Improving the inclusiveness of Erasmus+ International Credit

Mobility (ICM, KA107)

Luisa Bunescu, Michael GaebelSPHERE/ European University Association (EUA)

• Learning experience• Europeaness• global citizenship

Why

• Mobility Benchmark 2020• « at least 20 % of higher education graduates

should have had a period of higher education-related study or training” (2009/10)

Bologna Process &

EU:2

European Higher Education Area (EHEA) goals and priorities: Mobility

EHEA goals and priorities: Social Dimension (equity, inclusion, access, diversity)

3

• fairness: ensure equal chances• equity and inclusion – key values of democratic

society• broader economic and societal needs & benefits• diversity enhances quality of learning & research

Why?

• not everywhere in place• focus on access – leaves out retention• do not consider all aspects of the study experience• « diversity enhances quality « vs. execellence

Institutionaland national policies for inclusion

European countries • 2015-16 NUFFIC report: “The

Netherlands has no monitoring mechanism in place to establish how inclusive student mobility actually is. Although student loans are in general dependent on means, there is no additional funding for learning mobility specifically for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

• 2017 UK reports & toolkits• 2017 Irish report & toolkit• Belgium/FL: 25% of grants go to

underrepresented students

European Student Union (ESU): « Erasmus needs to become more inclusive »

Challenges: • EC grants too small to cover costs - require

co-funding• require long relatively stays (1 semester)• de-facto exclusion of students from low

social-economic backgrounds, workingstudents, students have caring reponsibilities

• might limit choice of study destinations

European Commission reacts• 2014 Erasmus+: Making mobility possible for any

higher education student– emphasis on inclusion– funding for special needs students– top-ups for disadvantaged students– Disadvantaged???

• Impact (2017 EC Midterm Review Report)

– number of participants with special needs or fewer opportunities has more than doubled since the predecessor programmes

– successful with « easier to reach among the disadvantaged »

– international mobility programmes only partly succeeded in achieving equitable participation

Groups identified as disadvantaged in the E+• disability• educational difficulties• economic obstacles• cultural differences• health problems• social obstacles• geographical obstacles

SPHERE Study 2019 Inclusion under E+ International Credit Mobility

Outgoing mobility from 20 countries in the Eastern & Southern Neighbourhoodto the European Union

•Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Kosovo, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia and Ukraine.

Goals

•Assess whether and how ICM participation of disadvantaged students is supported •Provide recommendations to make the ICM more inclusive

Methods & schedule

•Desk research, surveys, interviews•National agencies, NEOs (+HERE), universities in partner & programme countries, mobile students• Jan-Dec 2019 (first results June/July)

Outline

Background, geographical scope & methodology Defining “disadvantage” Selecting students for ICM Organisational Support (OS) funding Obstacles to outward ICM mobility from the Partner Countries Top up funding for disadvantaged students Provisional conclusions

Defining “disadvantage”

Perceptions of disadvantage are many, varied, and with no shared policy implications.

The category of disadvantage most widely recognised is that of physical disability.

Where affirmative action programmes exist, they are not carried forward into the selection processes for ICM.

Tuesday, November 26, 2019 9

Selecting students for ICM

Different approaches for selection exist, but joint selection by home and host HEI dominates.

Challenges: o The use of inconsistent selection methods within the same

project partnership.o Disadvantage is adopted as a selection criterion only by some

HEIs.

Tuesday, November 26, 2019 10

Q (student survey):Were there any questions (e.g. in thecall for application, in the applicationform, by the selection committeeduring the interview, etc.) askingwhether students are fromdisadvantaged backgrounds?(For example: whether they havedisabilities or handicaps, come from anunderprivileged economic background(have little money), come from a ruralarea, belong to a minority group etc. )

Tuesday, November 26, 2019 11

12%

39%

49%

YesNoI do not know/I do not remember

Q (student survey):

If asked, do you thinkthat students wouldindicate in theapplication form foran ICM grant thatthey belong to adisadvantaged group?

Tuesday, November 26, 2019 12

6%

7%

14%

18%

21%

28%

30%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

No, if the disadvantage carried a social stigma

No, if the disadvantage was not officially recognised

Possibly, if it would get them a higher grant

Yes

Yes, if the disadvantage was officially recognised as such inmy country / institution

Possibly, if it would enhance their chances to get a grant

I do not know

Organisational Support (OS) funding

OS only rarely reaches the Partner Countries and is very seldom used to facilitate mobility by the disadvantaged.

Some HEIs in Partner Countries request a share; others refrain, afraid that it would put their participation at risk. Yet others are unaware that OS exists.

NAs in the Programme Countries are typically non-interventionist; they regard the use of OS as the business of the project managers on the ground. None of them recommend the use of OS to support the mobility of the disadvantaged.

Tuesday, November 26, 2019 13

Top up funding for disadvantaged students The NAs have a cautious attitude towards top up funding

(only 26% saying that they would offer top ups for incoming students)

NAs worry about: o Insufficient & unpredicatable funding for KA 107o Inconsistent definitions of disadvantage

Tuesday, November 26, 2019 14

Obstacles to outward ICM mobility from the PartnerCountries

Financial and logistical obstaclespredominate.

The lack of prioritisation ofdisadvantaged students in theselection criteria established byproject partnerships also plays amajor role.

Cultural and psychological forceswhich disincline disadvantagedstudents to even apply.

Total number of times a specific obstacle was cited by the NEOs

Students need to advance initial costs (e.g. for travel, insurance, etc.)

10

Delays with payments by the host university (for students who covered initial costs from own budget or for the monthly instalments of the grant)

8

Language requirements 7Visa application process 7Many disadvantaged students do not really consider international mobility

5

There are few scholarships/grants available 4The selection criteria established by the project partnership do not prioritise disadvantaged students

4

Insufficient funding 3Lack of information on and visibility of the Erasmus+ International Credit Mobility scheme

2

Absence of family support/permission 2Minimum duration of the mobility (minimum 3 months for studies and 2 months for traineeships) is too long

2

Tuesday, November 26, 2019 15

Q (student survey): In your case, what were the main difficulties in participating in Erasmus+ International Credit Mobility? Please select the 3 most important obstacles.

Tuesday, November 26, 2019 16

33%

35%

53%

Few mobility ooportunities available

Visa application process

Initial costs had to be covered by me (travel, insurance, visa, etc.)

Provisional conclusions

The focus on disadvantaged students in ICM is much weaker than that intended by the Programme Guide.

Defining “disadvantage” remains one of the challenges for a more inclusive approach in ICM.

Need for national policies – and their translation to HE Institutional Initiatives – also in the absence of national policies Academic and administrative staff development on inclusive

approaches in HE. Ensuring the continuity and predictability of funding for ICM

projects also remains an issue.

Tuesday, November 26, 2019 17

80% of students said that ICM was their first study stay abroad

92% said that they would go on another ICM

97% would recommend ICM to friends and fellow students

Tuesday, November 26, 2019 18

International Credit Mobility (ICM) – a success story

19

• Points for discussion

The case of the ICM – an opportunity to

•strengthen the connect between internationalisation & inclusion•raise general awareness

Measure: strengthen national and institutionalapproaches•policies and monitoring•exchange of good practice on inclusion measures•EUA & partners: Invited project: institutional strategic approaches

2030 Agenda – sustainable development goals (SDG4)

•public interest of all countries•« diversity enhances quality of learning & research »

Successfactors at HEI

EUA Invited Project Report 2019 -https://eua.eu/component/attachments/attachments.html?id=2483

How inclusive is the International Credit Mobility?

21

• A new Initiative (2015) - challenges for all actors• At all levels: No systematic follow-up on Erasmus+ requirements• ICM application form: “promote and ensure equal access and opportunities to mobile

participants from all backgrounds, in particular disadvantaged or vulnerable groups”.• Sending countries:

– Lack of definitions and data– Many countries have policies on inclusion, which may not extent to HE – Most frequent: disabled, economically disadvantaged– Frequent problem: advancing funding– Individual higher education institutions take some action

• From EU experience– disabled students - additional funding, support & HEI that are equipped for them - library

services etc.)– working students, students with caring duties – shorter periods of mobility, virtual

mobility– weak economic background – funding, but also advice and encouragement