Techne
MOBILITY OBSERVATORIES – MONITORING TRANSNATIONAL MOBILITY IN VET
By Søren Kristensen, PhD
Despite figuring high on the agenda of European (and also many national) VET-policies, transnational
learning mobility for apprentices and other young people in VET remains a curiously under-researched
theme in Europe – both quantitatively and qualitatively. We do not have any precise information on
participation in mobility activities, and for many aspects of the organisational and pedagogical issues of
these, our knowledge is based assumptions and generalisations rather than firm empirical evidence. The
idea of information mechanisms (or mobility observatories) – at European and/or at national level – that
can address these issues has been mooted in many contexts, and a few attempts have been made.
However, until the present these have mainly been temporary experiments with a limited range, and not
permanent structures with a clear remit. Consequently, when we want European-level (or even national)
aggregated data on mobility, there is no one-stop-shop to go to, and we have to piece this together from
many different sources.
This paper analyses the issues related to the establishment of mobility observatories and looks at
-
The present knowledge level on mobility activities
Difficulties associated with information retrieval on mobility activities
Past or existing information mechanisms on mobility activities
Information needs
On the basis of the findings of these analyses, the paper formulates recommendations for the role and
tasks of mobility observatories.
The work has been carried out as a piece of desktop-research, and is based on already existing studies and
information sources. The author is Søren Kristensen, PhD, from Techne.
1. Participation in learning mobility: what we know
When trying to paint a picture of so called “learning mobility” in Europe, it often becomes dominated by
the EU action programmes in the field – the Lifelong Learning Programme and Youth in Action. This is
because aggregated data – statistics – on activities financed by these are easily obtainable, whereas similar
data on other mobility initiatives is either non-existent, or available only in formats that are incompatible
with the information requirement. This may convey the impression that learning mobility in Europe largely
happens within the framework of EU-programmes, but this is not the case. A recent study on mobility in
1
general education, vocational education and training, adult education and the youth field1 has indicated
that mobility schemes other than the EU action programmes finance or otherwise facilitate nearly double
the total of the participants of these2. The study was based on information from nearly 1000 mobility
schemes in 34 European countries3.
As it appears from the graph, a significant number of mobility schemes were not able – or willing – to give
information on participation, which means that the figures contain an element of “well-informed
guesswork”. But as all major schemes supplied the information, and the majority of the schemes that did
not comply with the request were either small or very small, the figures are reasonably accurate. When it
comes to breaking down the activities on individual target groups, the data is less reliable, as many
schemes involve several target groups under one heading (e.g. “young people from 15-25” or “young
people in education and training”), and their statistics do not allow any differentiation between them.
From the information that it was possible to obtain, it would seem that when it comes to the mobility in the
field of VET, the picture is different. Here, the EU action programmes account for most of the mobility, and
national schemes correspondingly less. This tendency is reflected also from other sources, notably the
German study on “hidden mobility”, undertaken by the National Agency (which is part of the German
Federal Agency for Vocational Training, BIBB (see below).
1
“Study on mobility developments in school education, vocational education and training, adult education and youth
exchanges”, ICON A.G. 2011. The study was carried out for the European Commission (EAC/27/2010). The full study
can be downloaded from http://ec.europa.eu/education/leonardo-da-vinci/studies_en.html. The study does not
include higher education, which is covered by a separate study.
2
The graphs are taken from the study.
3
The 27 EU Member States plus Croatia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, the FYROM, Switzerland and Turkey
2
80,000
70,000
Number of Participants
60,000
Teachers of vocational education
and training
50,000
Adult learners (non-vocational
adult education)
40,000
30,000
20,000
Learners and teachers in IVET
(initial and continuing vocational
training)
10,000
Initial and continuing vocational
learners in IVET
0
2008
(n = 928, 375 without
information on participants; 40%)
2009
2010
Leonardo da
Vinci
Programme
(2009)
The study concludes, however, that there are indications to the effect that apprentices and other young
people in VET are becoming increasingly targeted, and that work placements as a specific form of learning
mobility are gaining ground at the expense of other forms – also in absolute terms, despite budget cuts
everywhere due to the financial crisis. Participation in learning mobility is probably higher than the findings
of the study indicates, as it is based on dedicated mobility schemes only – i.e. schemes and programmes
that have the support of mobility as their major objective. It does not capture mobility that is undertaken in
non-dedicated schemes – i.e. schemes where the major objective is defined differently, and where mobility
is just one of several activities that may be undertaken. Neither does it cover individual mobility
(sometimes called “free movers”) – people that engage in learning mobility outside of activities organised
in schemes and programmes.
The true level of mobility for European apprentices and other young people in VET is therefore still
unknown. The Move-It study of 2007 set the level well below 1% for Europe4, but later studies have
indicated that this may be (at least for some countries) a very pessimistic figure. The statistics of the MoveIt study were based on informed assessments obtained from national members of Cedefop’s REFERnetwork of VET-experts5. A recent national study in Germany6 using a much more sophisticated
methodology (see below) thus set the level of mobility for the target group at app. 3%, whereas in the
Move-It study has assessed it at a mere 0.4%. It is doubtful whether Germany can be taken as
4
“Move-It: Overcoming obstacles to mobility for apprentices and other young people in VET”.
CINOP/PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2007. The study covered 32 European countries (27 EU Member States plus Iceland,
Liechtenstein, Norway Switzerland and Turkey).
5
http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/about-cedefop/networks/refernet/index.aspx
6
„Verdeckte Mobilität in der beruflichen Bildung”, NA beim BIBB. March 2011,
http://www.bildungsserver.de/db/mlesen.html?Id=47560
3
representative for all European countries, but the study at least clearly indicates that mobility of
apprentices and other young people in IVET is more widespread than commonly assumed. Other sources
underpin this notion of “hidden mobility”: A recent Eurobarometer-survey (2011)7 carried out in the EU
Member States and involving 57.000 young people in education and training indicated that no less than
14% of the cohort had been abroad in a context of (formal) education or training. This figure included
students in higher education, however.
A note should also be added about the reliability of the above figures when it comes to giving a full picture
of European mobility.
At one level, the definition of “learning mobility” is relatively straightforward and clear: a period of time
spent in another country than one’s own, consciously organised for the purpose of acquiring knowledge,
skills and competences. This definition covers a multitude of different permutations, however. The stay
may be undertaken in a formal or non-formal context; it may be undertaken individually or in a group; it
may be a school-stay, a work placement, or participation in a project or event; and it may be of a longer or
shorter duration. A priori, one form of mobility is not better or worse than the other – it all depends on the
learning objectives of the stay and the requirements of the target group, and how the chosen form
supports this. Statistically, however, there may be differences, depending on how one wants to represent
mobility.
In most statistics, the scope of mobility is represented via a “head count” of participants, where results are
computed by simply adding up the number of participants. This method can be misleading, however, as a
person in a tree-day study visit counts for the same as someone undertaking a 6-month placement abroad.
A more accurate unit of measurement would be e.g. “days spent abroad”, where the former will count with
a factor 3, whereas the latter will count with a factor 180. This requires fairly accurate information on the
duration of individual stays – information that is not at hand in most mobility schemes. Using the amount
of financing as a measure of the importance attached to mobility schemes is an equally tricky proposition,
as very few schemes provide a full financing for the activities, and different schemes operate with different
levels of co-financing from other sources. Most often, the amount of co-financing is not provided in
statistics, and many are different to calculate anyway, as they are delivered in kind (e.g. preparation
courses, mentoring etc.). For work placements, the host company may provide a significant part of the
financing through the provision of services (and in some cases even a remuneration) of the trainee. This
contribution is seldom reflected in the budgets of the mobility schemes, which therefore do not represent a
reliable account of the investment. A scheme with a very little “official” budget may yet organize significant
activities, as many of the funding sources may invisible (this could also comprise e.g. participant fees).
Methods of calculating budgets differ radically from scheme to scheme, and these are consequently often
unreliable indicators for the real scope and importance of the activities.
2. Retrieving information on the mobility of apprentices and other young people in VET
7
http://youth-partnership-eu.coe.int/youth-partnership/news/news_198.html
4
The major challenge for gathering and aggregating information on mobility is the very heterogeneous
nature of the field, where activities take place in a number of contexts and involve many stakeholders and
actors. “Actors” may again be subdivided into “drivers” and “providers”.
Stakeholders are organisations and institutions/authorities with a vested interest in mobility, and who
support it politically, but who are not involved in the practical organisation of activities. Important
stakeholders are e.g. the European Commission, national and regional governments, social partners at
European and national level and similar entities.
Providers are those that directly support mobility by providing and administrating the funds needed for
implementing the activities – but who are not necessarily involved at practical level themselves. These are
dedicated mobility programmes and schemes8 and other schemes which support mobility (even though this
may not be the main objective).
The drivers – i.e. those that are directly implicated in making mobility happen, and propose and initiate
activities – are first and foremost young people themselves as participants (individually or in activities
organised by others); secondly companies and vocational schools and training centres, and thirdly
placement organisers (intermediary organisations).
In terms of information provision, the most useful source is often the providers (mobility schemes), as
these routinely gather data on the activities they support in order to justify their existence and deliver
proof of good governance. The main provider is the European Commission through the Lifelong learning
Programme (LLP)9, which is the single most important mobility scheme in Europe, and which probably
accounts for more activities than all other schemes put together10. The European Union can also support
mobility in the context of formal or non-formal education and training from other sources, notably though
the European Social Fund (ESF). The decision to use ESF-funds to create a mobility initiative is taken at
national level, however.
Two examples of ESF-funded mobility activities:
The German IdA-programme (IdA = Integration durch Austausch), which funds transnational
mobility projects for young disadvantaged people (e.g. unemployed or in transition) with a total
budget in excess of EUR 120 mill. for the period 2007-2013 (www.ida.de). It is expected that the
project will have funded mobility projects of a duration from 1-6 months for some 12.000
participants during this time.
The Italian region of Tuscany has set up a regional scheme to promote transnational mobility in
education and training in the ESF-period 2007-2013. The scheme has a total budget of EUR 26
mill. (www.mob-reg.eu).
8
The two terms “programme” and “scheme” are in this paper used interchangeably, with “scheme” as the default
term.
9
Through the Leonardo da Vinci-strand and (to a much lesser extent) the Comenius-strand.
10
According to “Study on mobility developments in school education, vocational education and training, adult
education and youth exchanges” (see above).
5
These activities are reasonably easy to identify because they are dedicated to mobility, operate in a multiannual framework, and are large enough to have a separate identity and are searchable on the internet. It
is much more difficult to detect mobility projects that take place under other headlines in the ESF (e.g.
“employability” or “inclusion”), since these do not have a separate identity and therefore often are not
searchable11. Other EU programmes and initiatives that fund (or have funded in the past) mobility projects
in a VET-context are other structural funds (notably the Interreg-initiative under the Regional Development
Fund12), the Town-Twinning Programme and Tempus13. Also the other transnational European institution –
the Council of Europe – runs a scheme for mobility in a VET-context: the Eurodyssee-scheme14, which has
been set up under the aegis of the Assembly of European Regions.
A specific feature of European mobility is the existence of a number of bi-national mobility schemes.
Germany has thus bi-national mobility schemes with France, the UK, Norway, the Czech Republic, Poland,
and the Netherlands. Some of these are quite small, others are quite large (e.g. the Franco-German Youth
Office and the German-Polish Youth Office). Further, some target young people in general, others focus
specifically on apprentices and other young people in VET (e.g. the Franco-German Secretariat for
exchanges in VET, the BAND-scheme between Germany and the Netherlands, and the “Gjør Det” and
“Building Bridges” schemes between Germany and Norway and the UK respectively.
There are also examples of mobility schemes covering clusters of countries (e.g. the Nordplus-scheme,
covering the Scandinavian and some Baltic countries15.
Finally we have mobility schemes at national and regional level, some of which are linked to national VETpolicies or specific vocational sectors, others to broader, transversal themes like intercultural learning,
foreign language proficiency, the fight against xenophobia, social inclusion etc. Again, there are dedicated
schemes (where mobility is the main objective) and non-dedicated schemes (where mobility is merely one
of several means that can be employed towards another objective).
An example of a dedicated scheme:
The Swedish ATLAS-scheme funds mobility projects (school stays and placements) for teachers,
staff, and students/pupils in primary, secondary and adult education and training. A specific strand
of the scheme (ATLAS-Praktik) targets initial vocational education and training (IVET), and finances
work placements abroad for students/apprentices all over the world.
http://www.programkontoret.se/sv/Program-Stipendier/Program1/Atlas/.
An example of a non-dedicated scheme:
The German XENOS-scheme funds projects that combat discrimination, xenophobia and right-wing
extremism. The scheme has in the past been used by vocational training institutions to fund
abroad
11
Forplacements
some examples,
seefor young people in IVET, even though mobility projects only have constituted a
very
little
part
of
the total activity. The scheme is co-funded by the ESF.
http://www.youthemploymentnet.eu/Portal/PortalDocuments.aspx?DocumentId=b059fb3d-238c-4263-bae7bd27c0a7c7ec
http://www.esf.de/portal/generator/6592/xenos.html.
12
See e.g. http://www.pirefop.eu/php/eix3.php
Even though Tem http://www.pirefop.eu/php/eix3.phppus is for higher education, there are examples (Hungary)
where it has been used to fund mobility schemes in VET.
14
http://www.eurodyssee.eu/the-eurodyssey-programme-traineeship-exchange-programme.html
15
http://www.nordplusonline.org/.
13
6
When trying to assess the scope and size of mobility through information from providers (funding
schemes), we are faced with several difficulties. The first concerns the identification of schemes. Whereas
this may be a quite simple exercise in small countries (like the Scandinavian countries), it can be very
complicated for large countries like Germany and France; especially for non-dedicated schemes, where
mobility is not a separate strand. A second concerns the unavailability of statistics. Some schemes (notably
smaller ones) do not gather statistics on any structured basis, and others (notably ones that operate on a
commercial or semi-commercial basis) refuse to provide statistics on e.g. participation and budgets as this
is regarded as sensitive information. Non-dedicated schemes moreover seldom have statistics specifically
for mobility activities. Thirdly – and this is perhaps the biggest problem of all – different schemes operate
according to different logics, and we are therefore often faced with an incompatibility of statistics. This may
e.g. concern temporal aspects (participation may be calculated according to the calendar year by some and
the academic year by others), target groups (some schemes only operate with the category “young people”
and do not differentiate between e.g. apprentices/IVET-students and general education), types of mobility
(no distinction between work placements and other types of mobility) and budgets (many different ways of
calculating costs and contributions). Finally, we should be aware of the dangers of double-counting, as
some schemes (which not only fund, but also organise mobility projects), avail themselves of funding from
other schemes to co-finance their activities.
The Eurodyssee-scheme (see above) mediates work placements in public and private enterprises
within the framework of a European network of regions. In principle, the costs for the
placements are covered by the hosting and sending regions, but some regions choose to apply
for grants from the Leonardo da Vinci-strand of the Lifelong Learning Programme to cover their
costs for participation. These participants thus appear in both the statistics of the LdVprogramme and the Eurodyssee-scheme, and these must be cross-checked to get the accurate
figures.
Information mechanisms on mobility and mobility observatories
The need for an accurate overview of learning mobility in Europe (and not just for apprentices and other
young people in VET) has been formulated by many stakeholders. Not least the European Commission,
which in 2010 launched the above mentioned study on mobility schemes in Europe to complement the
information that we already have from the European action programmes. The study has elicited much
useful information about mobility in Europe, and it has given us what is arguably the most precise picture
of the quantitative scope of mobility so far. Yet the picture – especially when broken down e.g. on
individual target groups – is by no means complete, due to the factors outlined above (not all schemes
identified, only limited information available from some schemes, incompatibility of statistics and the
possibility of double-counting of participants). These shortcomings can to a large extent be eliminated if the
7
survey is undertaken over a longer period of time, or alternatively be compensated by well-educated
estimates, but a major flaw is that this way of computing does not take into account the mobility that is
implemented outside of established schemes. For apprentices and other young people in VET this concerns
3 categories:
1. So called “free movers” - individuals who go abroad at their own initiative and cost on work
placements abroad, and have this recognised as part of their formal learning trajectory (Denmark
and Germany have inscribed this possibility into the legal provisions for VET).
2. Large enterprises which organise mobility activities for their apprentices at their own expense. This
usually happens within the group itself, with foreign subsidiaries of the mother company acting as
hosts, or the other way round (sometimes these stays have been financed by grants from
established schemes, and there is consequently a risk of double-counting).
3. Mobility organised by VET-institutions for groups of VET students/apprentices. It is quite common
that VET-institutions organise short mobility experiences (e.g. in the form of school stays or study
tours) for the learners. This is often paid by the institution’s own funds and/or by the participants
themselves, and does therefore not show up on the statistics of mobility schemes.
Using the schemes as information sources for a mapping of European mobility therefore cannot capture
the full picture. At national level, other attempts at measuring mobility have therefore been undertaken,
which rather than focusing on the activities of providers have involved the drivers of mobility: VETinstitutions and the target group.
Using VET – institutions as informants: the BISON-monitoring mechanism
In the Netherlands, the NUFFIC (the Dutch national organization for cooperation in higher education)
produces an overview of the internationalisation (including mobility) of higher education, and in the past
this overview also encompassed IVET (the BISON-study) through collaboration with other educational
services. The BISON-enquiry gave a fairly accurate, but not complete overview of mobility in IVET: the
informants were the vocational schools, but these were not always capable of producing information
about the mobility of apprentices undertaken outside of the schools (during work placements).
Unfortunately, in recent years this overview has been focused entirely on higher education, and reporting
on IVET has been discontinued. (See :
http://cinop.brengtlerentotleven.nl/downloads/publicaties/artikelen/MonitorENG2007.pdf).
Using the target group as informants: the German study on hidden mobility
The German National Agency for the Leonardo da Vinci strand of the LLP recently commissioned a
comprehensive study of transnational mobility in IVET (see above) with a focus on mobility outside of the
LdV-programme. The study – together with the figures from the LdV-programme – has produced a fairly
accurate picture of mobility in IVET over the years 2007-09. Here the informants were apprentices and
VET-students in their final year, who were asked about their experiences with transnational learning
mobility in a questionnaire, distributed through their vocational schools and training centres. The
questionnaire also included issues of a more qualitative nature, and the survey of apprentices was couple
with also with a survey of German enterprises and their views on, and involvement in, learning mobility
activities.
8
Both mechanisms represent an accurate and informative “frozen image” of mobility at a given moment in
history, in so far as a tolerable level of responses is returned. But they are also very costly to carry out and
update, and are not necessarily comparable across borders unless they are brought to operate on the basis
of shared definitions and methodology. If not regularly updated they will furthermore not register
quantitative developments over time.
Other surveys work with samples rather than total populations and with young people in general (including
university students) rather than specific target groups. In the recent (2011) Eurobarometer survey16
concerning mobility of young people in education and training, involving 27 European countries and some
57.000 respondents, the findings showed that a total of 14% among the respondents had been abroad in a
context of education or training. A somewhat similar survey involving some 1.000 young people has been
carried out nationally in the Flemish-speaking part of Belgium17 in 2010, which involved all young people
and not only those in education and training. It quite surprisingly showed that 53% of the target group had
a learning mobility experience "in a broad sense" (i.e. including activities like volunteering, youth
exchanges, work camps etc.). None of these two studies distinguish between target groups apprentices and
other young people in VET, and we cannot therefore say anything about the extent to which these are
represented. They are also rather unspecific about the nature of the learning mobility experience, and may
in principle also cover activities like a one-day excursion across the border in primary school, or short study
tours with a strong tourism element. This raises the question whether we should adopt fixed quality
standards or benchmarks for learning mobility in terms of e.g. duration and contents, as has indeed been
proposed in a recent Commission working paper18. Such questions of a more qualitative nature involving
aspects like duration and contents would make the surveys more complicated to undertake, but improve
their informative value significantly.
The most complete example we have of a mobility observatory comes from Finland, where the Finnish
Center for International Mobility (CIMO) monitors developments in the internationalization of education
and training. CIMO was set up in 1991, and a major part of its activities (and financing) is linked to the
administration of the EU Lifelong Learning Programme and the Youth in Action programme, even though
the centre retains a significant chunk of national funding. CIMO has set up a special study, analysis and
evaluation team, which compiles annual statistics on mobility in education and training with a
differentiation between target groups, using VET-institutions as informants. These annual statistics are
included in reports, which do not merely report on quantitative developments, but also include aspects
concerning trends and developments of a more qualitative nature19. CIMO can be seen as a manifestation
of a very active mobility policy in Finland in education and training, where the government is ready to
invest significantly in the promotion of mobility, and has set ambitious national targets for participation in
learning mobility activities in education and training. Measuring mobility is therefore an integral part of
16
http://youth-partnership-eu.coe.int/youth-partnership/news/news_198.html
http://cimo.multiedition.fi/eNewsletter4/euroguidance_eng/2010/april/gostrange.php
18 Commission Staff Working paper on the development of benchmarks on education and training for employability and on learning
mobility, SEC (2011) 670 final. Brussels 24.5.2011.
19
http://www.cimo.fi/services/publications/international_mobility_in_finnish_vocational_and_higher_education_in_2010
17
9
national policies in the field. It also helps, however, that Finland is a relatively small country, where the
number of actors and stakeholders is limited. Furthermore, CIMO is administrating nearly all significant
funding sources for mobility, and is therefore in a privileged position vis-à-vis informants. This is also the
case in a number of other smaller European countries, where the national Agencies of the EU action
programmes for mobility also are in charge of national schemes and initiatives (e.g. Denmark, Sweden, the
Republic of Ireland). None of these, however, have approached the issue of monitoring quantitative and
qualitative developments in mobility in as systematic and comprehensive a manner as CIMO.
Monitoring the mobility of apprentices and other young people in IVET in Europe
With the decision to exclude VET from the BISON-monitoring mechanism in the Netherlands, Finland is the
only country in Europe that systematically gathers information on the mobility of this target group and is
able to report on significant shifts in trends and developments on the basis of regularly updated
information. It would be hugely interesting if such information were available from all European countries,
so that it were possible to compile aggregate statistics and identify trends in a transnational perspective.
However, the Finnish example is the result of a prioritisation in national education policy, where mobility is
given a high place on the agenda, which is not the case everywhere. Even though mobility in VET is an
important issue also in the education policy of other European countries (also larger countries like
Germany), in most it ranks much lower, and in a few is hardly visible at all. Gathering and analysing
statistics is therefore not a priority, and especially in times of economic recession with deep cuts in public
budgets, it is unlikely that any major steps in this direction are taken at national level. Also at European
level, funds are getting scarcer, and any initiatives going in the direction of a concerted European solution
would have to be scrutinised closely from a cost/effectiveness angle. On the basis of the examples included
in this study, the following aspects/recommendations may be worthwhile considering:
1. When contemplating the introduction of information gathering mechanisms on mobility, it would
be wise to do so on the basis of a strict need to know/nice to know analysis. Even though such an
analysis would present slightly different outcomes depending on the stakeholder-perspective
chosen, (e.g. national government, European Commission, social partners or VET-institutions), it is
necessary to define minimum criteria and calculate costs according to this, rather than painting
wishful scenarios.
2. In order to produce reliable aggregate statistics at European level, it is necessary to have robust
and comparable figures from all countries. This requires identical methodologies (e.g.
questionnaires) and joint definitions (e.g. of what constitutes “learning mobility” – what to include
and what to exclude).
3. Full-scale surveys involving whole cohorts of the target group (as the German NA/BIBB-study)
produce reliable, absolute figures, but are very expensive to undertake. It may be more costeffective to operate with representative samples and extrapolate from these. If this is done,
however, great care should be taken when deciding about criteria for representativity, especially as
these may be different from country to country.
4. Apprentices as a target group present certain challenges vis-a-vis full-time students, as their
mobility experience may be initiated both in a company or a VET-institution context. When using
VET-institutions as informants, apprentice-mobility risks being inadequately represented, as they
10
may not be aware of mobility undertaken during their placement periods. Using the target groups
themselves as informants, but involving VET-institutions (vocational schools and training centres) as
a means of access to these is a way of coping with this.
11