with the
European Education and Social Policy Institute in Paris. The specific evaluations relate to the
participation in the SOCRATES programme of people with special education needs (European
Agency for Special Needs, Copenhagen),
the impact of Erasmus in engineering (Sociedade
portuguesa de inovaçao, Porto) and the results of the Comenius 1 and Lingua E actions (Deloitte and
Touche, Brussels). The conclusions of a number of other specific evaluations undertaken between
1995 and 1999, particularly under Erasmus, have also been considered.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education. Detailed information on the SOCRATES programme can also
be found on this site.
This support group is made up of experts designated by the Member States and a few representatives
of European associations in the area of education. It met five times in 1999 and 2000.
By Decision No 253/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 January 2000, a
second phase of the programme was established to run from 2000 to 2006 (OJ L 28/1 of 3.2.2000).

2

synthetic report and priority is given to qualitative analysis. A few key figures are
included in an annex.

1.2

The SOCRATES programme: origins, developments, objectives

The adoption of the SOCRATES programme by Decision 819/95/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council (14 March 1995) introduced, for the first
time at Community level, the implementation of an overall programme in the area
of education. SOCRATES subsumed the Erasmus programme (adopted in 1987)
and a major portion of the Lingua programme (adopted in 1989), as well as
various pilot initiatives previously undertaken by the Commission, particularly in
school education. The SOCRATES programme is based on an integrated
framework of actions and activities relating to all levels of education.7 Article 1 of
the Decision states: “This programme is intended to contribute to the development
of quality education and training and the creation of an open European area for
cooperation in education”. Over and above this general objective, the programme
sets out nine specific objectives listed in Article 3 of the SOCRATES Decision8
which underpin a range of actions and sub-actions which go to serve as a
framework for developing projects.

1.3

The legal and political context

The legal basis of the SOCRATES Decision is to be found in Articles 126 and
127 of the Treaty on European Union.9 The general aim of the Community policy
on education is to “contribute to the development of quality education by
encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting

7

8

9

to promote wide-ranging and intensive cooperation between institutions in the Member

to encourage the mobility of teachers, so as to promote a European dimension in studies

to develop the European dimension in education at all levels so as to strengthen the spirit of

A summary table of actions under the SOCRATES programme (first phase) is included in an annex
to the report: Annex 1.
These nine objectives are:
a)
European citizenship, drawing on the cultural heritage of each Member State;
b)
to promote a quantitative and qualitative improvement of the knowledge of the languages
of the EU, and in particular those which are least widely used and least taught, leading to greater
understanding and solidarity between the peoples of the EU, and to promote the intercultural
dimension of education;
c)
States at all levels of education, enhancing their intellectual and teaching potential;
d)
and to contribute to the qualitative improvement of their skills;
e)
to encourage mobility for students, enabling them to complete part of their studies in
another Member State, so as to contribute to the consolidation of the European dimension in
education;
f)
their education;
g)
to encourage the academic recognition of diplomas, periods of study and other
qualifications, with the aim of facilitating the development of an open European area for cooperation
in education;
to encourage open and distance education in the context of the activities of this programme;
h)
i)
to foster exchanges of information and experience so that the diversity and specificity of
the educational systems in the Member States become a source of enrichment and of mutual
stimulation.
Which have become Articles 149 and 150 since 1 May 1999 (when the Treaty of Amsterdam came
into force).

to encourage contacts among pupils in the EU and to promote the European dimension in

3

and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the
Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education
systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity”.

Examining what the SOCRATES programme has achieved implies taking account
of this legal framework which emphasises the primary responsibility of the
Member States when it comes to education policy. SOCRATES is designed to
provide stimulation for opening up to Europe of national policies on a
complementary — and not an alternative — basis to them. The stated resolve of
the Member States in recent years to build up a Europe of knowledge based on
more active policies with regard to lifelong learning gives the programme the
opportunity to stand as a powerful tool for implementing European and national
policies in the area of education. The Commission will in future encourage the
strengthening of open coordination between national and European decision-
makers, in order to guarantee the success of the implementation of the ambitious
conclusions of the special European Council meeting in Lisbon in March 2000.

This report takes account of the major policy developments which emerged
between 1995 and 1999 in the area of education in Europe. These include the
publication of the 'White Paper on teaching and learning: towards the learning
society' (1995) and a 'Green Paper on the obstacles to transnational mobility in
Europe' (1996), the Commission Communication entitled “Towards a Europe of
knowledge” (1997), the European Year of Lifelong Learning (1996) and the
European Year against Racism and Xenophobia (1997).

1.4

Who does the SOCRATES programme target?

Between 1995 and 1997 the SOCRATES programme was implemented in the 15
Member States of the European Union and in those countries covered by the
agreement on the European Economic Area (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway).
Since 1997 and 1998, it has also been open to the nationals and the institutions of
a number of countries which have applied to join the European Union (Cyprus,
Romania, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia), subject to specific
the association agreements signed with these
conditions established under
countries. Bulgaria, Slovenia and the three Baltic States came into the programme
in 1999.

The SOCRATES programme potentially targets a broad public but obviously
cannot reach everyone concerned. The European Union has 145 million young
people aged under 30, i.e. around 40% of the total population. Some 70 million of
these young people receive instruction from over 4 million teachers in 305 000
schools. In addition, around 10 million children receive pre-school education.
11 million students attend 5 000 higher education establishments and millions of
adults follow courses in order to update their knowledge and skills.

Many players are involved in education. With a limited budget, representing
under 1% of the total Community budget,
the SOCRATES programme has
endeavoured to give priority to those players whose action can generate a
multiplier effect. The important matter of selecting participants will be
incorporated into the detailed analysis of the programme results. All in all, a lot

4

remains to be done in order to better circumscribe the priority targets for each
action. The impact of SOCRATES is indeed very much dependent upon national
policies in relation to which Community action can fulfil only a complementary
function.

1.5

What are its resources?

The initial budget
fixed by the Decision establishing the programme was
EUR 850 million. The feasibility of reviewing this amount at the half-way stage
had initially been envisaged. In view of the response to the programme, the
Commission proposed a review the adoption of which took the SOCRATES
budget up to EUR 920 million. Lastly, the budgetary authority took account of the
fact that the programme had funded supporting expenditure of EUR 13 million
and added this amount to the budget for the final year. The total budget thus came
to EUR 933 million, 920 million of which represented operational expenditure.
it was still not possible to fully meet a demand which had been
Even so,
increasingly regularly. The applicant countries have gradually been taking part in
the SOCRATES programme, benefiting from resources drawn at Community
level from the PHARE programme.10 An accurate financial breakdown of the
actions throughout the period 1995 - 1999 is given in the annex.11

1.6

The SOCRATES programme: its structures

The SOCRATES programme is implemented by the Commission assisted by the
SOCRATES Committee which includes two representatives from each Member
State and is chaired by the Commission. Also represented within this Committee,
subject to the conditions of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Area,
are Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Two subcommittees have also been set up
for higher education and for school education. The Commission is gratified by the
excellent cooperation which has emerged during the past five years between the
Committee and the two subcommittees, and, thanks to regular consultations, with
the applicant countries.

The application and selection procedures set out by Decision 819/95/EC vary
depending on whether the action is centralised and managed by the European
Commission with the aid of
for
SOCRATES and YOUTH, or a decentralised action managed by the national
agencies designated in the countries taking part in the programme.

the Technical Assistance Office (TAO)

The national agencies perform management and monitoring functions with regard
to the decentralised actions, but also provide information on all actions. The high
number of agencies during the start-up phase of the programme meant there was
some risk of confusion for the potential beneficiaries and of heterogeneousness in

10

11

The link between the PHARE and SOCRATES programme has generated certain difficulties as
regards implementation. The Commission has endeavoured to solve these problems in close
conjunction with the competent authorities both at European and at national levels.
Annex 2: ex-post budgets for 1995-1999 giving a breakdown by action. Annex 3: breakdown by
action in average terms from 1995 to 1999.

5

the implementation of actions. This is why the Commission sought to encourage
the creation of more integrated national structures.

1.7

The implementation of the programme from 1995 to 1999

The external evaluation points to three types of criticisms from those who took
part
the
in the initial phase of SOCRATES. The main criticism is of
implementation procedures,
the dissemination of results and the policy for
following up and evaluating the programme in general.

Many procedures have been deemed excessively cumbersome and complex in
relation to the sums involved, which are sometimes small. There has been
overemphasis on the financial aspects of the projects to the detriment of the
teaching aspects. Payment schedules are often excessively long. The Commission
has taken on board this criticism, which it has begun to discuss in detail with the
Member States. It is important that the move to simplify procedures which will be
done under the new phase of the programme takes due account of all the problems
raised, which concern the Commission but also frequently the procedures
implemented at national level by the agencies and the establishments themselves.

The external evaluation finds that access to information has been judged
satisfactory by the participants, with the exception of disabled persons. The
content of information provided nonetheless remains excessively complex and
dissemination of the programme results has been disappointing. The SOCRATES
programme remains popular but questions remain as to its visibility. The
Commission intends to take due account of this criticism in order to shape for the
future a policy which is better targeted as regards communication, in partnership
with the participating countries.

the Commission acknowledges that

Lastly,
the policy on monitoring and
evaluation implemented in the first phase of the programme was inadequate. In
particular, the external evaluator encountered substantial difficulty in gathering
reliable figures, particularly for the decentralised actions. This question will be
to trends and
reviewed in detail
developments.12

the report given over

in the part of

2.

RESULTS OF THE PROGRAMME

The results achieved through the various actions of the programme have to be
appreciated in the light of the SOCRATES objectives during its initial phase. Due
account must also be taken of the budgetary limits of the Community programme
in relation to national education budgets.

12

§ 3.2: resources deployed.

6

The results are presented in the order of the ten programme objectives13 set by the
Decision establishing the programme. A number of these objectives are of course
directly linked between one
cross-referenced
interpretation. The changes which have taken place over the past five years must
also be taken into account. The matter of consistency14 will then be discussed.
Lastly, certain spin-off results considered to be significant will be mentioned
although they do not strictly correspond to the objectives set for the programme.

and thus

another

require

the excessively vague definition of

The Commission feels that
the many
objectives set in 1995 by the Council and the European Parliament makes it
difficult to have an overview of the results achieved. For the sake of clarity, this
report accordingly focuses first on the objectives primarily linked to the resolve to
develop European citizenship15, then to those targeting more specifically the
improvement of the quality of education systems.16.

2.1

European dimension in studies in order to consolidate European citizenship

This first objective concerns all the actions of the programme and is the most
general. Although difficult to express in terms of quantity, the results show that
the projects carried forward by the programme have favoured the development of
key skills in European citizenship, particularly on the language front, but also in
terms of communication and countering cultural prejudice and stereotypes. In
higher education, students who have benefited from Erasmus continue to rank the
broadening of their cultural and linguistic horizons during their stay in another
country amongst the major achievements of their experience. In the other actions
of the programme,
the participants have to a very large extent stressed the
contribution of the programme to a tangible approach to European citizenship.
This is particularly true for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe which
have applied to join the European Union and in relation to which SOCRATES has
played a pioneering role when it comes to integrating the education players from
the point of view of European citizenship.

The SOCRATES programme has nevertheless so far done more to develop the
idea of European citizenship in general than to strengthen the European dimension
in studies as such. Much remains to be done on this front, particularly with regard
to school education.

2.2

Improvement of the knowledge of languages and the intercultural dimension

Improving the knowledge of the languages of the European Union was one of the
objectives of the former LINGUA programme. It was incorporated into the
broader framework of SOCRATES17 in an endeavour to strengthen the link

13

14

15

16

17

The nine specific objectives followed by the general objective to contribute to the development of
high quality education and training, in the context of which the matter of the impact of the
SOCRATES programme on the national education systems will be discussed.
Article 6 of Decision No 819/95/EC.
Objectives a, b, d, e, f, included in § 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3.
Objectives c, g, h and i, included in § 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7.
And of LEONARDO da VINCI

7

between language teaching activities and all the sectors of education, while
moving ahead towards innovation through new actions in the area of language
teaching. Five additional actions have been introduced into the Lingua chapter of
the SOCRATES programme18.

The external evaluation highlights Lingua's overall good image, although the
details of the results show a somewhat patchy pattern. The 3 000 future foreign
language teachers benefited between 1995 and 1999 from action C, the action
whose results have been best validated by the players in the field, particularly in
relation to the objective of learning the languages less widely used in Europe.
Action E made it possible to involve every year in the education projects some
1500 schools, with a high proportion from the vocational education sector. The 73
projects supported by action A (European cooperation programmes for language
teacher training) and the 35 000 teachers who benefited from continuing training
actions in the area of foreign language teaching (action B) have helped to improve
the quality of language teaching in Europe. 86 projects benefited from action D
(development of language teaching tools and tools for assessing language skills).
These actions have a limited scope in quantitative terms. Teachers benefiting from
action B, for instance, represent well under 10% of all foreign language teachers
in Europe. The impact of such actions is in this case all the more positive as
SOCRATES complemented active national policies in the area of language
learning.

instance, many students

Language learning is an objective not simply restricted to Lingua. Under Erasmus,
for
received language tuition. Student mobility,
moreover, has a considerable impact when it comes to learning another language.
This feature is indeed common to all education partners (pupils, teachers, adults,
etc) who have had to use a foreign language under mobility or cooperation actions
funded by the SOCRATES programme.19.

The results achieved by the SOCRATES programme in the area of languages has
nevertheless suffered from some degree of tension between two objectives of the
programme: one of a "qualitative" nature - all too infrequently attained - designed
to encourage against a background of cultural diversity the learning of the
languages of the European Union languages less widely taught, the other of a
"quantitative" nature which tends to favour an increase in the number of people
able to speak one or more foreign languages. On this latter front, cooperation or
mobility actions under SOCRATES have given English an advantage, not so
much as regards the teaching of this language as through its status as the
international lingua franca. The Commission defends the objective of proficiency

18

19

These are set out in Annex 1. As far as objectives are concerned actions A, B and C seek to improve
the quality of language teaching in Europe, action D to develop language teaching tools and tools
for assessing language skills, while action E is intended to encourage young people to learn and use
other languages. All the Lingua actions include a priority targeting the languages less widely used
and taught in the European Union.
As regards school partnerships, see the conclusions of the specific evaluation of the Lingua E and
Comenius 1 actions. These conclusions are particularly useful in the context of the second phase of
the programme, in that the new school partnerships embrace the language dimension which was
previously catered for under Lingua Action E.

8

by each and every one of us of two other Community languages20. The year 2001
will be the European Year of Languages and will provide a greater opportunity to
strengthen policies on learning languages at any time of life21.

Promoting the intercultural dimension of teaching concerns many actions of the
programme and stands as a particularly important objective when it comes to
school education and the challenge of facing up to the spread of violence and
racism currently afflicting our societies.

Under Action 2 of Comenius, 350 projects were funded between 1995 and 1999.
These projects addressed a wide range of themes which included the promotion of
integrated approaches in schools situated in towns with a large proportion of
immigrant children and the development of open and distance learning tools for
itinerant workers. Other projects have targeted active cooperation between pupils
in order to counter racism at school. There is, however, much still to be done in
this area and this explains why this objective, in the new phase of the programme,
is a horizontal priority across the Comenius actions.22

Several transnational cooperation projects funded by the adult education action
also set out to develop the intercultural dimension of education, in particular,
through teaching modules or integration pathways for people in danger of being
excluded as a result of their ethnic identity and for disadvantaged female groups.

2.3

Promotion of mobility and exchanges (students, teachers, pupils)

Support for mobility is one of the pillars of the programme.23 The Commission
nonetheless regrets that the Decision establishing the programme has included
mobility amongst its objectives, as mobility should evidently have been envisaged
not as an end in itself but as a means primarily intended to develop European
citizenship. Given the many obstacles which still remain to mobility within the
European area, this theme, on which the popularity of Erasmus at the end of the
1980s is based, remains highly topical at European level, particularly in the area
of education.24 This report attempts to analyse the results achieved in terms of
both quantity and quality.

In quantitative terms, the results are good. Over half the Erasmus budget was
given over to funding mobility grants for students wishing to undertake part of

20

21

22

23

24

Proposed by the White Paper "Teaching and learning: towards the learning society" (1995).
Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council, submitted by the
Commission, COM (1999) 485 final of 13 October 1999.
The provisions introduced by Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty and concerning the fight against
social discrimination on grounds of sex, race and ethnic origin, strengthen the political importance
of this objective.
This section analyses the results obtained for objectives d, e and f of the programme and which are
designed to foster the mobility of teachers and students and to promote better relations between
pupils. A few figures are given in the Annex. Annex 4: student mobility, Erasmus action (1995-
1999). Annex 5: Teacher mobility, Comenius, Lingua and Erasmus actions (1995-1999). Annex 6:
Pupil mobility under Lingua action E (1995-1999).
End 2000: discussion in the European Parliament and the Council of a recommendation designed to
foster the mobility within the Community of students, people in training, young volunteers, teachers
and trainers; action plan for mobility proposed by the French Presidency.

9

their studies in another participating country (action 2). Some 460 000 students
thus benefited from this type of mobility between 1995 and 1999 (over 90 000 in
1998/99), which represents a twofold increase over the previous five-year period
(1990-1995).25 This twofold increase is all the more astonishing as at the same
time most of the participating countries were experiencing a sharp rise in student
numbers. The average length of student mobility is just under seven months. In
addition, over 40 000 university teachers in Europe had the opportunity of
academic mobility under inter-institutional cooperation programmes firstly, and
then under inter-institutional contracts. Their number rose from 1 400 in 1990-91
to 7 000 per year in 1998-99.

Teacher mobility was also possible under several Comenius and Lingua actions.
Some 40 000 people took part in continuing training courses for teachers, mainly
in the language field.

The decision establishing the SOCRATES programme makes no provision for
pupil mobility, but seeks more generally to "encourage contacts among pupils in
the European Union". Some 150 000 pupils and language teachers moved around
between 1995 and 1999 at the end of their joint language project (Lingua E). In
addition, although mobility amongst pupils is not listed among the items of
eligible expenditure for Comenius 1, the specific external evaluation makes the
point the European education projects did in half the instances involve physical
mobility which was paid for thanks to mainly local funds.

In terms of quality, the analysis becomes more complex given the great diversity
of expectations among the education players and decision makers in relation to
mobility which cannot be considered an objective in its own right. The impact of
mobility is, moreover, very much dependant on problems concerning the
recognition of diplomas and periods of study spent elsewhere.26

A more detailed analysis of student mobility flows shows an uneven pattern of
distribution by country27 and branch of study28. Moreover, the external evaluation
shows that substantial inequalities in the amount of grants to students per each
participating country persist: under EUR 100 to over EUR 800 per month
depending on the Member State concerned. This gap should not prompt hasty
conclusions. In actual fact, 60% of the amount of the grants comes on average
from SOCRATES, the other 40% from other sources. This average masks a wide
range of national situations. Against a background of global reduction of the
amount of grants to each student: ECU 1 220 in 1990/91, 959 in 1997/98, the
parental contribution tends to increase. This trend obviously creates risks of
increasing inequality between students. The Commission will stimulate the

25

26

27

28

However, the mobility actually undertaken remains lower than half the mobility anticipated by the
higher education institutes and for which financial support by the Commission had been approved.
See § 2.5.
In 1997/98, the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands in particular received more Erasmus
students than they sent to other countries, thus confirming the prominent choice of English in
mobility flows. Over the past few years, Finland and the Netherlands attracted an increasing number
of students thanks to courses offered in English — see § 2.2.
For detailed sectoral analysis refer to the conclusions of the specific “Erasmus/engineering”
evaluation.

10

discussion on the advantages and drawbacks of increasing involvement in certain
countries of regional or local structures and the private sector in the funding of
mobility actions, primarily for students.

Positive though it may be, teacher mobility has not had the level of success
anticipated. Response was good to the mobility proposed under Comenius.
However, at school level, all too often there are obstacles which impede the
departure of teachers and the (formal or other) accounting of the “added value”
that mobility actions undertaken by teachers should bring to the whole of an
educational community. In the area of higher education, the average mobility of
teachers who have benefited under Erasmus fell from 24 days on average in
1990/91 to eight days in 1998/99, which does not augur well for a significant
impact. Generally speaking, the Commission has questions to ask concerning the
choice of teachers who should as a matter of priority benefit from mobility
actions. Under Comenius and Lingua the typical profile has been that of teachers
between 40 and 50 years of age with 15 years experience. As the external
evaluation suggests, the Commission encourages the participant countries to ask
themselves whether mobility should not rather be offered, on a voluntary basis, to
teachers in the early years of their careers.

As for exchanges between pupils at European level with or without mobility, the
positive effects are undeniable with regard to the putting into practice of the
concept of European citizenship. The matter of the global impact must however
be discussed, in a context of a limited budget, in relation to a high number of
schools.29

In more overall terms, the Commission would like to discuss the matter of the
distribution of priorities across objectives such as mobility — designed to reach as
many education players as possible — and more selective objectives open to
innovation and perspective in education. Complementarity between the two
objectives is indeed desirable, but implies that the actions undertaken at the
European level find as time goes by in the various countries an adequate and
balanced number of relays across the countries, particularly as regards “mass
actions”, e.g. through national mobility plans.

2.4

Cooperation between schools at all levels of teaching

This fundamental objective concerns all the actions of the programme30.

On the higher education front, there has been a systematic resolve to organise and
step up cooperation under the programme and secure institutional support in the
activities supported under Erasmus action 1: the institutional contract and the
thematic networks.

29

30

The information provided by the specific external evaluation that pupil mobility has accompanied
half the Europe education projects despite the absence of SOCRATES funding provides an
opportunity to enhance this debate.
Some statistics have been given in the annex. Annex 7: institutional contracts, Erasmus action
(1999). Annex 8: current list of thematic networks, Erasmus action. Annex 9: schools taking part in
the European education projects, Comenius action (1999).

11

The institutional contract links the higher educational establishment in its entirety
to the development of a consistent European cooperation policy on the basis of a
commitment which accompanies the application submitted by each school: the
“European policy declaration”. Under this system, the European activities of
universities stem from a consistent strategy, an institutional commitment at all
levels and brought internal consultation within the establishment, and are not
simply a purely academic matter linked to the initiative of one teacher or one
department in a faculty.

The external evaluation31 stresses that the problems of switching over from the
former inter-university cooperation programmes to the institutional contracts
today on the whole seem to have been overcome and have enabled the institutions
to put
in place a more active European policy. 1 800 higher education
establishments every year sign an institutional contract with the Commission.
There are approximately 5 000 partnerships yearly. These include intensive
programmes (around 900 in all) and the joint development of study programmes
(almost 400 projects and 2 000 partnerships). Today this favourable trend,
observed particularly in the central European countries, nonetheless seems over
time to be slowing down and this should be given some thought. It is indeed
important, while deriving advantage from the strengthening of the institutional
framework, that the programme continues to allow academic staff to provide a
personal input to Europe cooperation projects. The external evaluation thoroughly
analyses 53 higher education study programmes the impact of which is judged
promising provided the players involved in the projects benefit from a markedly
more resolute institutional support. The Commission urges the participating
countries to look into this question in greater depth in conjunction with the
teaching work of universities.

The university cooperation projects on themes of common interest (better known
under the name “thematic network projects”) represent a new activity under
SOCRATES. These projects are primarily designed to define and build up a
European dimension within specific academic subject areas or other questions of
common interest thanks to cooperation between faculties or departments within
universities and university associations (and in certain cases professional
associations). The first thematic network started their work in 1996/97. The 42
existing thematic networks cover a wide range of areas and all in all involve
around 1 700 establishments. The external evaluation is circumspect as to the
impact of this initiative which is still comparatively recent and can be better
assessed under the new phase of the programme.

One of the main SOCRATES innovations is to have for the first time offered the
whole of compulsory education the opportunity to take part
in European
cooperation actions which were hitherto restricted to higher education and the
language field (Lingua). The impact of the participation of over two million pupils
in Comenius 1 projects is viewed positively by the external evaluation. In the

31

Which on this point takes account of a comprehensive study by the European Rectors Association
— project entitled “Emerging European policy profiles of higher education institutions”, 1998,
supported by the Commission.

12

period 1995-1999, 15 000 schools cooperated in 3 700 European education
projects, i.e. almost 4% of schools of the 15 Member States. The number of these
schools, approximately one third of which in the primary area, rose from 1 500
1995 to 9 000 in 1999. These figures prompt the question, examined up by the
the “mass” objectives sought by a
external evaluation, of what real
programme with a limited budget has, particularly in the area of school education
which involves over 300 000 schools in the European Union. The specific
external evaluation stresses the cross-disciplinary nature of many projects and
how they contribute to learning to work as part of a team in a multicultural
environment conducive to the fostering of tolerance. Furthermore, continuing
training actions for education staff (Comenius action 3, Lingua A and B) will be
strengthened under the new phase of the programme.

impact

Cooperation has also been one of the major thrusts of the Lingua, adult education
and ODL actions.

Lingua has permitted fruitful cooperation between language teacher training
institutes and the creation and dissemination of a wide range of language learning
and training course methods which can help teachers to cope with new demand.

On the subject of adult training,32 2.7% of the SOCRATES budget was given over
to this new action which has made it possible to open up European cooperation to
extremely broad target groups beyond the school and higher education systems.
The focus has been on the following aspects: promotion of individual demand for
education, improvement of the quality of the provision of education activities and
development of backup services for learners and adult trainers, flanked by the
promotion of flexible systems for validating knowledge. The accent has been on
multipliers (trainers, teachers, etc.) as the target public for these projects. A good
level of cooperation with UNESCO and the Council of Europe has been
established. The huge potential of this action justifies the option of giving a major
role to the new Grundtvig action in the second phase of the programme. This new
action will go beyond the restrictive framework of adult education and will look at
all formal and non-formal pathways of lifelong learning.

2.5

Encouraging the recognition of qualifications, periods of studies and other
qualifications

The people of Europe cannot exercise their right to move around freely and to
establish themselves freely within the European Union unless their skills and
qualifications are recognised. The recognition of qualifications, periods of study
and other qualifications is therefore an integral part of the mobility objective
described above. Accordingly the SOCRATES programme contains two special
arrangements: the ECTS (European credit transfer system) under Erasmus action
1 and the NARIC network (action III.3.4). In addition, SOCRATES resolutely
sets out to work its way to recognition of non-formal and informal systems of
learning.

32

The results of the evaluation of a hundred or so projects undertaken between 1995 and 1997 by the
Deutsches Institut für Erwachsenenbildung at the request of the Commission (MOPED project) have
been taken into account by the external evaluation.

13

number of higher

the SOCRATES programme has
Within its remit established by the Treaty,
continued and strengthened the implementation of the ECTS for awarding and
transferring university course units. The
education
establishments (faculties or departments) using the ECTS system rose from 145 in
1989 to over 1 200 (5 000 faculties or departments) in 1999. This figure covers
approximately half the Erasmus students. The ECTS system is henceforth part of
the institutional policy of establishments and is set to spread further in the near
future. The external evaluation deems that the ECTS system has fulfilled its
objectives in some 85% of cases. Outside the ECTS system, recognition is
provided to students in an average 75% of cases. These percentages, based on
student consultation, do not take account of the possibility of a mismatch between
the expectations of these students themselves and the actual rights under contracts.
The Commission hopes that the observations of the external evaluation can be
analysed in depth by the universities with a view to making allow improvements,
taking due account of the diversity of the national environments. In view of the
swelling ranks of users and the extension of the system to the associated countries
and to other areas such as lifelong learning, information, counselling and follow
up need to be strengthened so as to guarantee effective implementation of the
ECTS system in all countries.

The NARIC (Network of national academic recognition information centres),
operational since 1984, currently comprises 32 national centres, including the
Member States of the European Union, the EFTA countries, central European
countries, as well Cyprus and Malta.
It has pursued and strengthened its
information and counselling activities on the recognition of qualifications. The
Commission has in this context and in conjunction with the Council of Europe
and UNESCO, drafted a diploma supplement which should be adopted widely by
the countries taking part in the SOCRATES programme and which thus promotes
the transparency of qualifications and as a consequence the recognition of
diplomas. The external evaluation was unable to assess the impact of the activity
of the NARIC network.

In the area of adult education, the recognition of achievements has not so far
yielded the anticipated results. The question of validating professional
achievement and experience must be given the place it deserves in the new phase
of the programme under the Grundtvig action for which the target is lifelong
training.

2.6

Encouraging open and distance learning

Under the first phase of the SOCRATES programme this objective, designed
before Internet entered the scene so successfully in Europe, has been periodically
readjusted in order to take account of the education uses of Internet and the
relentless developments in educational multimedia. The initial concepts of open
and distance learning (ODL), better understood in the Anglo-Saxon and Nordic
countries than in the south of Europe, has been a hindrance to the participation of
certain countries. Under the new phase of the programme, the definition of the
MINERVA action and the link between this action and the eLearning initiative
should make it possible to overcome this obstacle.

14

Another fact is that this objective received a limited budget by comparison in
particular with trends in the same area in Community funds for research and
technological development (over EUR 30 million yearly between 1995 and 1999).
This observation should be taken into consideration in order to ensure the future
success of the eLearning initiative, in connection with the overall eEurope action
plan which is designed to make Europe the most competitive economy in the
world and permit the emergence of a knowledge-based society.

In addition,

166 projects were selected, involving over 1 000 people and organisations, with
regular renewal of participants in the projects. The traditional universities and the
school associations have participated more actively than the open and distance
the external evaluation stresses quite rightly the
universities.
considerable presence of players in the area of special education in the rural areas
and working with specific groups (women, young people in difficulty). On the
other hand, the project-based approach inherent in the programme has hampered
better-structured cooperation between the decision-making centres (Ministries of
Education, university chancellors, etc.).33 Due account will have to be taken of
these observations by the Minerva action within the framework defined by the
eLearning initiative. There is also a case for more action targeting primary and
secondary education and for strengthening public/private partnerships beyond the
traditional players involved in education.

All these projects made it possible to establish the networks needed and to build
up a broad-based corpus of expertise. Focus was primarily on the development of
organisational models and teaching methods in order to give priority to mastering
the education processes rather than paying attention to the products alone. The
success of the projects therefore depended largely on the quality of the processes
introduced, e.g. cooperation between pupils and/or teachers or the production of
multimedia materials by pupils based in different places. The twice-yearly
meetings between coordinators made it possible to multiply new instances of
cooperation and to consolidate the projects.

On top of the 166 pilot projects other actions of networking and familiarisation
with the new tools were funded. Fourteen “educational multimedia” projects
received support after a joint call for proposals organised with the Directorates-
General
in charge of research and technological development and with the
LEONARDO da VINCI programme. This is the framework in which, for instance,
the European Schoolnet project was launched, rallying the efforts of 21 Ministries
of Education and a range of players from the multimedia technologies sector.34
The action in question in 1998 and 1999 directly funded 150 projects under the

33

34

With the exception of projects such as the Humanities project undertaken by Federation of European
Universities or the European Schoolnet Project described later.
This is a strategic initiative of the Member States in conjunction with the Commission to implement
the Council Resolution of 6 May 1996 concerning multimedia educational software. It henceforth
offers a European portal on the Internet: http://www.eun.org which makes it possible to access
common multilingual services of information and communication intended for the world of
education at the European level.

15

Netd@ys Europe operation,35 the aim of which is to make schools aware of and
use communication networks, particularly through special high profile events.

2.7

Promoting exchanges of information and experience

Within the horizontal actions of the SOCRATES programme, Action III.3 made it
possible to support sets of measures and mechanisms designed to foster the
exchange of experience in education across the participating countries. The action
has four components: questions of common interest on education policy, the
EURYDICE network, Arion and the NARIC network.

Under “questions of common interest on education policy”, the Commission
supported specific activities on the priority themes selected by the Council. The
Decision adopting the SOCRATES programme identified two priority themes for
this sub-action. These were: “the role of education for young people leaving the
education system without enough qualifications” and “the evaluation of quality in
the school system”. A third theme arrived in 1997 alongside the two initially
envisaged: that of "ongoing education” as part of the European Year of Lifelong
Learning.

These themes were implemented through the publication of four calls for
proposals in the Official Journal of the European Communities between 1995 and
1998. 1999 was given over to utilisation and dissemination of the results of the 50
or so projects funded since the programme was launched. Certain projects, such as
the pilot project on the evaluation of quality in education,36 have had a major
policy impact.

Arion has permitted exchange of experience in order to promote the mutual
knowledge and enhancement of education systems thanks to study visits for
education specialists and decision makers. 750 study visits were organised under
this action during the five years of the SOCRATES programme, involving a total
of approximately 8 000 participants.

EURYDICE, the education information network in the European Community,
continued its work of drafting and disseminating information on the education
systems of the countries taking part in the SOCRATES programme. The network
today comprises 33 national units and one European unit. Its mission is to provide
the authorities in the participating countries and at European level, but also to a
wide audience interested in education, with comparative studies on the
organisation and development of education systems and policies.

the
The results achieved by EURYDICE since 1995 include in particular
production and publication of 19 comparative studies and basic documents on a
wide range of themes and three issues of the report “Key figures in education in

35

36

Part of the perspective of the Commission’s action plan “Learning in the information society”,
drawn up in 1997.
This project, which involved 101 secondary schools in 18 countries, paved the way for a proposal
for a recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council on “European cooperation in
quality evaluation in school education” COM (1999) 709 final of 24.1.2000.

16

Europe”, undertaken in conjunction with EUROSTAT, and the updating and
annual publication of a Community database on education systems in Europe
(EURYBASE).37 The Commission will continue to base itself in the future on the
expertise of the network to inform debate on education at the Community level,
around clearly-defined objectives.

2.8

Development of good quality education and training

The SOCRATES programme is not restricted to the nine specific objectives
described above, but also sets out
through them to make a contribution to
developing quality education and training across the Member States.38 The
Commission considers that the question of how much impact the SOCRATES
programme has on trends in the national education systems is fundamentally
important. The external evaluation provides some useful indications. All in all,
this impact
in a relatively
imprecise manner.

is recognised by the policy decision makers but

In higher education, there is no doubt that the programme has helped to facilitate
the introduction of reforms in the national systems and to launch a number of
Europe-wide initiatives. At national level, SOCRATES does have an influence, on
a voluntary basis, on the organisation and architecture of studies. The adoption,
for instance, of the system of credits decided or in the process of being decided by
a number of European countries (and which can lead to the organisation of
module-based studies) is in fact the extension to all “national” students of the
ECTS system which emerged from the Erasmus exchanges. The “Erasmus model”
of cooperation has moreover made it possible to open up cooperation with
the joint
American, Canadian, Asian and African universities. Locally,
development between partners from different countries of Erasmus-supported
European programmes of study has led in the universities involved to an increase
the students enrolled in these
in the teaching provision available to all
establishments and not only to mobile students.

More generally speaking,
the resolve to cooperate with partners from other
countries and the need to recognise and facilitate Erasmus exchanges has boosted
the development everywhere in Europe of a spirit of openness, comparison and
acceptance of different situations, a factor which is conducive to major changes
and radically innovative initiatives, such as the Bologna declaration39 designed to
introduce a European higher education area. Four of the six objectives in this
declaration relate to the strengthening and generalisation of measures and
instruments introduced under Erasmus (promoting mobility, extending the ECTS,
adopting the diploma supplement, cooperation in the area of quality assurance).

Other SOCRATES actions are more recent and there is therefore no basis for the
time being to give as accurate an idea of the impact as in the area of higher

37

38

39

Internet site : www.eurydice.org
Article 1 of the SOCRATES Decision and Article 149 of the Treaty on European Union — see
§ 1.2.
Declaration signed by 31 Ministers of Education on 19 June 1999.

17

education.40 This question will be further analysed in the years ahead. However,
in these areas the transition to a new phase of the programme and the most recent
developments in the framework of discussion between Member States in the area
of education, at European level, offer grounds for optimism.41

The promotion within the programme of exchanges of information and experience
on the priority themes selected in agreement with the Education Committee has
moreover undoubtedly made it possible to steer European cooperation to areas
which can make a direct contribution to improving the quality of the national
education systems,42 despite the small portion of the programme budget allocated
to this area.

2.9

Consistency of the programme with other Community actions

The programme sets out to be consistent with other Community actions. Solid
cooperation has been established with the research sector through the action “open
and distance education”. Consistency between the SOCRATES and LEONARDO
da VINCI programme is, on the other hand, still difficult for many project
promoters. The links with this programme and with the YOUTH programme will
have to be strengthened, particularly thanks to the opportunities offered under the
new phase of the programme by “joint” actions.

Another feature of the programme is the dual resolve on equal opportunities for
boys and girls and for men and women43 and for “as full a participation as
possible of disabled children and adolescents”.44 As to the matter of participation
(or not) of disabled persons in the programme, the specific evaluation provides
useful pointers for the analysis. The participation of disabled persons is seemed to
be insufficient particularly in mobility actions, primarily for practical reasons but
reasons which also have to do with a lack of awareness among institutional
decision makers and of information among people on the opportunities available
under the programme.45

2.10

Other results

The programme achieved certain results which did not in fact feature explicitly
among the objectives of Decision 819/95/EC. This is particularly the case of

40

41

42

43

44

45

In school education,
the declaration signed by seven Education Ministers in Florence on
30 September 1999 refers explicitly to the contribution made by the SOCRATES programme to the
development of European cooperation in this area.
See § 3.1 (trends) for the details.
See § 2.7 and § 3.1. This observation is particularly valid for the work undertaking in the area of
quality indicators in education which is based on education research networks which have received a
strong boost through Action III.3.1 of the programme.
Consistent with the objective of incorporating equal opportunities for women and men into all
Community policies and activities: Commission communication of 21.2.96 – COM (96) 67 final.
Commission Communication on equality of opportunity for people with disabilities, 30.7.96 – COM
406 final.
This comment is valid particularly in the area of student mobility in view of the resources set aside
expressly for the national agencies to facilitate mobility amongst disabled students, as part of a
process of integration into education systems.

18

relations with the employment market.46 The external evaluation, which dedicates
a chapter to the matter of the professional future of Erasmus students, reveal that
the latter on average find their first job two months earlier than non-mobile
students. Furthermore, they have more frequent opportunities to find a job which
has an international dimension.

The active participation of representatives from central and eastern Europe in the
SOCRATES programme has made it possible to make Europe popular with the
education players in the applicant countries, by offering them a tangible
opportunity to get to grips with the notion of European citizenship. However, it
will be important to heed the point made by the external evaluation that the central
European countries are under-represented in certain actions, particularly those
concerning teacher mobility.

3.

HOW THE PROGRAMME HAS EVOLVED: FROM SOCRATES I TO SOCRATES II

The point of this section is bring out some important pointers which can help the
programme to progress smoothly all the way to 2006. The suggestions made by
the external evaluation reports and which are valid across the board will be taken
into account
they can be discussed. The programme
objectives and resources will be reviewed in turn.

in this section so that

3.1

From the point of view of the objectives

All in all, the external evaluation confirms the relevance of the choices made
under the new phase of the programme as regards the following points:

– the need, under the new phase of the programme, to combine consolidation of
what was achieved under the first phase with opening up to innovation;47

– concentrating Community intervention on a small number of objectives and
quest for increased consistency between these objectives;48

– strengthening the links between the actions of the programme and between
SOCRATES and other programmes.49

Using this basic observation as a starting point, the external evaluation provides
useful elements of analysis on two points:

46

47

48

49

This matter has become increasingly important in Europe since 1995. The employment chapter of
the Amsterdam Treaty takes account of the coordinated employment strategy defined by the special
Luxembourg European Council of November 1997. The European employment strategy gives
increasing space to the issue of education systems. The conclusions of the special Lisbon Summit of
23 and 24 March 2000 will boost coordination between employment and education policies at the
national level within a European framework.
In particular, in the areas in which our societies are currently changing most rapidly, e.g. the new
information technologies and lifelong learning policies.
For example, for Comenius: integrating school-specific language actions; consideration of the
intercultural education objective across the action as a whole.
Giving priority to increased consistency with the LEONARDO da VINCI programme.

19

– the concept of “critical mass”. There is no denying the complementarity
between actions of mobility and “mass” cooperation targeting as many education
players as possible, and more targeted innovative actions intended by way of
priority for players acting as “multipliers”. However, as the budget is limited, the
Commission feels that strategic choices will be essential, taking due account of
the elements of analysis available, particularly with regard to trends in the main
sources of funding for the actions concerned. The decentralisation of the new
phase of the programme offers opportunities which it will be important to utilise
to the full in order to enhance the impact of the programme on the national
education systems;

– strengthening the links between programme actions must primarily concern the
links between the two major actions, i.e. Erasmus and Comenius, which the
external evaluation judges to be currently insufficient. This is an important point,
particularly for teacher training which is one of the priorities under the new phase
of the programme. On a more general level, the point made by the external
evaluation concerning the huge prominence of higher education establishments in
other actions of the programme50 will encourage the Commission to actually
increase synergy between actions whenever possible. The comment made about
certain problems of consistency between the SOCRATES, LEONARDO da
VINCI and YOUTH programmes gives legitimacy to the joint actions envisaged
under the new phase.

Moreover, the equal opportunities objectives will have to be better integrated in
the programme as a whole. As regards disabled persons, the external evaluation
makes many practical suggestions, intended in particular to favour more active
participation by these persons in mobility actions. The Commission would like to
encourage greater awareness amongst the institutional decision-makers both at
European and at national
levels. This question must be linked with that of
resources particularly in terms of information and of follow-up and evaluation
policy. Equal opportunities has been incorporated into the new objective of
strengthening the European dimension of education. However, the implementation
of this objective will have to be backed up by appropriate operational tools,
particularly of a statistical nature.

As regards objectives, it is also essential for the new phase of the programme to
regularly ensure that
is consistent with the political agenda the recently
increased pace of which reflects the increasingly rapid changes taking place in our
societies. Several elements of this type are already in place.51 The Commission is

it

50

51

Approximately 50% in Lingua, 60% in ODL.
See in particular the conclusions of the special Lisbon European Council of 23 and 24 March 2000
— “Towards a Europe based on innovation and knowledge”. The Education Council will submit to
the European Council in spring 2001 a report on the objectives of the education systems. A “Rolling
agenda” was established by an Education Council resolution dated 26 November 1999 giving
priority for discussions at the European level of the following themes: mobility, quality, education
and employment, lifelong learning, new information technologies. In the language area: European
Year in 2001. In that of the new technologies: eLearning initiative. On the quality of education:
follow-up of the European report on the quality of school education, adopted by the Commission in
May 2000. The matter of links between the SOCRATES programme and the follow-up to the
Bologna and Florence declarations is also important.

20

seeking to strengthen the elements for analysing the impact of the programme on
national education policies in order to enhance the impact of the programme
nationally, with due regard for the competence of the Member States themselves
for the organisation of their education systems.

The impact of SOCRATES on Community policies other than education remains
limited. The external evaluation contains a few useful pointers on involvement at
the regional level. It is interesting to note, for instance, the very uneven pattern of
support from the regions for student mobility grants. In a context of increasing
decentralisation of many education systems,
the Commission will stimulate
discussion of this theme both nationally and within a European framework.52

The viewpoints of the “field players” covered by the external evaluation often
criticise “Brussels”, and will encourage the Commission to strengthen under the
new phase of the programme the links not only with all the education players
concerned but with all of “civil society” potentially interested by the programme.
The second phase of the programme,
like the first, envisages regular
consultation with European associations and the social partners in the area of
education.53 The Commission will encourage these associations to promote the
programme as it is well aware of the increasing importance of the role of civil
society with regard to European integration.54 This is a matter that also concerns
the national agencies which are in contact with the national structures of the
European associations.

just

3.2

From the point of view of the resources deployed

it must have appropriate
If the programme is to attain its new objectives,
resources. In budgetary terms,
the Council and European Parliament have
proposed increased resources over a longer period. In this context, the external
evaluation observes an increasing gap between the actual cost of certain actions
and that covered by the programme budget. For higher education, this question
concerns in particular student mobility grants. The matter is also sensitive as
regards school education in view of the high number of schools wishing to take
part in European cooperation actions. The debate on sources of funding for each
action prompts the Commission to consider, for the implementation of national
education policies open to the European dimension,
the involvement of the
participating countries in a spirit of partnership between European and national
levels.

The matter of resources also concerns structures. The harmonious implementation
of the SOCRATES programme calls for effective cooperation between the
European (Commission, Technical Assistance Office) and national (national
agencies, establishments) levels. The Commission will on the basis of the critical
the external evaluation propose the
observations and recommendations of

52

53

54

Justifying strengthening of the links between the SOCRATES programme and the Structural Funds
which represent one-third of the Community budget and are active in the area of education.
Information available on the Commission’s site: directory of associations and minutes of the latest
consultation meetings.
Adoption envisaged in 2001 of a White Paper on European governance.

21

strengthening of the steps already under way to simplify administrative and
financial management procedures. This objective is one of the Commission's
current priorities for better governance. It will be based on a number of
operational instruments which are currently being developed.

The communication policy also needs thorough thought both within the
Commission and in the participating countries. Dissemination of good approaches
and results based on clearly defined objectives need to be improved. The special
needs of disabled persons must also receive better consideration. More generally
speaking, the Commission wishes to examine with the Member States how those
taking part in the programme can be helped to achieve a better impact nationally
and locally in return for their European investment, by laying greater emphasis on
the need for multilateral exchanges of experience nationally, locally and Europe-
wide.

The Commission will also be eager to take account of the third point of criticism
and recommendation in the external evaluation and which concerns the policy on
monitoring and evaluating the programme. During the start-up period of the new
phase of the programme, the priority will go to regular monitoring of the various
programme actions, based on indicators defined at the national and European
levels. Monitoring will focus on quantity and quality. Those parts of the
programme which could not be covered by the external evaluation in depth during
the first phase of the programme will receive priority for specific evaluations in
the years ahead. Regular evaluations will also be necessary in order inter alia to
better assess interaction between the different actions of the programme and the
impact of the programme on the national education systems.

4.

OUTLOOK

The report hopes to contribute to the success of the second phase of the
SOCRATES programme (2000-2006) by highlighting the experience of the first
phase. This experience shows that SOCRATES is very successful in that it has
contributed to asserting the European dimension throughout education in general.
Nevertheless, improvements are needed so as to make programme management
more user-friendly. The gap between the programme’s objectives, the ambition of
which is enthusiastically shared by the education community, and the sometimes
inadequate resources for implementation both at European and national levels,
must be narrowed. The Commission will accordingly pay close attention to the
recommendations made by the external evaluators. The administrative and
financial procedures will be simplified, monitoring improved and the results better
exploited.

It is also important for the SOCRATES programme, beyond the individuals and
institutions actively involved within it, to be able to be more strongly linked than
before with the whole of the policy debate taking place at the European level in
the area of education. Strengthening this policy dimension of the programme can
indeed enable it to contribute effectively to enhancing the quality of the national
education systems, with due respect for the responsibilities defined by the Treaty.
the management of its actions
Spread over a longer period (seven years),

22

decentralised to a greater extent, and underpinned by a more active monitoring
and evaluation policy, the new phase of the programme should strengthen the
impact of SOCRATES, particularly in the most recent areas of cooperation at
European level, e.g. school education and lifelong learning. SOCRATES, as a
pioneering programme in opening up to the countries of central and eastern
Europe, must also help to pave the way for the next round of enlargement of the
EU, the success of which will hinge as much as on the commitment of the policy
decision makers as on that of the people.

The success of the second phase largely depends on the human and financial
resources allocated to its implementation at national and European level. The
programme's increasing decentralisation strongly affects the national agencies and
they must have sufficient support from the participating countries. It also concerns
all the European institutions through the level of priority which will be given over
the next few years to education matters with a view to building up a Europe of
knowledge, as called for by the heads of state and government at the Lisbon
European Council
in
strengthening complementarity between SOCRATES and the resources deployed
by the Member States to open up their education policies to Europe.

it concerns the national

in March 2000. Lastly,

level

23

ANNEX 1: TABLE OF THE ACTIONS INCLUDED IN THE SOCRATES
PROGRAMME (1995-1999)

HIGHER EDUCATION (Erasmus)

Action 1: help for universities with regard to activities having a European dimension

• Institutional contracts (organisation of student mobility; teacher mobility; European
intensive programmes;
system; preparation of curricula;

transfer

course credit
preparatory visits)

• Projects developed by the thematic networks

Action 2: student mobility grants

SCHOOL EDUCATION (Comenius)

Action 1: school partnerships for European education projects,
exchanges and visits

including teacher

Action 2: transnational projects concerning the education of the children of migrant
workers, and the children of occupational travellers, travellers and gypsies — intercultural
education

Action 3: in-service training, seminars and courses for teachers and education staff

PROMOTING LANGUAGE LEARNING (Lingua)

Action A: European cooperation programmes for language teacher training

Action B: in-service training for language teachers

Action C: assistantships for future language teachers

Action D: development of instruments for language teaching/learning and assessment of
language skills

Action E: joint education projects for language learning

OPEN AND DISTANCE LEARNING

ADULT EDUCATION

EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AND EXPERIENCE ON EDUCATION
SYSTEMS AND POLICY (analysis of questions of common interest concerning
education policy, Eurydice, Arion, Naric)

COMPLEMENTARY MEASURES

24

ANNEX 2: DETAILED ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE SOCRATES PROGRAMME (1995-1999)

EX-POST SOCRATES BUDGET
1995-1999 - EUR 15

Budget 1995(A)
EUR 15

Budget 1996(B)
EUR 15

Budget 1997
EUR 15

Budget
1998
EUR 15

Budget 1999
EUR 15

Total 95-99
EUR 15

I.

Higher education (Erasmus)

117.215.072

77.866.343

96.043.995

114.612.607 119.716.189

525.454.206

Action 1: aid to universities

48.754.810

4.486.872

27.281.205

33.499.830 33.657.245

147.679.962

- institutional contracts

- thematic networks

Action 2: student mobility

II.

School education (Comenius)

Action 1: school partnerships

Action 2: intercultural education

Action 3: in-service training

3.1:aidforcourses

3.2:grants

III.

Horizontal measures

Action 1: languages (Lingua)

A: European cooperation

B: In-service training

C: Assistantships

D: Instruments

68.460.263

13.294.320

6.172.363

5.222.769

1.899.189

1.899.189

0

45.390.608

28.487.829

2.829.791

8.356.430

987.578

3.969.304

2.207.880

24.511.011 29.442.696 30.106.833

86.268.420

2.278.992

2.770.194

4.057.134 3.550.412

12.656.732

73.379.470

68.762.790

81.112.777 86.058.944

377.774.244

33.337.893

26.776.321

30.928.091 35.962.553

140.299.178

23.626.698

17.814.662

21.395.623 25.990.585

5.906.675

3.804.521

4.719.429

4.683.464

4.409.984

4.242.230

4.849.005

5.561.984

94.999.931

24.942.321

20.356.929

2.820.075

2.984.739

2.886.104 3.600.430

14.190.537

984.446

1.257.491

1.962.901 1.961.554

6.166.392

61.795.764

48.629.684

53.559.302 57.664.234

267.039.592

32.604.548

26.065.463

27.685.200 30.551.197

145.394.237

2.904.115

8.663.123

2.854.893

5.384.623

3.158.267

3.189.714

3.187.525

6.679.901

6.968.299

7.355.826

2.455.846

2.846.207

3.825.029

3.456.898

2.903.572

3.825.029

E: Joint education projects

12.344.726

12.797.795

10.314.552

11.777.407 12.357.787

Action 2: open and distance learning

3.879.093

7.284.899

7.244.421

7.330.163

7.251.527

Action 3: exchange of information and
experience

13.023.686

21.906.317

15.319.800

18.543.940 19.861.510

3.1: questions of common interest 427.317

3.2: EURYDICE

3.3: ARION

3.4: NARIC

3.5. A: adult education

3.5. B: other measures

Complementarymeasures

Information

Evaluation

2.279.026

1.234.473

284.878

2.848.783

2.753.823

3.195.385

1.231.542

2.953.337

1.189.232

196.889

1.434.214

1.530.652

630.683

2.929.726

2.749.856

2.928.968

1.069.248

1.374.031

1.373.087

196.468

196.290

243.701

5.414.452

4.874.140

4.963.189

5.586.385

23.686.949

8.333.224

2.587.641

0

3.050.213

4.410.549

4.161.492

1.445.617

3.243.200

4.268.531

320.175

76.174

668.663

0

22.709.301

14.740.374

1.065.012

15.269.412

38.023.578

12.969.553

19.539.427

59.592.267

32.990.103

88.655.253

5.254.408

13.840.913

6.240.071

1.118226

TOTAL SOCRATES (EUR 18)
A) The figures for 1995 include the SOCRATES budget for the 15 Member States of the EU plus the amounts carried over from the previous Erasmus and
Lingua programmes.
(B) For 1996 the “institutional contracts” section includes preparatory visits and pilot projects.

171.450.000 199.100.000 213.342.976

175.900.000

173.000.000

932.792.976

25

ANNEX 3 : ERASMUS STUDENTS 1998/99 by country of origin and by host country

Host country

COUNTRY OF
ORIGIN
BE
DK
DE
GR
ES
FR
IRL
IT
LU
NL
AT
PT
FIN
SE
UK
LI
IS
NO
FUL55
IEF56
EU/EFTA
CY
CZ
HU
PL
RO
SK
TOTAL

Member States of the European Union

EFTA countries

EU/
EFTA

Central and eastern Europe

TOTAL

BE

DK

DE

GR

ES

FR

IRL

IT

LU

NL

AT

PT

FIN

SE

UK

LI

IS

NO

CY CZ

HU

PL

RO

SK

113

241
52
342
288
8
219
1
104
66
45
42
20
179
0
33
53

46
250
125
803
245
59
500

231
93
148
107
125
260
0
4
37

3033
3
36
53
124
112
12
3373

1806

23
18
82
16

1945

418
297

231
2106
2611
384
1633
16
488
195
243
620
651
1612
0
13
175
6
1
11700
9
238
243
500
240
19
12949

68
16
161

154
137
5
131

40
36
24
76
21
110
0
1
8

988
5
10
10
5
69

1087

783
229
2278
218

2947
172
2612
10
578
379
410
230
269
1692
1
19
134

12961
1
54
23
63
62
2
13166

728
224
2888
301
2926
0
569
1927
18
532
453
398
313
530
3496
0
15
129
1
4
15452
5
98
133
168
406

145
44
678
36
393
869

161
3
140
100
29
122
98
60
0
3
24

1
2906

2
4
3
3

16262

2918

344
87
1141
171
1968
868
63

5
168
321
280
153
105
861
0
10
52

6597
3
29
50
71
132
5
6887

492
117
799
128
839
649
69
523
1

175
117
413
348
614
0
10
119

131
49
255
66
254
269
39
329
10
80

37
122
160
180
0
9
39

127
14
142
34
473
257
16
300

49
48

43
25
100
0
1
20

160
25
438
64
247
333
24
241
2
219
82
67

11
317
0
2
21

3

0
5

0

4

0

12

5413

55
76
139
63
6
5752

12

2029
1
75
39
22
27
3
2196

1649

32
14
22
37

1754

2253
2
34
76
44
10
4
2423

164
44
857
53
444
551
20
333
3
350
190
52
84

307
0
9
49

1
3511
1
35
30
32
12
3
3624

642
500
4148
267
3272
6028
70
1769
13
1180
494
261
1004
890

1
18
241

6
20804
5
158
87
151
61
5
21271

14
3
46
0
17
37
2
11

14
7
10
21
15
46

17
3
47
4
11
46

30

32
4
11
40
10
22

22
6
51
0
12
34

11

16
1
7
14
5
34

9
6
15
0
4
33

25

7
1
12
1
1
2

1
5
0
5
1
0

2
3

3

6
8
16
2
17
14

11

3
12
1
1
6
15

63
32
233
11
91
123
3
108

101
50
25
28
31
84

0

112

983

1
2
3
2
1
1

4

4384
1732
14528
1759
14329
16194
1501
10797
82
4263
2698
2137
3358
3290
9887
2
147
1101
7
13
92209

0

112

983

96714

14

243

277

213

116

20

4446
1751
14693
1765
14381
16351
1504
10875
82
4332
2711
2179
3441
3321
9994
2
147
1101
7
13
93096
35
879
856
1426
1250
59
97601

55

56

Fondation universitaire luxembourgeoise (Arlon)
European Institute (Florence)

26

ANNEX 4 : Teacher mobility - Comenius, Erasmus and Lingua actions
(1999 calendar year)

Teacher mobility by country of origin - 1999

Comenius 1 Comenius

Lingua B Lingua C Lingua E Total

Erasmus

BE
DK
DE
GR
ES
FR
IE
IT
LU
NL
AT
PT
FI
SE
UK
IS
LI
NO
CY
CZ
HU
RO
PL
SK
LV
EE
LT
BG
SI
TOTAL

255
114
2185
211
764
820
103
503
13
365
497
280
185
132
11
45
1
194
16
139
165
201
143
61
28
19
63
0
41
7554

3.2
91
33
224
68
217
209
40
231
2
46
41
120
36
50
94
6
5
32
15
29
23
77
109
23
18
4
8
13
13
1877

173*
190
931
74
**
**
142*
674
**
169
340
252*
169
109
838
60
0
125
**
141
147
175*
234
60
23
19
32
111
21
5209

12
19
129
20
**
116*
10*
81
**
11
30
23*
18
20
98
2
2
18
**
34
20
27*
31
26
5
2
4
**
0
758

8
39
76
8
**
**
15
66
**
41
23
**
0
12
4
1
**
19
**
21
20
**
23
14
3
3
13
7
9
425

539
395
3545
381
981
1145
310
1555
15
632
931
480
408
323
1045
114
8
388
31
364
375
480
540
184
77
47
120
131
84
15823

555
196
1374
306
1264
1118
112
624
0
558
289
285
615
268
1369
10
1
147
21
377
275
387
359
7
0
0
0
0
0
10517

*: 1999/2000 academic year

** : data not available

27

ANNEX 5 : pupil mobility under action Lingua E (1995-1999)

Pupil mobility under Lingua E by country of origin
– 1999 (contract year)

BE
DK
DE
GR
ES
FR
IE
IT
LU
NL
AT
PT
FI
SE
UK
IS
LI
NO
CY
CZ
HU
RO
PL
SK
LV
EE
LT
BG
SI
TOTAL

Lingua E
715
2336
3758
783
8464
86
360
5706
*
1345
736
1260
1681
1809
3832
177
40
846
*
1308
2455
689
1086
140
36
178
243
48
167
40284

* :data not available

28

ANNEX 6 : cooperation - institutional contracts , Erasmus action (1999/2000)

Country

B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK
IS
LI
NO
Total 18
BG
CZ
EE
CY
LV
LT
HU
PL
RO
SI
SK
TOTAL

No. of
participating
institutions
77
88
240
33
73
323
29
95
2
63
59
71
77
40
192
7
2
42
1.513
8
23
10
7
14
16
44
76
32
5
14
1.762

CDA [2]
Coordina
tion
4
*
5
6
4
11
1
8

CDA
Participa
tion
25
15
62
36
62
65
10
58

8
4

1
1
19
1

73

1
3

77

42
24
27
25
19
77
1

7
555
1
8

1
1
11
9
31
1
2
620

[1] places available
[2] CDA : development of advanced curricula
[3] CDI : development of initial or intermediate curricula

CDI [3]
Coordina
tion
3
3
14

5

5

5
3

4
3
11

56

2
1

59

29

CDI
Participa
Tion
20
16
54
8
29
46
16
24

EM [4]
Coordina
tion
7
2
10
1
2
17
1
2

EM
Participa
tion
26
18
71
29
51
61
17
60

8
5

7
2
24

1
89

2

22
19
13
27
21
57
1

8
381
1
4
1
1

5
4
2

44
16
23
45
26
92
1

15
595
1
7
1

14
3
6
*
1
628

ILC [5]
Coordina
tion
2

3

1

2

1

2

11

1

ILC
Participa
tion
3
1
9

5
7
1
1

5

3
10
5
8
1

1
60

3

1

64

Adoption
of ECTS
[6]
48
26
161
27
47
167
15
55
2
41
43
33
50
26
90
3
2
27
863
2
10
10
1
11
7
15
38
21
1
5
984

91

399
[4] EM : European modules
[5] ILC : integrated language courses
[6] ECTS : European Credit Transfer System

12

ANNEX 7 : cooperation - schools taking part in the European education projects

Comenius 1 and Lingua E actions (1999)

Comenius 1 Lingua E

Total

BE

DK

DE

GR

ES

FR

IE

IT

LU

NL

AT

PT

FI

SE

UK

IS

LI

NO

CY

CZ

HU

RO

PL

SK

LV

EE

LT

BG

SI

351

303

1287

258

788

884

196

1637

29

328

375

347

463

350

135

31

6

253

16

223

198

98

295

51

91

28

47

0

32

12

50

130

41

*

*

21

280

*

45

29

*

0

42

84

5

*

25

*

40

42

*

23

18

1

5

7

*

3

363

353

1417

299

788

884

217

1917

29

373

404

347

463

392

219

36

6

278

16

263

240

98

318

69

92

33

54

35

TOTAL

9100

903

10003

* : data not available

30