In this section we examine the degree to which ET 2020 meetings and events enable the integration of pertinent stakeholder views (including views of the social partners) to create a solid basis for reform and adaptation at national level.
Social partners
Social partners are involved in ET 2020 in a variety of ways and through a variety of bodies, indicated by the shaded sections in Figure 4.4 (dark shading indicates bodies devoted to stakeholders, light shading indicates bodies where stakeholders participate to varying degrees).
Figure 4.4 Bodies involved in ET 2020 and the role of stakeholders
In general, stakeholders act as strategic intermediaries between the European level and their communities organised along national lines: they contribute their own perspective and expertise, collate and synthesise ET 2020 outputs, and then transfer knowledge back to national members. It is the national members who take that knowledge into their national policy arenas.
Within this general pattern, however, involvement of European and national social partners can be quite complex. For example, the social partner European Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE50) which is concerned with teacher trade union policy at all levels of coordination from early childhood to higher education. ETUCE has close links also to the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) in the context of apprenticeships and VET, and ETUC are members of the CEDEFOP Governing Board51 as well as ACVT. The ETUCE produces a range of deliverables for members (noted in this evaluation under the dissemination theme), and with those also produced by ETUC national members will develop policy influence. European Social partners and National social partners participate to the meetings of the ACVT, and are therefore well involved in the VET field. In the UK the Trade Union Congress has been represented for the last three years on ACVT52. The focus relevant to the TUC was that on apprenticeships, and the Alliance for Apprenticeships53, and they contributed to the Policy Guide published in December 201354. Beyond the direct involvement with ACVT the main link for the TUC is ETUC.
50 http://etuce.homestead.com/ETUCE_AboutETUCE.html 51http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/about-cedefop/governance/governing-board.aspx 52 http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=1803&NewSearch=1&New Search=1 53http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/vocational-policy/alliance_en.htm 54http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/vocational-policy/doc/alliance/apprentice-trainee-success-factors_en.pdf
The High-Level meeting on Education and Training between the Commissioner and the European social partners in October 2013, aimed to further reinforce the involvement of social partners in ET 2020 through an Action Plan for 2014. Systematic action is being undertaken at DG EAC to involve the social partners, including frequent meetings at working level on dedicated subjects. Social partners themselves now see EAC as a model and have, for example, suggested that other DGs take this model as an example for informal cooperation.
In relation to the question of the integration of stakeholder views, it should be noted for contextual purposes that the new generation of WGs includes only EU level stakeholders whereas some of the predecessors included both EU and national level stakeholders. Some stakeholders, like Business Europe and ETUC are involved in each WG.
Civil Society involvement in ET 2020
Civil society are in many respects involved in similar ways as the social partners: they contribute to ET 2020 Working Groups and expert groups, and are solicited for consultations. In some cases they are present as observers (e.g. students and VET providers in ACVT). They are also more broadly involved in specific cases such as the Group of stakeholders for School Education55. For example, the European Civil Society Platform on Life-Long Learning (EUCIS-LLL), an umbrella association of European organizations in the field of education and training, participates in the ET 2020 Working Group on Transversal Skills and in the EQF advisory group and the Group of Stakeholders for School Education. EUCIS-LLL is closely following ET 2020, and its annual conference in June 2014 was focusing on ET 2020 mid-term review56. With funding from the Lifelong Learning Programme, EUCIS-LLL has also been developing the LLL-HUB, a network of relevant stakeholders in the field of Lifelong Leaning, engaging 10 stakeholders from different Member States including social partners, policy makers and civil society organisations57. Apart from the social partners and civil society, a range of other European bodies are involved in ET 2020,for example European Schoolnet (EUN), which is discussed further below.
Since 2008 the Commission has funded an annual Forum, where civil society and other stakeholders in education, training and youth are invited. Until 2012 the Forum was organised by civil society organisations (EUNIC). In order to strengthen the links between the Commission and the stakeholders, the Commission decided to take the lead and organise the Forum, as stronger cooperation was requested in the 2012 Joint Report on European Cooperation in Education and Training.58 The European Education, Training and Youth Forum now includes a wider and more targeted group than before. It offers to a wide range of stakeholders and policy-makers a platform to exchange their views. The findings from the Forum are transmitted for information to the Council.
Year Title Main theme
2008 First Stakeholders’ Forum Preparation of an updated strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training
2009 Second Stakeholders’ Forum Collect stakeholders’ points of views on the updated strategic framework for education and training 2009-2010 and on the 2009 Year on Creativity and Innovation
2010 Third Stakeholders’ Forum Aimed to consult European stakeholders’ on the future of the programmes Lifelong Learning, Youth in Action and
Erasmus Mundus. 2011 Fourth Stakeholders’ Forum on
priority areas of the second ET2020 cycle
Progress made during the first ET2020 cycle and to make concrete proposals on the priority areas of the second cycle
55 http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=1916 56 http://www.eucis-lll.eu/eucis-lll/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/EUCIS-LLL_Background_ET 2020.pdf 57 http://www.eucis-lll.eu/action/projects/the-lifelong-learning-hub-lll-hub/
Year Title Main theme
2012 European Education and Training Forum 2012
1) Education and training aspects of Europe 2020 and 2) The future Erasmus for All programme
2013 Forum 2013 – Working together for reforms
The new Erasmus+ programme, Skills and jobs 2014 2014 European Education, and
Training
Mid-term stocktaking of ET 2020 and EU Youth Strategy
The Forum brings together around 350 people, from relevant stakeholder organisations in 2 EU Member States, at national and regional level. In 2014 there are 400 participants, and it is oversubscribed each year. The group for 2014 consists of representatives from:
National and regional authorities responsible for Education, Training and Youth and other authorities competent in areas such as Finance, Employment and Social Affairs;
Member States’ experts involved in the relevant OMC ET 2020 Working Groups;
Learning providers;
Education and Training stakeholders;
Youth organisations;
Civil Society organisations;
Social Partner organisations and Entrepreneurs bringing in the perspective of skills and labour market conditions; and
Selected beneficiaries of past and present programmes, to show how projects can have impact and help in developing policy.
To ensure alignment with other ET 2020 instruments, members of Working Groups and the Education Committee are invited as well. The selection for invitees is done by the sectoral divisions within DG EAC: there is no “fixed” list, and it depends on the topic of the Forum as to who is invited. In 2013 for example, Erasmus+ was an important topic. Therefore people who work with Erasmus at the programme and project level were invited as well. Topics are determined by DG EAC.
The set-up of the 2014 Forum is such, that the views, expertise and opinions of participants are shared with the Commission. The group breaks up in 10 workshops. In smaller work groups, short presentations by experts and Commission staff are given, and the group is asked for feedback.
The annual European Education, Training and Youth Forum leads to conclusions that are useful for the Commissions own work, and key messages are used in for example in the Joint Report or for improving programmes. A report with the key messages of the 2013 Forum was sent to the High Level Group on Education and Training. The function of the messages is to inspire the work at EU level trough the ET 2020 Working Groups, the DG meetings, cooperation with social partners and implementation of the Erasmus+ programme. Besides the Annual Forum, there are specific sectoral fora: one for VET, and one on University- Business cooperation.
One of the benefits of the Forum, is that contacts between Commission and a wide variety of stakeholders are facilitated. As a result of the Forum, stakeholder organisations are now much more actively engaged with the Commission. Regular meetings, up to once per month, take place with Commission staff to discuss relevant developments, on topics like Erasmus+, Opening up Education, Rethinking Education and recommendations under the European Semester.
Value of input from stakeholders for ET 2020
Figures from the e-survey (see tables below) show TWG participant views on the involvement of stakeholders. 84% believe that stakeholder representation has been good or better, whilst 83% rate the taking into account of stakeholder views as good or better. Furthermore, according to 85% of the respondents, the relevant stakeholder views are well or very well integrated in the outputs. The similarity in these figures in the ‘chain’ from participation, through integration of views in meetings to the integration of views into outputs is taken to be a very positive sign in relation to the effectiveness of ET 2020 meetings and events as a whole: there is no ‘loss’ of stakeholder input during the process. Also, the response patterns are similar for the current Working groups and former TWG.
There is a small minority of respondents who believe that stakeholder involvement could be improved. A response ‘bad’ may in some contexts give cause for concern but given the enormous thematic and stakeholder heterogeneity of the ET 2020 landscape it would be illogical to expect satisfaction rates to be at 100%. The interviews shed light on the factors that may lie behind the 17% ‘bad’ in terms of identifying factors hindering the integration of views (discussed below).
14.5. How would you rate the content of the meetings in terms of:
Representation of key stakeholders in meetings
(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.)
Response Total % of responses %
1 Very bad 4 3 % 2 Bad 18 13 % 3 Good 81 58 % 4 Very Good 36 26 % Average: 3,07 — Median: 3 Total respondents: 139 Skipped question: 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
14.6. How would you rate the content of the meetings in terms of:
The extent to which stakeholders’ views are taken into account
(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.)
Response Total % of responses %
1 Very bad 3 2 % 2 Bad 21 15 % 3 Good 83 60 % 4 Very Good 32 23 % Average: 3,04 — Median: 3 Total respondents: 139 Skipped question: 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
In interpreting these figures, we need to be mindful that they represent all participants, and that they need to be set against the views of participants from social partner or civil society organisations. Indeed, e-survey results indicate less positive views from the later. 77% of them said that their views are taken into account, only 66% judge their representation good or better, and 68% thought that the ET 2020 resulting material integrated well the civil society and social partner outputs.
Figures from the e-survey also give an indication of the extent to which participation in ET 2020 meetings and events stimulates the formation of on-going contacts amongst stakeholders. This provides essential context for understanding how stakeholders might be further involved in ET 2020. 95% of e-survey respondents stated that participation had helped them to build or maintain a network to some degree, and 70% stated that thanks to participation they regularly or often cooperated with stakeholders in the own country on specific issues. The ability of ET 2020 to stimulate sustained cooperation and networks is impressive. Naturally, the figures for cooperation outside an individual respondent’s MS are lower. There are natural barriers, and ‘transaction costs’ are higher and cooperation depends on perceptions of common issues and belief that cooperation will lead to helpful solutions to those issues. Nonetheless, 52% often or regularly stay in touch with contacts in other MS, 57% often or regularly follow initiatives in other MS. The challenge evidently comes in translating these levels into active cooperation since only 29% of respondents regularly or often cooperate with stakeholders on specific issues in other MS.
To appreciate the elements needed to ensure a good level of stakeholder involvement, we can turn to the VET field.
An example of successful stakeholder engagement
In the VET field, there is a strong platform and network for stakeholders supporting what takes place within the ET 2020 OMC, the Advisory Committee on Vocational Training (ACVT). Each MS may have three
representatives on the ACVT - from government, trade unions and employer organisations. This is combined with steering of the relevant VET working groups by the DGVT meetings, and a well-developed policy process (Copenhagen) supported by an EU agency (CEDEFOP) whose governing body also represents the social partners. Relevant stakeholders (including social partners) are therefore part-and- parcel of policy development at many stages. This was exemplified by EfVET, EVTA, EVB and EUproVET which signed a joint declaration to express their appreciation for the Bruges Communiqué in 2010. VET therefore demonstrates how a coherent group of actors can provide leadership in the context of policy reform and maximise the integration of stakeholder views.
20.2. How would you rate the resulting material (policy handbooks, guidelines, reports, etc.) in terms of:
Integration of all relevant stakeholder views
(Each respondent could choose only ONE response per sub-question.)
Response Total % of responses %
1 Very bad 4 3 % 2 Bad 16 12 % 3 Good 92 68 % 4 Very good 23 17 % Average: 2,99 — Median: 3 Total respondents: 135 Skipped question: 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
It is difficult to assess in a general sense the extent to which stakeholders as a whole act as effective multipliers of support for proposed reforms stemming from ET 2020 on account of their enormous variety. As we noted at the start of this section, stakeholders act as strategic intermediaries between the European level and their communities which are organised along national lines, but, within that general pattern they vary in terms of how they engage with ET 2020.
However, we can gain insights from particular examples of which European Schoolnet (EUN) provides a helpful illustration. EUN is “a network of 30 European Ministries of Education” whose key stakeholders include “schools, teachers, researchers, and industry partners”59. EUN is focused on professional development, and the network of Ministries decides the EUN agenda. There is extensive background briefing provided to members by EUN so members have a strong professional trust in EUN when agendas are being developed. This results in initiatives such as innovations in classrooms, with resources such as a creative classroom laboratory60.
EUN is a member of the new ET 2020 Working Group on Transversal Skills because its expertise corresponds to the mandate of this group. Since involvement depends on the match between the profile and the mandate of the Working Groups, involvement if EUN is not identical in all groups. A school-level priority is the European Commission's eTwinning61 platform because it is driven by teachers and can be considered as a best practice to involve and learn from key stakeholders and actors.
EUN acts as an intermediary, disseminating relevant ET 2020 outputs to its members. EUN also illustrates the fact that stakeholders develop initiatives in line with their own agenda, which have little or no formal connection with ET 2020, but nevertheless support ET 2020 priorities. The European Schoolnet (EUN) Committee on Innovation in Schools uses experts to develop a skills assessment for countries which closely links to ET 2020 priorities but is not directly driven by the framework.
Factors hindering integration of stakeholder views
Despite the success of ET 2020 in integrating stakeholder views, interviewees identified a range of factors hindering such integration. (These factors are also of more general relevance to the issue of the efficient and effective operation of the ET 2020 OMC.)
The first hindering factor relates to ‘place’, and the challenges of geography, staff time, and travel. The OMC groups have meetings largely though not exclusively in Brussels. ET 2020 Working Groups old and new show activities, such as Peer Learning activities, taking place across the Union and other groups, for example the EQF Advisory Group, have meetings at many different locations. The European Presidencies also provide opportunities for OMC groups to hold their meetings around Europe. Although some interviewees saw the issue in terms of meetings being held in Brussels (as opposed to elsewhere), the issue of where meetings are held is actually more generally about the availability of time to travel to locations, and the elapsed time away from workplace versus the opportunity cost in participating62. However, interviewees were not broadly in favour of carrying out meetings remotely, for example using conference call technology. While remote communication is possible to supplement physical meetings, most OMC groups (see the next paragraph) have a large group of participants (an outcome of ensuring representativeness) and difficulties with the stability of participation (see the continuity factor) mean that the social chemistry of a group may also be unstable, making it challenging to operate at a distance.
59http://www.eun.org/home;jsessionid=326808378C6F6D10C550227CE6F9FBE4 60http://creative.eun.org/
61http://www.etwinning.net/en/pub/index.htm
62 The challenge is no different whether meetings are held in Brussels or elsewhere. Indeed there would arguably be merit in holding meetings in Brussels on a regular basis to reap some benefit in terms of predictability.
The second factor relates to group size, and, more specifically, to the balance between two factors: the need to include all relevant ‘voices’ and the risk that groups become too large to enable effective discussions. The potential membership of groups is derived from the Member States, and a range of social partners and other representative actors. Patterns of membership are very varied, reflecting a range of factors including the interests of Member States and social partners and the topics under discussion. For example63, the Expert Group on factors affecting learning mobility has registered participants from 8 MS, whilst the ECVET Users' Group has 17 ‘organisations64, and all 28 MS represented with, in total, 67 registered MS participants. Some interviewees also identified further participation needs, for example arguing that some important stakeholders in VET are seldom being heard, namely the recipients, the people who are being trained, as against the policy-makers and providers.
The third factor relates to continuityin participation between meetings. Sending substitutes to meetings is reported to be an issue due to staff changes, workplace pressures (inability to release time to participate), or a decision to send a colleague whose remit more closely matches the theme of a meeting. It is difficult to evaluate robustly the scale of this issue65, and the following examples illustrate the variations in participation