Report from the Commission - Interim evaluation Report on the results achieved and on the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the implementation of the second phase of the Community action programme in the field of education 'Socrates' {SEC(2004)230}
Date: 2004-03-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, action programme, education, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.3.2004 
COM(2004) 153 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

Interim evaluation report on the results achieved and on the qualitative and quantitative 
aspects of the implementation of the second phase of the Community action programme 
in the field of education ‘Socrates’ 

{SEC(2004)230} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Summary ...................................................................................................................... 4 

Preamble....................................................................................................................... 7 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 8 

Justification for the report ............................................................................................ 8 

Objectives of the report................................................................................................ 8 

Methodology ................................................................................................................ 8 

Overall context of the programme ............................................................................... 9 

Background .................................................................................................................. 9 

Objectives..................................................................................................................... 9 

Resources ..................................................................................................................... 9 

Factors which may influence the programme .............................................................. 9 

General aspects of programme implementation......................................................... 10 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

3. 

3.1. 

General points ............................................................................................................ 10 

3.1.1.  Clarity of the objectives and evaluability of the programme..................................... 10 

3.1.2.  Programme structure .................................................................................................. 10 

3.1.3.  Main types of activity supported................................................................................ 11 

3.2. 

Programme administration: operational implementation........................................... 11 

3.2.1.  Administrative structures ........................................................................................... 11 

3.2.2.  Consultation processes ............................................................................................... 12 

3.2.3.  Programme budget ..................................................................................................... 13 

3.2.4. 

Information and dissemination policy........................................................................ 13 

3.2.5.  Project selection processes......................................................................................... 14 

3.2.6.  Contract and financial management processes .......................................................... 15 

3.2.7.  Monitoring and evaluation policy .............................................................................. 16 

3.2.8.  Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 16 

4. 

Implementation and achievements of each action ..................................................... 17 

4.1. 

Comenius.................................................................................................................... 17 

4.1.1.  General points ............................................................................................................ 17 

4.1.2.  Operational mechanisms ............................................................................................ 17 

4.1.3.  Achievements............................................................................................................. 18 

4.1.4.  Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 18 

4.2. 

Erasmus ...................................................................................................................... 19 

4.2.1.  General points ............................................................................................................ 19 

4.2.2.  Operational mechanisms ............................................................................................ 19 

2 

 
 
  
 
 
 
4.2.3.  Achievements............................................................................................................. 20 

4.2.4.  Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 21 

4.3. 

Grundtvig ................................................................................................................... 21 

4.3.1.  General points ............................................................................................................ 21 

4.3.2.  Operational mechanisms ............................................................................................ 22 

4.3.3.  Achievements............................................................................................................. 23 

4.3.4.  Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 23 

4.4. 

Lingua ........................................................................................................................ 24 

4.4.1.  General points ............................................................................................................ 24 

4.4.2.  Operational mechanisms ............................................................................................ 24 

4.4.3.  Achievements............................................................................................................. 24 

4.4.4.  Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 25 

4.5. 

Minerva ...................................................................................................................... 25 

4.5.1.  General points ............................................................................................................ 25 

4.5.2.  Operational mechanisms ............................................................................................ 25 

4.5.3.  Achievements............................................................................................................. 25 

4.5.4.  Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 26 

4.6. 

Observation and Innovation ....................................................................................... 26 

4.6.1.  General points ............................................................................................................ 26 

4.6.2.  Operational mechanisms ............................................................................................ 26 

4.6.3.  Achievements............................................................................................................. 26 

4.6.4.  Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 27 

4.7. 

4.8. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

Joint Actions............................................................................................................... 27 

Accompanying Measures ........................................................................................... 27 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 28 

Relevance ................................................................................................................... 28 

Efficiency ................................................................................................................... 29 

Effectiveness .............................................................................................................. 29 

3 

 
 
  
 
SUMMARY 

1. 

BACKGROUND TO THE PROGRAMME 

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

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

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

2. 

GENERAL POINTS CONCERNING PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION 

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

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

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

3. 

PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT 

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

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

A  side-effect  of  these  strict  controls  is  to  make  the  system  cumbersome  for  both 
administrators  and  users.  However,  work  is  currently  under  way  to  simplify  the 
process, although this is limited by structural and regulatory constraints which have 

1 
2 

Decision No 253/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council – OJ L28, 03.02.2000. 
Decision No 819/1995/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council – OJ L87, 20.04.1995. 

4 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
been  strengthened  by  the  recent  introduction  of  the  new  Financial  Regulation.  The 
principle  of  proportionality  should  be  applied  more  extensively  in  order  to  achieve 
the required simplification. 

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

4. 

CONCLUSIONS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME’S ACTIONS 

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

4.1.  Relevance 

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

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

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

4.2.  Efficiency 

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

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

5 

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

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

4.3.  Effectiveness 

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

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

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

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

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

6 

 
 
  
 
PREAMBLE 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 

 
 
  
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Justification for the report 

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

1.2. 

Objectives of the report 

The objectives of this report, which is accompanied by a statistical document on the 
realisations achieved under the programme between 2000 and 20033, are as follows: 
to verify that results are in line with the programme objectives, improve programme 
implementation and administration and contribute to the discussion under way on the 
next  generation  of  education  programmes  (2007-2013).  It  is  because  of  this  third 
objective that the deadline for submission of this report has been brought forward to 
spring 2004. 

1.3.  Methodology 

The  report  was  drawn  up  within  the  Commission.  The  sources  used  are  the 
following: the key data on the programme’s implementation, the conclusions of the 
national  evaluation  reports  on  programme  implementation,  also  provided  for  in  the 
Decision and which the 30 participating countries agreed to submit by 30 September 
20034,  the  available  conclusions  of  the  external  evaluations  initiated  by  the 
Commission5 and the data available within the Commission services6. 

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

3 
4 

5 

6 

SEC(2004)230. 
Reports have been received from the following countries: Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, 
France,  Ireland,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  The  Netherlands,  Austria,  Portugal,  Finland,  Sweden,  United 
Kingdom,  Iceland,  Liechtenstein,  Norway,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovenia , Slovak Republic. 
The data which could be taken into account at the time the report was written were from the external 
evaluations of the following actions: Arion, Eurydice, NARIC, Comenius 1 and Comenius 2, impact of 
the language actions in the Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci programmes. 
The  budget  figures  and  details  of  the  main  activities  taken  into  account  in  this  report  are  set  out  in 
document SEC(2004)230. 

8 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
2. 

OVERALL CONTEXT OF THE PROGRAMME 

2.1. 

Background  

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

2.2. 

Objectives 

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

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

2.3. 

Resources 

Article 10 of the Decision sets the budget for the implementation of the programme, 
for the period in question, at EUR 1,850 million7. This does not include the annual 
contributions  of  the  three  EFTA  countries  and  12  associated  countries.  The  figures 
for the years 2000 to 2003 are given in the statistical document SEC(2004)230. 

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

2.4. 

Factors which may influence the programme 

Since  the  current  programme  was  established,  the  political  debate  on  education  in 
Europe  has  made  spectacular  progress,  with  the  following  documents  submitted  by 

7 

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

9 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
the European Commission in 2001: the Communication Making a European Area of 
Lifelong  Learning  a  Reality8  and  the  Report  on  the  concrete  future  objectives  of 
education  systems9,  adopted  by  the  Council  and  submitted  to  the  Stockholm 
European  Council 
in  March  2001.  In  addition,  a  series  of  reports  and 
communications published in 2002 and 2003 concerned the implementation of some 
of  the  specific  objectives  set  in  these  two  key  texts.  Some  of  these  priorities  and 
guidelines were included in the annual calls for proposals (for example, Grundtvig, 
Comenius, Action 6), as the Socrates programme was flexible enough to allow these 
adjustments. 

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

3. 

GENERAL ASPECTS OF PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION 

3.1. 

General points 

3.1.1.  Clarity of the objectives and evaluability of the programme 

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

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

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

3.1.2.  Programme structure 

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

8 
9 

Reference COM (2001) 678 final. 
Reference COM (2001) 59 final. 

10 

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

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

3.1.3.  Main types of activity supported 

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

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

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

3.2. 

Programme administration: operational implementation 

3.2.1.  Administrative structures 

Administrative  arrangements  and  structures  differ  for  centralised  and  decentralised 
actions10.  There  are  more  decentralised  actions  now  than  there  were  in  Socrates  1. 
The national reports more or less unanimously express a clear preference on the part 
of the national authorities and participants themselves for decentralised management, 
as it is thought to be better suited to taking into account national circumstances and 
to  making  the  programme  accessible  to  citizens.  However,  where  centralised 
management applies, the majority of states recommend retaining this form in order to 
ensure  that  compliance  with  the  European  dimension  and  the  public  view  of  it  are 
consistent. 

10 

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

11 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
3.2.1.1.  Centralised actions 

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

3.2.1.2.  Decentralised actions 

The  Decision  stipulates  that  the  national  authorities  must  establish  structures  to 
coordinate  the  Socrates  programme's  actions  at  national  level  (National  Agencies). 
Given  the  programme’s  new  structure,  there  are  fewer  NAs  in  each  country  than 
there were under Socrates I, with some even having joint agencies for the Socrates 
and  Leonardo  da  Vinci  programmes.  Moreover,  the  mutual  responsibilities  of  the 
Commission  and  the  NAs,  which  relate  mainly  but  not  exclusively  to  the 
management  of  decentralised  actions,  are  henceforth  set  out  clearly  in  a  formal 
framework11. 

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

3.2.2.  Consultation processes 

Under the Decision12, the Commission is assisted by a Committee in implementing 
the  administrative  and  consultation  procedures.  With  regard  to  the  administrative 
procedures13,  the  Committee  issues  an  opinion  and  then  the  European  Parliament 
(EP)  exercises  its  right  of  scrutiny.  Unless  the  EP  comments  within  30  days,  the 
Commission may proceed with the adoption of implementing measures. In practice, 
since  this  procedure  was  introduced,  the  EP  has  not  commented  on  any  of  the 
measures  submitted  to  it.  Because  of  the  duration  of  the  adoption  process  (which 
may  range  from  three  to  six  months,  depending  on  the  dates  of  the  EP’s  part-
sessions), and the additional time needed for the selection process, all of those who 
have submitted proposals agree that the length of time between the application and 
the project promoters receiving a response is too long. 

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

11 
12 
13 

Commission Decision C(2000)1537 of 06.06.2000. 
See Article 8 of the Decision. 
These procedures are set out in Article 7 of the Decision. 

12 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
3.2.3.  Programme budget 

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

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

limitations  of 

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

3.2.4. 

Information and dissemination policy 

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

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

Some media events have had a major impact, for example the Comenius Weeks and 
the  celebration  of  one  million  Erasmus  students.  Of  the  tools  used,  it  is  worth 
highlighting  the  usefulness  of  the  project  databases,  whose  quality  and  coverage 
have  increased  noticeably  in  the  course  of  the  first  three  years  of  the  current 
programme. These are used not only for programme administration purposes but also 
to raise public awareness of the projects. In the evaluations of the programme’s first 
phase, the dissemination of results was regarded as one of its main weaknesses. In 
response  to  this  criticism,  the  Commission  mobilised  the  various  actors  involved. 
Project  promoters  are  better  informed  about  the  importance  of  this  aspect  of  their 
activities and are asked to indicate in their applications the dissemination measures 
they plan to take. The Commission and the NAs now make greater use of the tools at 

13 

 
 
  
 
their  disposal  for  the  publication  of  results:  the  Internet,  practical  guides  for 
distribution,  highlighting  the  best  projects,  publication  of  articles,  presentation  of 
products  at  various  events  related  to  the  programme  or  to  the  education  sector  in 
general  (trade  fairs,  exhibitions,  conferences  and  seminars)  In  addition,  a  call  for 
proposals on the dissemination of the products and results of the centralised projects 
was issued in 2002 and another for decentralised projects in 2003. 

3.2.5.  Project selection processes 

3.2.5.1.  Centralised actions 

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

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

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

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

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

14 

 
 
  
 
3.2.5.2.  Decentralised actions 

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

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

3.2.6.  Contract and financial management processes 

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

3.2.6.1.  Issuing of contracts 

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

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

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

3.2.6.2.  Accounting management 

Monitoring of the use of public funds has been increased for all activities in receipt 
of  Community  funding,  with  greater  insistence  on  constraints  related  to  financial 
management and audit activities. This development has been reinforced by the entry 

15 

 
 
  
 
into force of the new Financial Regulation (NFR) on 1 January 2003. Some of the 
rules for the Socrates programme are proving to be too bureaucratic or problematic in 
practice.  These  new  restrictions  have  a  very  strong  impact  in  terms  of  the  level  of 
human resources required to operate a programme characterised by the large number 
of activities supported and often very modest grants. The introduction of a corrective 
proportionality principle would be invaluable in managing the programme effectively 
and efficiently. 

3.2.7.  Monitoring and evaluation policy 

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

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

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

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

3.2.8.  Conclusions 

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

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

16 

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

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF EACH ACTION 

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

4.1. 

Comenius 

4.1.1.  General points 

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

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

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

4.1.2.  Operational mechanisms 

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

Comenius  is  run  in  accordance  with  the  joint  management  rules  for  the  Socrates 
programme. The exception is Comenius 2 — a centralised action which, unlike the 
other  actions  of  the  same  kind,  involves  a  one-stage  selection  procedure.  This  has 

17 

 
 
  
 
proved  worthwhile  because  of  the  small  number  of  applications  received  and  has 
been more economical from a staffing point of view, without leading to complaints 
from applicants. 

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

4.1.3.  Achievements 

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

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

the  number  of  applications  received  and  projects  funded 

4.1.4.  Conclusions 

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

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

18 

 
 
  
 
4.2. 

Erasmus 

4.2.1.  General points 

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

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

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

4.2.2.  Operational mechanisms 

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

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

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

19 

 
 
  
 
from now on, the NAs are advised to set aside part of the overall mobility budget for 
applications from students or teachers with severe disabilities. 

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

4.2.3.  Achievements 

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

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

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

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

20 

 
 
  
 
Because  of  their  nature,  the  thematic  networks  (TNs)  have  functioned  on  two 
levels:  firstly,  they  have  sought  to  stimulate  and,  if  necessary,  change  disciplinary 
strategies  in  higher  education  institutions;  secondly,  they  have  contributed  to  the 
wider  political  objective  of  creating  a  European  society  which  is  culturally, 
economically  and  technically  competitive.  In  other  words,  they  have  helped  to 
improve  the  quality,  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  higher  education  systems.  To 
attain  these  ambitious  objectives,  the  TNs,  in  2002,  adopted  the  methodology 
developed  as  part  of  the  Tuning14  project.  This  key  Community  project  addresses 
several  of  the  Bologna  action  lines  and  aims  to  identify  points  of  reference  for  the 
general and subject-specific skills which should be covered by university degrees in 
a  number  of  disciplines.  In  the  interests  of  quality  assurance,  each  of  the  TNs  will 
seek  to  define  the  general  and  specific  skills  in  their  particular  subject  area  and  to 
develop and/or put into practice teaching and appraisal methods. 

4.2.4.  Conclusions 

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

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

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

4.3. 

Grundtvig 

4.3.1.  General points 

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

As  Grundtvig  concerns  adult  education  and  other  educational  pathways,  its 
objectives  are  particularly  relevant  in  view  of  the  growing  importance  of  lifelong 
learning.  Although  Grundtvig's  objectives  are  highly  relevant,  they  are  not  as 
explicit  as  they  could  be  and  this  causes  problems  for  the  public:  because  the 

14 

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

21 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
objectives have been kept relatively general in order to preserve the inclusive nature 
of  the  action,  people  find  it  difficult  to  distinguish  them  from  other  closely-related 
areas,  with  the  result  that  many  of  the  projects  proposed  fall  within  other  areas  of 
Community action (particularly vocational training or regional development outside 
the education sphere). 

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

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

4.3.2.  Operational mechanisms 

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

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

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

22 

 
 
  
 
4.3.3.  Achievements 

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

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

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

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

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

4.3.4.  Conclusions 

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

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

23 

 
 
  
 
4.4. 

Lingua 

4.4.1.  General points 

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

4.4.2.  Operational mechanisms 

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

4.4.3.  Achievements 

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

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

24 

 
 
  
 
4.4.4.  Conclusions 

The action is developing in accordance with the relevant objectives.  

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

4.5.  Minerva 

4.5.1.  General points 

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

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

4.5.2.  Operational mechanisms 

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

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

4.5.3.  Achievements 

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

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

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

25 

 
 
  
 
4.5.4.  Conclusions 

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

4.6. 

Observation and Innovation 

4.6.1.  General points 

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

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

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

4.6.2.  Operational mechanisms 

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

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

4.6.3.  Achievements 

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

26 

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

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

4.6.4.  Conclusions 

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

4.7. 

Joint Actions 

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

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

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

4.8. 

Accompanying Measures 

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

27 

 
 
  
 
supported by the Accompanying Measures. Assistance is also provided for projects 
involving research, the development of teaching material and the training of staff. 

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

5. 

CONCLUSIONS  

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

The following points provide a summary of the present report. 

5.1. 

Relevance 

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

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

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

Proposals concerning the future programme 

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

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

The programme should be structured in such a way as to show more clearly the 
hierarchy of objectives and should be easy to understand so that those involved in the 

28 

 
 
  
 
education  sector  can  clearly  identify  the  actions  which  best  correspond  to  their 
requirements. 

5.2. 

Efficiency 

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

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

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

the  pool  of  potential  applicants.  There 

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

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

Proposals concerning the future programme 

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

5.3. 

Effectiveness 

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

29 

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

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

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

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

Proposals concerning the future programme 

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

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

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

30