REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL Progress report on a Learning Mobility Benchmark
Date: 2017-03-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, European Commission
Subjects: EU statistics, cooperation in the field of education, data collection, education statistics, educational exchange, higher education, student mobility, vocational training, young person

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.3.2017  COM(2017) 148 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL Progress report on a Learning Mobility Benchmark  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  recent  Commission  Communication  on  Investing  in  Europe’s  Youth 1  highlights  the 
positive  impact  of  learning  mobility  on  employability  and  active  citizenship.  Learning, 
studying  and  training  in  another  country  is  a  unique  experience  and  can  open  up  new 
horizons.  Skills  gained  during  a  mobility  experience,  such  as  problem-solving,  adaptability, 
tolerance and confidence are valued by employers and essential for today’s society. 

The  Commission  encourages  learning  mobility  of  young  people  through  its  policies  and 
programmes, including a dedicated benchmark and support from the Erasmus+ programme.  
The 2011 Council conclusions on a benchmark for learning mobility (2011/C372/08)2 invite 
the Commission to: ‘report back to the Council by the end of 2015, with a view to reviewing 
and, if necessary, revising the European benchmark on learning mobility.’ 

The Council conclusions also request the Commission and the Member States to carry out a 
number  of  other  actions,  in  particular  in  regard  to  indicators  on  student,  youth  and  teacher 
mobility. However, there is no obligation to report back to the Council linked to these actions. 
They are described in more detail in separate available Commission documentation. 

The  background  to  the  2011  Council  conclusions  is  the  Strategic  Framework  on  European 
Cooperation  in  Education  and  Training  2020  which  invites  the  Commission  ‘to  submit  a 
proposal for a benchmark in this area by the end 2010, focusing initially on physical mobility 
between countries in the field of higher education...’3. The Council conclusions were preceded 
by  the  Commission  staff  working  document  of  24  May  2011  on  the  development  of 
benchmarks on education for employability and on learning mobility (doc. 10697/11)4. 

This  report  fulfils  the  obligation  of  reporting  back  to  the  Council  on  the  progress  made 
regarding the mobility benchmark with a view to continuing the work towards 2020.  

The learning mobility benchmark consists of two indicators and is defined in the annex of the 
2011 conclusions as: 

- ‘By 2020, an EU average of at least 20 % of higher education graduates should have had a 
period  of  higher  education-related  study  or  training  (including  work  placements)  abroad, 
representing a minimum of 15 ECTS credits or lasting a minimum of 3 months.' 

-  'By  2020,  an  EU  average  of  at  least  6 %  of  18-34  year-olds  with  an  initial  vocational 
education and training qualification should have had an initial VET-related study or training 
period  (including  work  placements)  abroad  lasting  a  minimum  of  2  weeks(3),  or  less  if 
documented by Europass. (3) = 10 working days’' 

The  focus  of  the  benchmark  is  on  outward  mobility:  in  other  words,  the  extent  to  which 
individuals  go  abroad  to  gain  learning  experiences  and  qualifications.  Within  the  EU,  this 
objective is linked to the EU basic principles of the free movement of people and work within 
the internal market. 

The  EU  benchmark  measures  the  number  of  graduates  who  have  both  been  mobile  during 
their studies and have successfully completed their qualifications. It does not directly specify 
a geographical area, but the 2011 Conclusions underline that: ‘learning mobility is defined as 
physical mobility and takes worldwide mobility into account’. The measurement of the IVET 

1 COM(2016) 940 final of 7.12.2016 
2 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2011.372.01.0031.01.ENG&toc=OJ:C:2011:372:TOC. . 
3 OJ C 119, 28.5.2009. The continuation of the paragraph reads: ‘…focusing initially on physical mobility between countries in the field of 
higher  education,  taking  both  quantitative  and  qualitative  aspects  into  account  and  reflecting  the  efforts  made  and  the  objectives  agreed 
within the Bologna process, as highlighted most recently at the Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve conference. At the same time, the Commission 
is invited to study the possibility of extending such a benchmark to include vocational education and training and teacher mobility.’ 
4 https://www.eumonitor.nl/9353000/1/j4nvgs5kjg27kof_j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vipo5nwh1fzn/f=/10697_11.pdf. 

2 

 
 
                                                 
mobility  benchmark  indicator  is  in  practice  limited  by  the  instrument  implied  in  the 
Conclusions (a household survey of a specified broad age group), whereas the source for the 
higher education benchmark indicator is not specified. 

The pertinent Commission advisory body (The Standing Group of Indicators and Benchmarks 
(SGIB)) was consulted on a draft of this report in January and February 2016, after an initial 
SGIB discussion in December 2015. The results of these consultations are referred to where 
relevant in this report. They inform the Commission’s assessment of the technical feasibility 
of further work. 

The report treats the work done since 2011, the evidence available and it draws conclusions 
for the higher education and the IVET mobility benchmark indicators respectively (sections 2 
and 3). Moreover, it sets out the further work proposed by the Commission (section 4). 

2. 

THE HIGHER EDUCATION MOBILITY BENCHMARK INDICATOR 

2.1.  Work done since 2011 

A  Eurostat  Task  Force  working  in  2011-2012  produced  a  proposal  for  a  methodology  and 
means of data collection to fulfil the requirements of this benchmark indicator. The data was 
not  available  in  the  correct  format  prior  to  the  agreement  on  the  Council  conclusions.  The 
Task Force identified that the most important issue was the feasibility of collecting data that 
would fulfil the benchmark definition. 

The benchmark indicator definition and subsequent work was carried out in close cooperation 
with actors involved in the Bologna process5, as also requested in the Council conclusions. It 
includes  a  broader  focus  on  improving  data  on  learning  mobility  (also  according  to  the 
European Higher Education Area / Bologna process ‘Strategy: Mobility for better learning’6). 

The  learning  mobility  data  are  collected  through  UNESCO,  the  OECD  and  Eurostat  (UOE) 
education data collection using mainly administrative information. Eurostat has developed, in 
cooperation with Member States (through the Task Force), the OECD, UNESCO,  DG EAC 
and  other  relevant  Commission  bodies,  a  methodological  manual  on  learning  mobility  and 
data collection tables7.  The data  for the  benchmark  from EU Member States is collected on 
the  basis  of  a  Commission  Regulation  adopted  in  2013 8 ,  which  is  being  implemented 
gradually over the period 2015 to 2018. 

In 2022, 5 years of data will be available for the reference period 2016-2020, given that the 
target is set for 2020. 2019 will be the year in which it will be necessary to assess the situation 
more  specifically  with  a  view  to  post-2020.  In  2019,  the  evidence  base  for  doing  this  will 
consist of 2 years of data (for 2016 and 2017). 

5 http://www.ehea.info/. The 2009 Leuven/Louvain la Neuve Communiqué specifies and defines the learning mobility benchmark in 
paragraph 18,  and further develops it in paragraphs 19 to 21 and 26 (http://media.ehea.info/file/2009_Leuven_Louvain-la-
Neuve/06/1/Leuven_Louvain-la-Neuve_Communique_April_2009_595061.pdf). 
6 As adopted at the Ministerial Conference in Bucharest (2012) as part of the official Bucharest communiqué: 
http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/%281 %29/2012 %20EHEA%20Mobility%20Strategy.pdf. 
7 The methodological manual, as well as the data collection tables, are available here: Methodological manual 
https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/3bc0cfff-6ba0-462b-a799-5b75490868b7/Methodological%20manual%20on%20LM_rev_28072015.pdf and 
data collection tables https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/849a866e-d820-4006-a6af-21cb1c48626b/UOE2016manual_12072016.pdf. 
8 See  COMMISSION  REGULATION  (EU)  No  912/2013  of  23  September  2013  implementing  Regulation  (EC)  No  452/2008  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  concerning  the  production  and  development  of  statistics  on  education  and  lifelong  learning,  as 
regards statistics on education and training systems. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.2.  Evidence available 

The  data  for  the  higher  education  benchmark  indicator  include  two  types;  ‘credit’  and 
‘degree’ mobility. These two types are treated separately below because the methodology and 
data requirements differ significantly. 

- Credit mobility 

Credit  mobility  is defined as a temporary education or/and study-related traineeship abroad 
within the framework of enrolment in a tertiary education programme at a ‘home institution’ 
(usually) for the purpose of gaining academic credit (i.e. credit that will be recognised by the 
home institution). Graduates who have had a credit mobility stay are defined as graduates 
from a given tertiary programme (defined using ISCED9) who have had a temporary tertiary 
education study period and/or work placement abroad and return to their ‘home institution’ to 
complete  their  degree.  Data  for  credit  mobility  are  supplied  to  the  national  statistical 
authorities by the home institutions (and are subsequently transferred to Eurostat following an 
agreed format). 

Data on graduate credit mobility are not yet available from Eurostat. Member States will start 
transferring data to Eurostat in 2017 for the reference period 2016 (school year 2015-2016) to 
be  published  in  the  first  part  of  2018.  At  this  time,  the  credit  mobility  data  will  be  almost 
complete10 as it relies on data collected from the countries to which the students return after 
their credit mobility stay (i.e. the EU 28 Member States) and the data transfer to Eurostat is 
obligatory following the regulation adopted in September 201311. 

Until  then,  the  best  information  for  EU  level  credit  mobility  is  the  programme  data  for 
Erasmus+.  However,  this  does  not  include  mobility  that  takes  place  outside  the  programme 
and the only data currently available are enrolment data, which cannot be used as a proxy for 
the relevant part of the benchmark indicator which requires graduate data. 

- Degree mobility 

Degree mobility is defined as the physical crossing of a national border to enrol in a degree 
programme  at  tertiary  level  in  the  country  of  destination.  Degree  mobile  graduates  are 
graduates whose country of origin12 is different from the country in which they graduate from 
at tertiary-level. 

Data  on  degree  mobile  graduates  is  collected  at  the  level  of  the  destination  country.  As  a 
consequence, calculating the total number of EU outward mobile graduates, by origin, takes 
into account figures provided by all the destination countries inside and outside the EU. This 
implies  that  the  reliability  of  the  outward  indicator  depends on  the  quality  and  detail  of  the 
information  provided  by  other  countries,  as  well  as  the  number  of  destination  countries  for 
which data are available. 

The first results of the new UOE data collection as regards degree mobility became available 
in  autumn  2015.  The  Center  for  Research  in  Education  and  Lifelong  Learning  (CRELL)  at 

9 ISCED 2011: the International Standard Classification for Education — http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Pages/international-standard-
classification-of-education.aspx. . 
10 With the exception of IT and PL which were granted derogations: for Italy until 31 December 2019 for ISCED level 8 graduates by type of 
mobility scheme and by country of destination and for Poland until 31 December 2018 for ISCED levels 6 to 8. 
11 For credit mobility, the benchmark indicator requires data for graduates who during their study time have been abroad for study purposes. 
Practically, the data can therefore be collected at the time when a student graduates by registering the credit mobility stay abroad. 
12 While  country  of  origin  would  ideally  be  defined  as  country  of  prior  education,  i.e.  ‘country  where  upper  secondary  diploma  was 
awarded’, the data collection for the academic years 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 allowed countries to use the national definition of country of 
origin, which can be either country of prior education, country of usual residence, or country of citizenship. 

4 

 
 
                                                 
JRC  analysed  and  published  the  very  first  estimates  of  the  outward  mobility  of  European 
students at tertiary level (ISCED levels 5-8), as well as for each ISCED level separately13. 

The  EU  benchmark  with  the  available  data  shows  2.9 %  for  the  reference  period  2013 
(academic  year  2012-2013).  This  is  far  below  the  target  of  20 %,  but  this  is  because  only 
partial  data  is  available  at  present. As  mentioned  above, no data is yet available  for credit 
mobility.  Data  on  degree  mobility  is  currently  available  only  for  some  of  the  destination 
countries, due to derogations in data provision granted to some EU countries and to lack of 
information  from  many  destination  countries  beyond  the  EU.  It  is  therefore  likely  that  the 
real benchmark level is significantly higher. 

As  regards  individual  countries,  the  data  shows  that  CY  and  LU  far  exceed  the  benchmark 
target (respectively with levels of 63% and 68%); most students from these countries attend 
and graduate from education institutions in either neighbouring countries or the UK and CH 
(both of which traditionally attract many mobile students). It should be noted that, despite the 
partial coverage of data, significant proportions of graduates from BG, DE, EE, IE, EL, LT, 
LV, MT, SK and FI graduate abroad (between 5 and 13%). For most of them, large numbers 
of  these  students  went  to  neighbouring  countries,  given  historical  and  often  language 
connections. The data also shows that a higher educational level is generally associated with 
higher shares of learning mobility, with the highest shares found at the doctoral level. 

The first data provided on degree mobility shows, in general, that Member States comply well 
with  the  Commission  Regulation.  A  few  countries  have  derogations  for  later  provision  (EL 
and FR for the main part of the data; ES and PL for specific parts).  

As noted earlier, the benchmark is not limited to Member States. Many students originating in 
the  EU  graduate  in  countries  outside  the  Union  and  it  is  therefore  necessary  to  collect  data 
from  these  countries14.  Consequently,  starting  from  2014,  data  collection  mechanisms  have 
also been put in place by the OECD and UNESCO (in cooperation with Eurostat). However, 
unlike for EU Member States, provision of the data is optional and the compliance of non-EU 
countries in the first year of collection was quite uneven. 

For  the  countries  outside  Europe,  the  first  results  show  that  only  Australia,  Brazil,  Canada, 
Chile,  Israel  and  New  Zealand  provided  data  in  the  required  format.  The  intended  (but  not 
achieved) coverage of the benchmark includes countries as the US which is known to receive 
the bulk of mobile students from EU countries so that the estimated total coverage would be 
95 % of total world mobility15. 

2.3.  Conclusions based on work carried out and current evidence available 

Section  2.2  shows  that  a  sustained  effort  is  needed  to  provide  better  quality  data  on  higher 
education learning mobility in terms of making comparative credit mobility data available and 
ensuring that data on graduates from Member States graduating in countries outside the EU 
are available for all main destination countries. 

The Commission supports the current definition of the higher education benchmark indicator. 
Likewise,  the  SGIB  consultation  indicated  that  this  benchmark  should  stay  as  it  is,  as  it  is 
considered  to  be  meaningfully  defined  responding  to  an  interest  in  worldwide  mobility. 

13https://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/?q=publications/learning-mobility-technical-report, see particularly table 1 page 20. The benchmark indicator 
is defined as an EU average. The UOE data collection collects census data (e.g. for all the units defined in the population) and results are 
therefore reliable by country and for the breakdowns stipulated. 
14 EU Member States do not necessarily know, nor can they, which of their students who graduated in upper secondary education later take a 
degree abroad. This data is most reliably collected from the countries in which the students graduate. 
15 Beyond the US, the main missing destination countries are South East Asian countries as Korea and Japan as well as Mexico, China and 
India. 

5 

 
 
 
                                                 
Further efforts are needed to obtain relevant data for countries outside the EU to expand the 
present partial coverage by 201816. 

A first ambition would be to obtain complete coverage of Bologna countries given that they 
share  a  similar  benchmark  ambition.  Recent  data  collections  for  non-EU  Bologna  countries 
show however limited data availability for the main countries17. 

Secondly, it should be a priority to strengthen cooperation with OECD and UNESCO on the 
world evidence of learning mobility by further improving the collection of international data 
already agreed upon. In particular, as many students originating from the EU study in the US 
it would be important to obtain such data. The Commission works closely with the OECD and 
UNESCO  through  shared  policy  goals  regarding  learning  mobility  and  has  therefore 
developed close cooperation on data collection. 

The  OECD  has  indicated  that  significant  changes  in  the  2014  UOE  collection  may  have 
prevented some countries from providing the data. The UOE data collection as implemented 
in  2014  was  thoroughly  revised  due  to  the  revision  of  the  main  education  classification 
ISCED  2011.  UNESCO-UIS  has  indicated  that  the  relevant  countries  lack  the  capacity  to 
adapt their survey instruments (new data would, in all likelihood, need to be collected). 

Another  development,  alongside  the  improved  data  collection  and  methodology,  is  the 
dissemination of the existing benchmark indicator data. Eurostat plans to disseminate outward 
mobility  data  for  the  geographical  area  covered  by  the  European  Statistical  System  and  its 
Code of Practice18. However, it would also be important for the Commission to provide data 
that reflect EU  graduate  mobility  across the  world,  as  requested  in  the  benchmark  indicator 
formulation, given the prominent role that learning mobility plays in higher education policies 
at EU and international level. 

These  areas  of  further  work  were  widely  supported  by  the  SGIB.  Respondents  to  the 
consultation agreed that the benchmark has been well defined and its technical achievement 
by adding the credit mobility data and completing the degree mobility data should be pursued. 

Given the partial completion of the work at this stage, a reassessment of the progress of work 
by end of 2019, with a view to its continuation and development, will be envisaged. 

The timeframe for getting complete data is in principle until 2018 given that this is when the 
credit mobility data will become available for EU countries. For countries outside the EU this 
means that the data collection should be in place for the reference period 2016 (to be reported 
in 2017). The Commission therefore intends to encourage these countries to provide data as 
soon as possible. 

In  conclusion,  it  is  clear  that  a  legal  basis  has  led  to  a  regular  quality  reporting  of  learning 
mobility  data  in  higher  education.  At  the  same  time,  it  takes  time  to  create  such  a  data 
collection  system.  These  two  observations,  combined  with  the  overarching  growing  policy 
relevance of learning mobility in higher education, have an impact on the continued work in 
this area (see section 4). 

16 The Council conclusions on a Global dimension of European Higher Education, 25-26 November 2013 support this approach. 
17 2015 Bologna implementation report, chapter 7, Eurydice 2015, data are available for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, 
and Switzerland plus Norway. 
18 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/quality/european-statistics-code-of-practice. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
3. 

THE IVET MOBILITY BENCHMARK INDICATOR 

3.1.  Work done since 2011 

When  the  IVET  mobility  benchmark  was  adopted,  there  was  no  European  harmonised  data 
source that could provide data for the indicator. Therefore a 2011-2012 Eurostat Task Force 
worked on technical issues related to the possible use of household surveys for this purpose, 
and  on  setting  up  a  general  indicator  on  youth  learning  mobility.  The  benchmark  indicator 
stipulates that IVET mobility should be measured for the 18-34 years old age group. The Task 
Force  concluded  that  the  only  way  to  provide  a  reliable  estimate  of  participation  in  IVET 
mobility for this age group would be through a representative survey instrument. 

The conclusions of the Task Force were discussed by the Directors of Social Statistics and the 
work resulted in a European Statistical System (ESS) agreement in November 2012 to carry 
out a pilot data collection on learning mobility via household surveys. Countries could opt in 
or  out  of  participating  in  the  pilot  collection  (there  was  no  legal  obligation)  and  the 
Commission  provided  funding  for  those  countries  that  chose  to  participate 19 .  The  ESS 
agreement included the list  of  variables, the  sample and quality requirements  as well as the 
format and the time delays for transmission. 

3.2.  Evidence available 

in 

As  requested 
learning  mobility 
the  Council  conclusions  on  a  benchmark  for 
(2011/C372/08), the pilot data collection was done in 2014 through household surveys; either 
the EU Labour Force Survey or a specific stand-alone survey (BG, ES and SE). 16 Member 
States participated in the pilot (BE, BG, EE, ES, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, 
SK,  SE),  of  which  10  countries  took  up  the  offer  for  financial  support  by  the  Commission 
(BG, ES, IT, LT, HU, NL, AT, RO, SI, SE). Data from the 16 countries conducting the pilot 
are judged to be comparable as shown by the Eurostat reporting20. 

In  addition,  a  few  Member  States  also  provided  some  information  from  national 
administrative sources (including CZ, DE and the UK). Member States could opt for a short 
or  long  version  of  the  questionnaire.  The  long  version  also  aimed  at  measuring  youth 
mobility. 

The Eurostat reporting shows that reliable results with a coefficient of variation below 15 % 
were  obtained  for  only  six  countries:  BE,  IT,  HU,  NL,  AT  and  SE.  Data  for  five  other 
countries  can  still  be  considered  reliable  according  to  sample  size  requirements  but  have  a 
coefficient  of  variation  of  15 %  or  more:  BG,  ES,  PL,  PT  and  SI.  The  results  for  IVET 
learning mobility cannot be published for three countries due to reliability concerns: EE, LV 
and LT. In addition, the results are of low reliability for two other countries: RO and SK. This 
illustrates  that  the  main  problem  of  the  chosen  method  was  to  get  reliable  data  for  small 
populations through a sample survey.  

Combining  the  results  of  the  16  available  countries  leads  to  an  average  IVET  learning 
mobility of 3.1 % (weighted average of the 16 countries). 

The conclusion is that a household survey is not the best vehicle for capturing IVET mobility, 
as it would require very big samples with high costs, but with no guarantee for reliable quality 
data for the EU target. 

19 This in contrast to the process defined for the higher education benchmark indicator. Grants were offered to countries for both the IVET 
mobility pilot data collection and the higher education part (with a minimal uptake for the HE part). 
20 Doc 2015-ETS-05 and its annex: https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/92373d62-bba3-42d2-be57-578a165bd0bb. Initially 20 countries 
participated in the ESS agreement but no pilot data collections were in the end carried out in CZ, EL, FR and LU. FR would carry out a pilot 
data collection in 2016. 

7 

 
 
                                                 
3.3 

Conclusions based on work carried out and current evidence available 

Given the outcome  of  the  IVET  mobility pilot data  collection, the Commission  will discuss 
possible  options  with  the  main  stakeholders  at  Member  State  level  to  find  a  viable  and 
sustainable  solution  for  improving  the  evidence  base  on  the  IVET  mobility  benchmark 
indicator. 

In  this  respect,  it  is  essential  that  efforts  match  outcomes  and  consequently  that  the  tools 
chosen  for  monitoring  provide  reliable  and  regular  data  without  putting  undue  burden  and 
costs on the statistical system. 

Based  on  the  pilot  data  collection  and  discussions  with  Member  State  authorities,  the 
Commission draws the conclusion that it would be worth exploring the use of administrative 
data  and  review  the  feasibility  of  using  such  data  to  underpin  the  benchmark  on  IVET 
mobility. Administrative data on this already exists in some EU countries as well as in other 
participating countries of the Erasmus + programme. 

From  a  policy  point  of  view,  there  are  clear  advantages  in  switching  to  administrative  data 
because of the possibility of combining Erasmus+ participants’ data with other IVET mobility 
data21 as well as the prospect of having more frequent and recent data. This was the approach 
already  chosen  for  the  higher  education  benchmark  indicator  and  it  would  allow  the 
Commission to use monitoring to further EU policy/programme goals for IVET mobility. 

The SGIB consultation showed that 12 out of 15 replying countries would agree in principle 
with changing the data source. Two would not agree (because of a lack of availability of data 
or a preference for survey data)22. The Commission therefore proposes to test the feasibility of 
data collection through administrative sources. 

It  should  be  underlined  that  a  change  in  the  data  source  would  mean  that  the  benchmark 
definition  needs  to  be  slightly  revised  as  the  current  benchmark  formulation  implies  data 
collection through a household survey (because of the age group coverage). 

Therefore, similar to the approach for the higher education benchmark indicator, the proposed 
feasibility  study  would  test  if  IVET  institutions  could  provide  information  on  their 
students’/graduates’ learning mobility characteristics. This option was also highlighted in the 
SGIB  comments  in  relation  to  the  policy  relevance  of  the  indicator  both  at  national  and 
institutional level. 

A revision of the IVET benchmark definition can only be envisaged in the light of the results 
of the feasibility study in terms of the evidence available at administrative/institutional level 
(data  from  administrative  sources).  A  further  discussion  on  whether  to  focus  on  inward  or 
outward learning mobility will also be needed. In the current benchmark formulation, IVET 
mobility graduates who originate inside the EU but live in a non-EU country (and are between 
18 and 34 years old) are not covered. 

This work will be carried out together with Eurostat in close cooperation with main partners 
at  EU,  national  and  institutional  level  in  the  field  of  vocational  education  and  training. 
However, a feasibility study requires time and it is therefore unlikely that the IVET mobility 
target could be assessed before 2020. 

21

 As can also be done for the higher education benchmark (once the correct format of the credit mobility data are available). 

22 Another country noted that there is limited policy interest in this area and proposed not to pursue the action further. 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
4. 

OUTLOOK 

The  2015  Joint  Report  Education  and  Training  2020  reports  on  progress  and  sets  new 
priorities for 2020; it underlines that learning mobility is a priority where a main challenge is 
that ‘Better data are needed for evidence monitoring on mobility’23. 

The  40 %  increase  of  the  budget  of  the  EU’s  Erasmus+  programme  (2014-2020)  over  its 
predecessor,  the  Lifelong  Learning  Programme  (2007-2013),  is  clear  evidence  of  the 
continued  and  increased  commitment  of  the  Commission  and  Member  States  to  increasing 
further  learning  mobility.  A  further  increase  was  proposed  by  the  Commission  in  the 
Multiannual  financial  framework  (MFF)  review24 and  the  positive  impact  of  mobility  was 
confirmed and further encouraged in the recent 'Investing in Europe's Youth' initiative, where 
the Commission underlined that 'mobility of young people is essential to increase European 
consciousness and identity'.  
The  New  European  Skills  Agenda25 also  stresses  the  importance  of  learning  mobility  by 
underlining  that  more  support  should  be  available  for  learners’  mobility.  It  calls  for  greater 
engagement by Member States, including financial support. 

These  latest  initiatives  follow  a  number  of  Commission  communications  and  Council 
conclusions since 2011 which, in turn, build on the considerable evidence of the importance 
attached  to  learning  mobility  in  European,  national  and  institutional  policies.26 The  research 
evidence on the outcomes of learning mobility for society and the individual points to positive 
effects including on employability27 and on institutions. 
Nevertheless, the Mobility Scoreboard28 for Higher Education revealed that the environment 
for  learning  mobility  varies  greatly  between  Member  States,  with  significant  barriers 
remaining in  terms of  information, student support  and recognition. Similar results are seen 
from an equivalent exercise for IVET. In this regard, the Joint Report underlines that actions 
on transparency, quality assurance, validation and recognition of skills and qualifications have 
to be pursued and tracked29. 

The  continued  development  of  the  evidence  base  regarding  quantitative  data  on  learning 
mobility  should  be  seen  in  this  broader  context.  The  benchmark  indicators  actively  support 
the evidence base for policies to increase learning mobility, not only at EU level, but also at 
national,  regional  and  institutional  levels.  An  improved  evidence  base  is  essential  for 
informed policy decisions regarding future EU and national learning mobility programmes. 

In this context, this report underlines that the Commission intends to: 

1)  Continue  to  implement  the  higher  education  learning  mobility  benchmark  indicator 
following the path defined with the Member States and cooperation organisations. 

2)  Identify  and  discuss  options  for  implementing  the  IVET  mobility  benchmark  indicator 
based  on  the  results  of  a  feasibility  study  on  collecting  IVET  mobility  data  from 

23 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52015XG1215(02)&from=EN; section 2.3, 4th paragraph. 
24 COM(2016) 603 of 14.09.2006 p. 3: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/lib/COM-2016-603/COM-2016-603_en.pdf.  
25 ‘A New Skills Agenda for Europe’, (COM(2016) 381/2), see p. 13 section on ‘More support for learners’ mobility’. 
26 The 2011 Council conclusions provide a long list of reference policy documents up to 2011. For the period 2012 to 2015 the following acts 
are of relevance:  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R1288, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R1288; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52011XG1220(07) . 
27 See for example: http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/study/2014/erasmus-impact_en.pdf, 
http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A40712, http://www.pedz.uni-mannheim.de/daten/edz-b/gdbk/10/vetpro_en.pdf. 
28https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Publications:Towards_a_Mobility_Scoreboard:_Conditions_for_Learning_A
broad_in_Europe.  
29 The Higher Education (2nd edition) and the IVET mobility scoreboards are accessible via a common platform published 8.12.2016:  
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus-plus/news/online-platform-mobility-scoreboard_en. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
administrative sources. Follow up on the results of these consultations, if appropriate, with a 
proposal to revise the definition of the IVET mobility benchmark indicator. 
The Commission asks the Council to support these developments. 

10