You are here
Mobility scoreboard database
Indicators
Indicators show how performance is distributed across countries. Performance is understood in terms of meeting the requirements of the “Youth on the move” Recommendation. Ten “thematic” indicators and four “transversal” indicators are presented. Each thematic indicator accounts for performance in a given thematic area. Transversal indicators account for countries’ performance in setting up overall targets for mobility policy, coordinating and evaluating mobility policy, and approaching mobility policy in a “strategic” way. The indicators are qualitative. They sum up countries’ situation through using a traffic light type colour code. The list of indicators is as follows:
Thematic indicators
- Indicator 1
- Information and guidance
- Indicator 2
- Administrative and institutional issues
- Indicator 3
- Recognition of learning outcomes
- Indicator 4
- Partnerships and funding
- Indicator 5
- Motivating for mobility
- Indicator 6
- Long-term preparation for mobility
- Indicator 7
- Quality of mobility
- Indicator 8
- Portability of grants and loans
- Indicator 9
- Specific support to disadvantaged learners
- Indicator 10
- Involving multipliers
Transversal indicators
- Indicator 11
- Transversal performance in setting up targets for the mobility policy
- Indicator 12
- Transversal performance in coordinating the mobility policy
- Indicator 13
- Transversal performance in evaluating the mobility policy
- Indicator 14
- Transversal performance in terms of strategy
Please select an indicator. By default, all countries are pre-selected. After selecting the required filters, click on Apply to see results.
| Degree of closeness/distance to full implementation of Recommendation | Countries by level of performance |
|---|---|
| Excellent performance |
 Sweden |
| Very good performance |
 Bulgaria Finland Luxembourg Norway United Kingdom |
| Good performance |
 Austria Belgium-DE Cyprus Estonia France Germany Greece Ireland Latvia Lithuania Netherlands Spain |
| Some progress has been made |
 Belgium Belgium-FR Croatia Czechia Denmark Hungary Iceland Malta Poland Romania Slovenia |
| Little progress has been made so far |
 Belgium-FL Italy Portugal Slovakia |
| Countries' average performance | |
|---|---|
| Good performance | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES |
| Good performance | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES+IS+NO |
1.1. Indicator 1 – Information and guidance
The 2011 Council Recommendation “Youth on the move” assigns to countries the objective of putting in place and improving provision of information and guidance on international learning mobility for IVET learners.
The indicator for monitoring the provision of information and guidance, and how it is improved, is defined based on the following four criteria:
- Countries have a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of information and guidance for the international learning mobility of IVET learners;
- A mechanism to provide IVET learners with information and guidance on international learning mobility is in place;
- The provision of information / information and guidance to IVET learners for their international mobility is coordinated countrywide thus ensuring consistent and convergent policies and practices; and
- The provision of information / information and guidance to IVET learners for their international mobility is evaluated.
The table below presents the indicator in terms of criteria and benchmarks.
Indicator 1 – Information and guidance
Criterion 1.1 – Target setting
Criterion 1.2 – Action taking
Criterion 1.3 – Coordination
Criterion 1.4 – Evaluation
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Countries have a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of information and guidance for the international learning mobility of IVET learners
A mechanism to provide IVET learners with information and guidance on international learning mobility is in place
The provision of information / information and guidance to IVET learners for their international mobility is coordinated countrywide
The existing provision of information / information and guidance to IVET learners for their international mobility is subject to evaluation oriented to improving the next generation of this policy strand
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
5
A process is in place
Mechanisms to provide IVET learners with both information and guidance for their international learning mobility are in place
Complete countrywide coordination of the existing provision of information / information and guidance to IVET learners for their international mobility is in place
The existing provision of information / information and guidance to IVET learners for their international mobility is evaluated: not only is it monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.), but also recommendations for future improvement are set up, implemented and followed up along time for (re)adjustment as necessary.
4
Mechanisms to provide IVET learners with information but no guidance for their international learning mobility are in place. Preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop guidance has begun.
Incomplete coordination of the existing provision of information / information and guidance is in place (elements of coordination exist, but no complete countrywide coordination of all players and/or actions). However, plans to develop complete coordination are being prepared.
The existing provision of information / information and guidance to IVET learners for their international mobility is monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.). But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations for future improvement, implementing them, and following them up along time for (re)adjustment. However, a plan to set up such a systematic process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
3
Mechanisms to provide IVET learners with information but no guidance for their international learning mobility are in place. No plans for developing guidance are being prepared.
Incomplete coordination of the existing provision of information / information and guidance is in place (elements of coordination exist, but no complete countrywide coordination of all players and/or actions). No plans to make the coordination complete are being prepared.
The existing provision of information / information and guidance to IVET learners for their international mobility is monitored. But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations oriented towards future improvement, and no plan to develop any.
2
No such process exists but there is an intention to set up one
No mechanisms to provide IVET learners with information / information and guidance for their international learning mobility is in place, but preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to set up one has begun
No countrywide coordination of the existing provision of information / information and guidance is in place, but preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to set up one has begun
The existing provision of information / information and guidance to IVET learners for their international mobility is not monitored. A plan to develop a monitoring or evaluation process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
1
No such process exists and there is no intention to set up any
No mechanisms to provide IVET learners with information / information and guidance for their international learning mobility is in place, and there is no plan to initiate any
No countrywide coordination of the existing provision of information / information and guidance is in place, and there is no plan to set up any
The existing provision of information / information and guidance to IVET learners for their international mobility is not monitored. There is no plan to develop any monitoring or evaluation process.
| Degree of closeness/distance to full implementation of Recommendation | Countries by level of performance |
|---|---|
| Very good performance |
France |
| Good performance |
Croatia Germany Netherlands |
| Some progress has been made |
Austria Bulgaria Cyprus Czechia Denmark Finland Greece Hungary Iceland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Norway Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Sweden |
| Little progress has been made so far |
Belgium Belgium-DE Belgium-FL Belgium-FR Estonia Ireland Poland Spain United Kingdom |
| Countries' average performance | |
|---|---|
| Some progress has been made | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES |
| Some progress has been made | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES+IS+NO |
1.2. Indicator 2 – Administrative and institutional issues
The 2011 Council Recommendation “Youth on the move” assigns to countries the objective of reducing the administrative and institutional obstacles that can hinder the international learning mobility of IVET learners.
The indicator for monitoring this field of action is based on the following four criteria:
- Countries have a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of removing the administrative and institutional barriers which may hinder the international learning mobility of IVET learners;
- Countries have taken steps to allow and facilitate the international learning mobility of IVET learners through:
- Allowing the integration of international learning mobility experiences in the curricula of IVET programmes;
- Putting in place – where necessary – measures to ensure the delivery of visas and residency permits without difficulties to IVET learners from third countries, or assist learners (and/or their institutions) in their application process;
- Putting in place – where necessary – measures to alleviate the administrative burdens that may hinder the international mobility of IVET learners, or assist learners (and/or their institutions) in their application process;
- Putting in place – where necessary – measures to remove the legal obstacles that may prevent the international learning mobility of IVET learners aged below 18, or assist learners (and/or their institutions) in their mobility process.
- The existing facilitation actions are coordinated countrywide so as to ensure their consistency, convergence and effectiveness;
- The existing facilitation actions are subject to evaluation oriented to improving the next generation of this policy strand;
The table below presents the indicator in terms of criteria and benchmarks.
Indicator 2 – Administrative and institutional issues
Criterion 2.1 – Target setting
Criterion 2.2 – Action taking
Criterion 2.3 – Coordination
Criterion 2.4 – Evaluation
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Countries have a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of removing the administrative and institutional barriers which may hinder the international learning mobility of IVET learners
The country allows for integrating international learning mobility experiences in the curricula of IVET programmes and, where necessary, has taken measures to ensure the delivery of visas and residency permits without difficulties to IVET learners from third countries; alleviate the administrative burdens induced by arranging mobility; and remove the legal barriers to the mobility of minors
The existing facilitation actions are coordinated countrywide so as to ensure their consistency, convergence and effectiveness
The existing facilitation actions are subject to evaluation oriented to improving the next generation of this policy strand
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
5
A process is in place
The country allows for integrating mobility experiences in curricula
AND
has taken measures that cover:
- The other three dimensions (i.e. facilitating the access to visas and residency permits, alleviating the administrative burdens, and easing the mobility of minors), OR
- All of these other three dimensions where measures were necessary
Complete countrywide coordination of actions takes place through a countrywide framework which is set by regulations and/or arrangements agreed between players.
The existing facilitation actions (or at least some of them) are evaluated: not only are they monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.), but also recommendations for future improvement are set up, implemented and followed up along time for (re)adjustment as necessary.
4
The country allows for integrating mobility experiences in curricula
AND
while action was necessary
- in all other three dimensions, the country has taken measures in only two of them; OR
- in two dimensions, measures were taken in one only; OR
- in one dimension, no measure was taken
Coordination of actions is incomplete (elements of coordination exist, but no complete countrywide coordination of all players or actions in a given dimension; or not all dimensions are coordinated). However, plans for complete coordination are being prepared.
The existing facilitation actions (or at least some of them) are monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.). But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations for future improvement, implementing them, and following them up along time for (re)adjustment. However, a plan to set up such a systematic process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
3
The country allows for integrating mobility experiences in curricula
OR
While action was necessary
- in all other three dimensions, the country has taken measures in only two of them; OR
- in two dimensions, measures were taken in one only; OR
- in one dimension, no measure was taken
Incomplete coordination of actions / dimensions. There are no plans to make the coordination complete.
The existing facilitation actions (or at least some of them) are monitored. But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations oriented towards future improvement, and no plan to develop any.
2
No such process exists but there is an intention to set up one
Measures were necessary in all three dimensions but the country has taken measures in only one dimension;
OR
Measures were necessary in two or all of the three dimensions but the country has not taken any measures in any of the dimensions. However, preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop at least one measure has begun
No countrywide coordination of actions, but preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop one has begun.
The existing facilitation actions are not monitored. A plan to develop a monitoring or evaluation process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
1
No such process exists and there is no intention to set up any
Measures where necessary in two or all of the three dimensions but the country has not taken any measures in any of the dimensions, and no measure is in preparation
No countrywide coordination of actions, and there is no plan to set up any.
The existing facilitation actions are not monitored, and there is no plan to develop any monitoring or evaluation process.
| Degree of closeness/distance to full implementation of Recommendation | Countries by level of performance |
|---|---|
| Very good performance |
Germany Norway Romania Sweden |
| Good performance |
Bulgaria Estonia Finland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain United Kingdom |
| Some progress has been made |
Belgium-DE Belgium-FR Croatia Cyprus Czechia Denmark France Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Poland Slovenia |
| Little progress has been made so far |
Austria Belgium Belgium-FL Malta Slovakia |
| Countries' average performance | |
|---|---|
| Some progress has been made | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES |
| Some progress has been made | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES+IS+NO |
1.3. Indicator 3 – Recognition of learning outcomes
The 2011 Council Recommendation “Youth on the move” assigns to countries the objective of promoting the international mobility of IVET learners through enhancing the recognition of learning outcomes based on the use of existing EU tools and by improving the recognition procedures.
The indicator for monitoring developments in this area is based on the following seven criteria:
- Countries have a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of recognition of learning outcomes acquired abroad by IVET learners;
- The recognition mechanism can take into account the six following types of learning components and outcomes: courses, credit points, units, modules, programmes, and qualifications / diplomas / degrees;
- The approach to recognition s coordinated countrywide;;
- The existing approach to recognition is subject to evaluation oriented to improving the next generation of this policy strand;
- After the end of the mobility period or upon submission of a request for recognition, there is a short (six weeks or less) regulatory time limit for granting recognition or processing applications for recognition;
- Where necessary, there is an evaluated policy for making more visible contact points where IVET learners can obtain information on how learning outcomes and qualifications acquired abroad can be recognised and certified;
- The Europass Mobility Document, Europass Certificate Supplement, ECVET, the EQF/NQF, and the learning outcomes approach are in use in the country for purposes of visibility, transfer and recognition in IVET international mobility.
The table below presents the indicator in terms of criteria and benchmarks.
Indicator 3 – Recognition of learning outcomes
Criterion 3.1 – Target setting
Criterion 3.2 – Scope of recognition
Criterion 3.3 – Coordination
Criterion 3.4 - Evaluation
Criterion 3.5 – Time frame
Criterion 3.6 – Visibility policy
Criterion 3.7 – Use of EU tools
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Countries have a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of recognition of learning outcomes acquired abroad by IVET learners
The recognition mechanism can take into account courses, credit points, units, modules, programmes, and qualifications / diplomas / degrees
The approach to recognition is coordinated countrywide
The approach to recognition is subject to evaluation oriented to improving it in future
After the end of the mobility period or upon submission of a request for recognition, there is a short (six weeks or less) regulatory time limit for granting recognition or processing applications for recognition
Where necessary, there is an evaluated policy for making more visible contact points where IVET learners can obtain information on recognition
The Europass Mobility Document, Europass Certificate Supplement, ECVET, the EQF/NQF, and the learning outcomes approach are used in the country for visibility, transfer and recognition in IVET international mobility
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
5
A process is in place
The recognition mechanism can take into account courses, credit points, units, modules, programmes, and qualifications / diplomas / degrees
Complete countrywide coordination of the approach to recognition (recognition is processed within a countrywide framework which is set by regulations and/or arrangements agreed between players)
The approach to recognition is evaluated: not only is it monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.), but also recommendations for future improvement are set up, implemented and followed up along time for (re)adjustment as necessary.
Regulatory time limit of six weeks or less
A visibility policy is not necessary or, if it is, has been put in place and is subject to regular evaluation which translates in implemented recommendations oriented towards reforms
The five EU tools are used
4
The recognition mechanism can take into account only five of the six learning components
Incomplete coordination of the recognition mechanism is in place (elements of coordination exist, but no complete countrywide coordination of all players or actions).
The approach to recognition is monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.). But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations for future improvement, implementing them, and following them up along time for (re)adjustment. However, a plan to set up such a systematic process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
Regulatory time limit of seven to 12 weeks
A visibility policy is in place and subject to monitoring that does not systematically translate in implemented recommendations oriented towards reforms
Four of the five EU tools are used
3
The recognition mechanism can take into account only four of the six learning components
Incomplete coordination of the recognition mechanism is in place (elements of coordination exist, but no complete countrywide coordination of all players or actions). No plans to make the coordination complete are being prepared.
The approach to recognition is monitored. But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations oriented towards future improvement, and no plan to develop any.
Regulatory time limit of more than 12 weeks
A visibility policy is in place but is not monitored
Three of the five EU tools are used
2
No such process exists but there is an intention to set up one
The recognition mechanism can take into account only three of the six learning components
No countrywide coordination of the approach to recognition is in place, but preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop one has begun
The approach to recognition is not monitored. A plan to develop a monitoring or evaluation process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
There is no regulatory time limit but in practice recognition takes 12 weeks or less
There is no visibility policy, but preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop one has begun
Two of the five EU tools are used
1
No such process exists and there is no intention to set up any
The recognition mechanism can take into account no more than two of the six learning components
No countrywide coordination of the approach to recognition is in place, and there is no plan to set up any
The approach to recognition is not monitored, and there is no plan to develop any monitoring or evaluation process.
There is no regulatory time limit but in practice recognition takes more than 12 weeks, or there is no particular time limit
There is no visibility policy, and no plan to set any
One or none of the five EU tools is used
| Degree of closeness/distance to full implementation of Recommendation | Countries by level of performance |
|---|---|
| Excellent performance |
Sweden |
| Very good performance |
Croatia Czechia Germany Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Norway United Kingdom |
| Good performance |
Belgium Belgium-FR Cyprus Denmark Estonia Finland France Hungary Italy Malta Netherlands Poland Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain |
| Some progress has been made |
Austria Belgium-DE Belgium-FL Bulgaria Iceland Ireland Portugal |
| Little progress has been made so far |
Greece |
| Countries' average performance | |
|---|---|
| Good performance | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES |
| Good performance | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES+IS+NO |
1.4. Indicator 4 – Partnerships and funding
The 2011 Council Recommendation “Youth on the move” assigns to countries the objective of developing the international learning mobility of IVET learners through supporting partnerships between private and public actors, and providing mobility incentives to participants and stakeholders.
The indicator for monitoring the development of partnerships and funding in countries is based on the following four criteria:
- ountries have a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of Partnerships and funding;
- Countries have in place actions to
- Support companies and institutions in the creation of mobility partnerships and networks;
- Fund the international learning mobility of IVET learners;
- Provide companies and IVET institutions involved in organising mobility projects with financial and/or non-financial support;
- The existing partnerships and funding actions are coordinated countrywide so as to ensure their consistency, convergence and effectiveness;
- The existing partnerships and funding actions are subject to evaluation oriented to improving the next generation of this policy strand.
The table below presents the indicator in terms of criteria and benchmarks.
Indicator 4 – Partnerships and funding
Criterion 4.1 – Target setting
Criterion 4.2 – Action taking
Criterion 4.3 - Coordination
Criterion 4.4 - Evaluation
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Countries have a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of Partnerships and funding
Countries have in place actions to
- Support companies and institutions in the creation of mobility partnerships and networks;
- Fund the international learning mobility of IVET learners;
- Provide companies and IVET institutions involved in organising mobility projects with financial and/or non-financial support.
The existing partnerships and funding actions are coordinated countrywide so as to ensure their consistency, convergence and effectiveness
The existing partnerships and funding actions are subject to evaluation oriented to improving the next generation of this policy strand
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
5
A process is in place
The country has taken actions that cover the following three dimensions:
- Support companies and institutions in the creation of mobility partnerships and networks;
- Fund the international learning mobility of IVET learners;
- Provide companies and IVET institutions involved in organising mobility projects with financial and/or non-financial support.
Complete countrywide coordination of actions in all dimensions is ensured through a countrywide framework which is set by regulations and/or arrangements agreed between players
The existing partnerships and funding actions (or at least some of them) are evaluated: not only are they monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.), but also recommendations for future improvement are set up, implemented and followed-up along time for (re)adjustment as necessary
4
The country has taken measures in only two of the three dimensions
Coordination of actions is incomplete (elements of coordination exist, but no complete countrywide coordination of all players or actions in a given dimension; or not all dimensions are coordinated). However, plans for setting up complete coordination are being prepared.
The existing partnerships and funding actions (or at least some of them) are monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.). But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations for future improvement, implementing them, and following them up along time for (re)adjustment. However, a plan to set up such a systematic process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
3
The country has taken measures in only one of the three dimensions.
Incomplete coordination of actions / dimensions. There are no plans to make the coordination complete.
The existing partnerships and funding actions (or at least some of them) are monitored. But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations oriented towards future improvement, and there are no plans to develop any.
2
No such process exists but there is an intention to set up one
The country has not taken any measures in any of the three dimensions. However, preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop at least one measure has begun
No countrywide coordination of actions, but preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop one has begun
The existing partnerships and funding actions are not monitored. A plan to develop a monitoring or evaluation process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
1
No such process exists and there is no intention to set up any
The country has not taken any measures in any of the dimensions, and no measure is in preparation.
No countrywide coordination of actions, and there are no plans to set up any
The existing partnerships and funding actions are not monitored, and there is no plan to develop any monitoring or evaluation process.
| Degree of closeness/distance to full implementation of Recommendation | Countries by level of performance |
|---|---|
| Very good performance |
Germany Hungary |
| Good performance |
Bulgaria Croatia Czechia Finland France Greece Lithuania Norway Portugal Sweden |
| Some progress has been made |
Belgium-DE Cyprus Estonia Italy Latvia Luxembourg Netherlands Poland Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain United Kingdom |
| Little progress has been made so far |
Austria Belgium Belgium-FL Belgium-FR Denmark Iceland Ireland Malta |
| Countries' average performance | |
|---|---|
| Some progress has been made | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES |
| Some progress has been made | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES+IS+NO |
1.5. Indicator 5 – Motivation to participate in transnational learning mobility activities
The “Youth on the move” Recommendation invites Member States to:
- promote the added value of learning mobility among learners, their families, teachers, trainers, youth workers and employers in terms of self-fulfilment and the development of professional, linguistic, social and intercultural competencies, creativity, active citizenship and future employability, in particular in the context of an increasingly global labour market;
- encourage networking between the relevant organisations, stakeholders and other actors, in order to ensure a coordinated approach to motivating young people;
- encourage peer exchange between mobile and not yet mobile learners in order to improve motivation;
- foster a ‘mobility culture’, for example by mainstreaming mobility opportunities into all learning contexts and by promoting greater social recognition of the value of learning mobility.
The indicator for measuring how this reference behaviour is applied is defined based on the following four criteria:
- Countries have a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of motivating IVET learners for going on mobility;
- Countries have in place actions to
- Raise awareness of IVET learners and stakeholders on the added value of learning mobility; and
- Foster a ‘mobility culture’ in IVET;
- The existing awareness raising and/or mobility culture actions are coordinated countrywide so as to ensure their consistency, convergence and effectiveness;
- The existing awareness raising and/or mobility culture actions are subject to evaluation oriented to improving the next generation of this policy strand.
The table below presents the indicator in terms of criteria and benchmarks.
Indicator 5 – Motivation to participate in transnational learning mobility activities
Criterion 5.1 – Target setting
Criterion 5.2 – Action taking
Criterion 5.3 – Coordination
Criterion 5.4 – Evaluation
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Countries have a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of motivating IVET learners for going on mobility
Countries have in place actions to raise awareness of IVET learners and stakeholders on the added value of learning mobility; and foster a mobility culture in IVET
The existing awareness raising and/or mobility culture actions are coordinated countrywide so as to ensure their consistency, convergence and effectiveness
The existing awareness raising and/or mobility culture actions are subject to evaluation oriented to improving the next generation of this policy strand
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
5
A process is in place
Actions are in place for both awareness raising and promoting a mobility culture.
Complete countrywide coordination of actions takes place through a countrywide framework which is set by regulations and/or arrangements agreed between players.
The existing awareness raising and/or mobility culture actions (or at least some of them) are evaluated: not only are they monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.), but also recommendations for future improvement are set up, implemented and followed up along time for (re)adjustment as necessary.
4
Actions are in place EITHER for awareness raising OR promoting a mobility culture. A plan to develop the missing dimension has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
Coordination of actions is incomplete (elements of coordination exist, but no complete countrywide coordination of all players or actions in a given dimension; or not all dimensions are coordinated). However, plans for complete coordination are being prepared.
The existing awareness raising and/or mobility culture actions (or at least some of them) are monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.). But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations for future improvement, implementing them, and following them up along time for (re)adjustment. However, a plan to set up such a systematic process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
3
Actions are in place EITHER for awareness raising OR promoting a mobility culture. There is no plan for developing the missing dimension.
Incomplete coordination of actions / dimensions. There are no plans to make the coordination complete.
The existing awareness raising and/or mobility culture actions (or at least some of them) are monitored. But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations oriented towards future improvement, and no plan to develop any.
2
No such process exists but there is an intention to set up one
There are no actions for awareness raising or promoting a mobility culture. However, a plan to develop at least one of the two dimensions has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
No countrywide coordination of actions, but preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop one has begun.
The existing awareness raising and/or mobility culture actions are not monitored. A plan to develop a monitoring or evaluation process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
1
No such process exists and there is no intention to set up any
There are no actions for awareness raising or promoting a mobility culture. There is no plan for developing any of the two dimensions.
No countrywide coordination of actions, and there is no plan to set up any.
The existing awareness raising and/or mobility culture actions are not monitored, and there is no plan to develop any monitoring or evaluation process.
| Degree of closeness/distance to full implementation of Recommendation | Countries by level of performance |
|---|---|
| Very good performance |
Estonia Finland France Germany Hungary Lithuania Norway Sweden United Kingdom |
| Good performance |
Belgium-DE Bulgaria Czechia Iceland Italy Latvia Luxembourg Malta Poland Portugal Romania Slovenia |
| Some progress has been made |
Cyprus Denmark Ireland Slovakia Spain |
| Little progress has been made so far |
Austria Belgium-FL Croatia |
| No data |
Belgium Belgium-FR Greece Netherlands |
| Countries' average performance | |
|---|---|
| Good performance | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES |
| Good performance | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES+IS+NO |
1.6. Indicator 6 – Preparation of opportunities for learning mobility
The “Youth on the move” Recommendation invites Member States to:
- acknowledge the importance of language learning and acquiring intercultural competencies starting at early stages of education, by encouraging quality linguistic and cultural preparation for mobility in both general and vocational education;
- encourage teachers to use more innovative methods for the delivery of language learning, including those based on ICTs. Particular attention should be given to disadvantaged learners and their specific needs;
- foster the acquisition of basic digital competencies by young people so as to ensure that they can prepare their mobility in optimal conditions, as well as take advantage of new opportunities for virtual mobility, which complement physical mobility;
- encourage the development of partnerships and exchanges between education institutions, as well as between providers of non-formal learning, in order to better prepare periods of mobility.
The indicator for measuring how this reference behaviour is applied is defined based on the following five criteria:
- Countries have a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of preparing IVET learners for going on mobility;
- Countries have in place actions to:
- Encourage quality linguistic and intercultural preparation of IVET learners for mobility from the early stages of education;
- Foster the acquisition of basic digital competencies by IVET learners;
- Encourage internationalisation of IVET curriculum through introducing methods and practices that are in use abroad;
- The existing linguistic, intercultural, digital and internationalisation actions are coordinated countrywide so as to ensure their consistency, convergence and effectiveness;
- The existing linguistic, intercultural, digital and internationalisation actions are subject to evaluation oriented to improving the next generation of this policy strand;
- Involvement of learners and stakeholders in making the Preparation policy effective and better over time is ensured through:
- A visibility and access policy by which learners and stakeholders are informed about the actions/mechanisms put in place for them and how to access them;
- Learners and stakeholders surveys are carried out to check their satisfaction with the Preparation policy and get their feedback in view of taking account of it in the evaluation process;
- Impact measurement / Assessment of the extent of use of the Preparation mechanisms is in place and part of the evaluation process.
The table below presents the indicator in terms of criteria and benchmarks.
Indicator 6 – Preparation of opportunities for learning mobility
Criterion 6.1 – Target setting
Criterion 6.2 – Action taking
Criterion 6.3 – Coordination
Criterion 6.4 – Evaluation
Criterion 6.5 – Involving learners and stakeholders
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Countries have in place a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of preparing IVET learners for going on mobility
Countries have in place actions to
- Encourage quality linguistic and intercultural preparation of IVET learners for mobility from the early stages of education;
- Foster the acquisition of basic digital competencies by IVET learners;
- Encourage internationalisation of IVET curriculum through introducing methods and practices that are in use abroad.
The existing linguistic, intercultural, digital and internationalisation actions are coordinated countrywide so as to ensure their consistency, convergence and effectiveness
The existing linguistic, intercultural, digital and internationalisation actions are subject to evaluation oriented to improving the next generation of this policy strand
Learners and stakeholders are involved in making the preparation policy effective and better over time. Their involvement is ensured through:
- A visibility and access policy;
- Learners and stakeholders surveys; and
- Impact measurement / Assessment of the extent of use.
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
5
A process is in place
The country has taken actions that cover the following three dimensions:
- - Encourage quality linguistic and intercultural preparation of IVET learners for mobility from the early stages of education;
- - Foster the acquisition of basic digital competencies by IVET learners;
- Encourage internationalisation of IVET curriculum through introducing methods and practices that are in use abroad.
Complete countrywide coordination of actions in all dimensions is ensured through a countrywide framework which is set by regulations and/or arrangements agreed between players
The existing linguistic, intercultural, digital and internationalisation actions (or at least some of them) are evaluated: not only are they monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.), but also recommendations for future improvement are set up, implemented and followed-up along time for (re)adjustment as necessary
The country has taken measures of the following three types
- A visibility and access policy;
- Learners and stakeholders surveys; and
- Impact measurement / Assessment of the extent of use.
4
The country has taken measures in only two of the three dimensions
Coordination of actions is incomplete (elements of coordination exist, but no complete countrywide coordination of all players or actions in a given dimension; or not all dimensions are coordinated). However, plans for setting up complete coordination are being prepared.
The existing linguistic, intercultural, digital and internationalisation actions (or at least some of them) are monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.). But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations for future improvement, implementing them, and following them up along time for (re)adjustment. However, a plan to set up such a systematic process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
The country has taken measures of two of the three types.
3
The country has taken measures in only one of the three dimensions.
Incomplete coordination of actions / dimensions. There are no plans to make the coordination complete.
The existing linguistic, intercultural, digital and internationalisation actions (or at least some of them) are monitored. But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations oriented towards future improvement, and there are no plans to develop any.
The country has taken measures of one of the three types.
2
No such process exists but there is an intention to set up one
The country has not taken any measures in any of the three dimensions. However, preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop at least one measure has begun
No countrywide coordination of actions, but preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop one has begun
The existing linguistic, intercultural, digital and internationalisation actions are not monitored. A plan to develop a monitoring or evaluation process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
The country has not taken any measures of any of the three types. However, preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop at least one measure has begun
1
No such process exists and there is no intention to set up any
The country has not taken any measures in any of the dimensions, and no measure is in preparation.
No countrywide coordination of actions, and there is no plan to set up any
The existing linguistic, intercultural, digital and internationalisation actions are not monitored, and there is no plan to develop any monitoring or evaluation process.
The country has not taken any measures in any of the three types, and no measure is in preparation.
| Degree of closeness/distance to full implementation of Recommendation | Countries by level of performance |
|---|---|
| Very good performance |
Estonia Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Sweden |
| Good performance |
Belgium-FR Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czechia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Italy Malta Norway Poland Romania Spain United Kingdom |
| Some progress has been made |
Belgium Belgium-DE Netherlands Portugal Slovakia Slovenia |
| Little progress has been made so far |
Austria Belgium-FL Denmark Iceland Ireland |
| Countries' average performance | |
|---|---|
| Good performance | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES |
| Good performance | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES+IS+NO |
1.7. Indicator 7 – Quality of learning mobility
The “Youth on the move” Recommendation invites Member States to:
- use existing quality charters, such as the European Quality Charter for Mobility and national and regional-level charters, in order to ensure that mobility is of high quality, and promote quality assurance for each aspect of mobility;
- encourage continuous dialogue and clear arrangements between the sending and the hosting institutions, for example by using learning agreements. Encourage the recognition of knowledge, skills and competencies acquired, transparent selection procedures, peer exchange and structured learner support;
- encourage regular feedback mechanisms following a period of learning mobility, in order to ensure the high quality of the experience;
- encourage mentoring and peer learning schemes to ensure the integration of mobile learners in the host country or institution;
- encourage the provision of convenient and affordable facilities, such as housing, catering and transport, for mobile learners;
- encourage the provision of guidance to learners on how to make the best use of learning mobility in order to develop their knowledge, skills and competencies;
- encourage the provision of guidance to mobile learners after their return on how to make use of the competencies acquired during their stay abroad. Provide help with reintegration after a long stay abroad.
The indicator for measuring how this reference behaviour is applied is defined based on the following five criteria:
- Countries have a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of quality learning mobility in IVET;
- Countries have in place actions for:
- Ensuring language / intercultural preparation and setting up learning agreements during the phase of preparing the stay abroad (“Before” period);
- Monitoring the stay process, providing learners with assistance / mentoring / guidance and ensuring their integration in the host country or institution during the stay abroad (“During” period);
- Collecting feedback for future improvement and helping with reintegration as necessary upon return from mobility (“After” period);
- Ensuring access of mobile learners to convenient and affordable facilities for housing, catering and transport all along the stay process (“All along” period);
- The existing Before, During, After and All along actions are coordinated countrywide so as to ensure their consistency, convergence and effectiveness;
- The existing Before, During, After and All along actions are subject to evaluation oriented to improving the next generation of this policy strand;
- Involvement of learners and stakeholders in making the Quality policy effective and better over time is ensured through:
- A visibility and access policy by which learners and stakeholders are informed about the Quality mechanisms put in place for them and how to access them;
- Learners and stakeholders surveys are carried out to check their satisfaction with the Quality mechanisms and get their feedback in view of taking account of it in the evaluation process;
- Impact measurement / Assessment of the extent of use of the Quality mechanisms is in place and part of the evaluation process.
The table below presents the indicator in terms of criteria and benchmarks.
Indicator 7 – Quality of learning mobility
Criterion 7.1 – Target setting
Criterion 7.2 – Action taking
Criterion 7.3 – Coordination
Criterion 7.4 – Evaluation
Criterion 7.5 – Involving learners and stakeholders
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Countries have in place a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of quality learning mobility in IVET
Countries have in place actions for
- Ensuring language / intercultural preparation and setting up learning agreements during the phase of preparing the stay abroad (“Before” period);
- Monitoring the stay process, providing learners with assistance / mentoring / guidance and ensuring their integration in the host country or institution during the stay abroad (“During” period);
- Collecting feedback for future improvement and helping with reintegration as necessary upon return from mobility (“After” period);
- Ensuring access of mobile learners to convenient and affordable facilities for housing, catering and transport all along the stay process (“All along” period);
The existing Before, During, After and All along actions are coordinated countrywide so as to ensure their consistency, convergence and effectiveness
The existing Before, During, After and All along actions are subject to evaluation oriented to improving the next generation of this policy strand
Learners and stakeholders are involved in making the Quality policy effective and better over time. Their involvement is ensured through:
- A visibility and access policy;
- Learners and stakeholders surveys; and
- Impact measurement / Assessment of the extent of use.
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
5
A process is in place
The country has taken actions that cover the four dimensions.
Complete countrywide coordination of actions in all dimensions is ensured through a countrywide framework which is set by regulations and/or arrangements agreed between players
The existing Before, During, After and All along actions (or at least some of them) are evaluated: not only are they monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.), but also recommendations for future improvement are set up, implemented and followed-up along time for (re)adjustment as necessary
The country has taken actions of the following three types
- A visibility and access policy;
- Learners and stakeholders surveys; and
- Impact measurement / Assessment of the extent of use.
4
The country has taken actions in three of the four dimensions.
Coordination of actions is incomplete (elements of coordination exist, but no complete countrywide coordination of all players or actions in a given dimension; or not all dimensions are coordinated). However, plans for setting up complete coordination are being prepared.
The existing Before, During, After and All along actions (or at least some of them) are monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.). But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations for future improvement, implementing them, and following them up along time for (re)adjustment. However, a plan to set up such a systematic process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
The country has taken measures of two of the three types.
3
The country has taken actions in two of the four dimensions.
Incomplete coordination of actions / dimensions. There are no plans to make the coordination complete.
The existing Before, During, After and All along actions (or at least some of them) are monitored. But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations oriented towards future improvement, and there are no plans to develop any.
The country has taken measures of one of the three types.
2
No such process exists but there is an intention to set up one
The country has taken actions in one of the four dimensions.
No countrywide coordination of actions, but preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop one has begun
The existing Before, During, After and All along actions are not monitored. However, a plan to develop a monitoring or evaluation process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
The country has not taken any measures in any of the three types. However, preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop at least one measure has begun
1
No such process exists and there is no intention to set up any
The country has not taken any actions in any of the four dimensions.
No countrywide coordination of actions, and there is no plan to set up any
The existing Before, During, After and All along actions are not monitored, and there is no plan to develop any monitoring or evaluation process.
The country has not taken any measures in any of the three types, and no measures are being prepared.
| Degree of closeness/distance to full implementation of Recommendation | Countries by level of performance |
|---|---|
| Very good performance |
Denmark Germany Netherlands |
| Good performance |
Bulgaria Cyprus Finland France Iceland Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Norway Poland Sweden |
| Some progress has been made |
Czechia Hungary Italy Portugal Spain |
| Little progress has been made so far |
Austria Belgium Belgium-DE Belgium-FL Belgium-FR Croatia Estonia Greece Ireland Slovakia Slovenia United Kingdom |
| No data |
Romania |
| Countries' average performance | |
|---|---|
| Some progress has been made | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES |
| Some progress has been made | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES+IS+NO |
1.8. Indicator 8 – Portability of grants and loans
The “Youth on the move” Recommendation invites Member States to:
promote the portability of grants, loans and appropriate access to relevant benefits, in order to facilitate the learning mobility of young people.
The indicator for measuring how this reference behaviour is applied is defined based on the following five criteria:
- Countries have a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of the portability of grants and loans in IVET;
- Apart from the specific mobility-oriented funding provided to mobile learners, countries have in place mechanisms that ensure the portability of IVET learners’ personal and study-related grants, loans and benefits;
- The existing portability mechanisms are coordinated countrywide so as to ensure their consistency, convergence and effectiveness;
- The existing portability mechanisms are subject to evaluation oriented to improving the next generation of this policy strand;
- Involvement of learners and stakeholders in making the Portability policy effective and better over time is ensured through:
- A visibility and access policy by which learners are informed about the portability mechanisms put in place for them and how to access them;
- Learners and stakeholders surveys are carried out to check their satisfaction with the Portability policy and get their feedback in view of taking account of it in the evaluation process;
- Impact measurement / Assessment of the extent of use of the portability mechanisms is in place and part of the evaluation process.
The table below presents the indicator in terms of criteria and benchmarks.
Indicator 8 – Portability of grants and loans
Criterion 8.1 – Target setting
Criterion 8.2 – Action taking
Criterion 8.3 – Coordination
Criterion 8.4 – Evaluation
Criterion 8.5 – Involving learners and stakeholders
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Countries have a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of the portability of grants and loans in IVET
Countries have in place mechanisms that ensure the portability of IVET learners’ personal and study-related grants, loans and benefits.
The existing portability mechanisms are coordinated countrywide so as to ensure their consistency, convergence and effectiveness
The existing portability mechanisms are subject to evaluation oriented to improving the next generation of this policy strand
Learners and stakeholders are involved in making the portability mechanisms effective and better over time. Their involvement is ensured through:
- A visibility and access policy;
- Learners and stakeholders surveys; and
- Impact measurement / Assessment of the extent of use.
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
5
A process is in place
The country has in place mechanisms that ensure the portability of IVET learners’ personal and study-related grants, loans and benefits.
Complete countrywide coordination of all portability mechanisms is ensured through a countrywide framework which is set by regulations and/or arrangements agreed between players
The existing portability mechanisms (or at least some of them) are evaluated: not only are they monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.), but also recommendations for future improvement are set up, implemented and followed-up along time for (re)adjustment as necessary
The country has taken actions of the following three types:
- A visibility and access policy;
- Learners and stakeholders surveys; and
- Impact measurement / Assessment of the extent of use.
4
Coordination of portability mechanisms is incomplete (elements of coordination exist, but no complete countrywide coordination of all players or mechanisms). However, plans for setting up complete coordination are being prepared.
The existing portability mechanisms (or at least some of them) are monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.). But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations for future improvement, implementing them, and following them up along time for (re)adjustment. However, a plan to set up such a systematic process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
The country has taken actions of two of the three types.
3
Coordination of portability mechanisms is incomplete, and there are no plans to complete it.
The existing portability mechanisms (or at least some of them) are monitored. But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations oriented towards future improvement, and there are no plans to develop any.
The country has taken actions of one of the three types.
2
No such process exists but there is an intention to set up one
The country does not have mechanisms for the portability of IVET learners’ personal and study-related grants, loans and benefits. However, a plan to set up such a mechanism has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
No countrywide coordination of portability mechanisms, but preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop one has begun
The existing portability mechanisms are not monitored. However, a plan to develop a monitoring or evaluation process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
The country has not taken any actions of any of the three types. However, preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop at least one measure has begun.
1
No such process exists and there is no intention to set up any
The country does not have mechanisms for the portability of IVET learners’ personal and study-related grants, loans and benefits. There are no plans for putting in place such mechanisms.
No countrywide coordination of portability mechanisms, and there is no plan to set up any
The existing portability mechanisms are not monitored, and there are no plans to develop any monitoring or evaluation process.
The country has not taken any actions of any of the three types, and there are no plans for developing any such measure.
| Degree of closeness/distance to full implementation of Recommendation | Countries by level of performance |
|---|---|
| Excellent performance |
Finland |
| Very good performance |
Estonia France Germany Lithuania |
| Good performance |
Croatia Czechia Greece Latvia Norway Slovakia United Kingdom |
| Some progress has been made |
Bulgaria Cyprus Denmark Hungary Luxembourg Poland Portugal Spain |
| Little progress has been made so far |
Austria Belgium Belgium-DE Belgium-FL Belgium-FR Iceland Ireland Italy Malta Netherlands Slovenia |
| No data |
Romania Sweden |
| Countries' average performance | |
|---|---|
| Some progress has been made | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES |
| Some progress has been made | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES+IS+NO |
1.9. Indicator 9 – Disadvantaged learners
The “Youth on the move” Recommendation invites Member States to:
provide disadvantaged learners, who may be deprived of opportunities for learning mobility, with targeted information on available programmes and support tailored to their specific needs.
The indicator for measuring how this reference behaviour is applied is defined based on the following five criteria:
- Countries have a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of the specific support to disadvantaged IVET learners;
- Countries have in place peculiar actions to provide disadvantaged learners with support tailored to their specific needs, in particular in the areas of
- Information and guidance for international learning mobility (including provision of targeted information on available programmes);
- Funding supporting mobility (including portability);
- Motivation to participate in mobility;
- Preparation for mobility;
- Use of multipliers (people with mobility experience who inspire and motivate not yet mobile learners to become mobile).
- The existing support actions to disadvantaged learners are coordinated countrywide so as to ensure their consistency, convergence and effectiveness;
- The existing support actions to disadvantaged learners are subject to evaluation oriented to improving the next generation of this policy strand;
- Involvement of learners and stakeholders in making the support to disadvantaged learners effective and better over time is ensured through:
- A visibility and access policy by which learners and stakeholders are informed about the support mechanisms for disadvantaged groups and how to access them;
- Learners and stakeholders surveys are carried out to check their satisfaction with the support mechanisms for disadvantaged groups and get their feedback in view of taking account of it in the evaluation process;
- Impact measurement / Assessment of the extent of use of the support mechanisms for disadvantaged learners is in place and part of the evaluation process.
The table below presents the indicator in terms of criteria and benchmarks.
Indicator 9 – Disadvantaged learners
Criterion 9.1 – Target setting
Criterion 9.2 – Action taking
Criterion 9.3 – Coordination
Criterion 9.4 – Evaluation
Criterion 9.5 – Involving learners and stakeholders
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Countries have a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of the specific support to disadvantaged IVET learners
Countries have in place actions to provide disadvantaged learners with support tailored to their specific needs, in particular in the areas of:
- Information and guidance, including targeted information on available programmes;
- Funding, including portability;
- Motivation;
- Preparation
- Use of multipliers.
The existing support actions to disadvantaged learners are coordinated countrywide so as to ensure their consistency, convergence and effectiveness
The existing support actions to disadvantaged learners are subject to evaluation oriented to improving the next generation of this policy strand
Learners and stakeholders are involved in making the support to disadvantaged learners effective and better over time. Involvement is ensured through:
- A visibility and access policy;
- Learners and stakeholders surveys; and
- Impact measurement / Assessment of the extent of use.
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
5
A process is in place
The country has taken actions that cover the following five dimensions:
- Information and guidance, including targeted information on available programmes;
- Funding, including portability;
- Motivation;
- Preparation;
- Use of multipliers.
Complete countrywide coordination of support actions in all dimensions is ensured through a countrywide framework which is set by regulations and/or arrangements agreed between players
The existing support actions to disadvantaged learners (or at least some of them) are evaluated: not only are they monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.), but also recommendations for future improvement are set up, implemented and followed-up along time for (re)adjustment as necessary
The country has taken actions of the following three types:
- A visibility and access policy;
- Learners and stakeholders surveys; and
- Impact measurement / Assessment of the extent of use.
4
The country has taken actions in four of the five dimensions.
Coordination of support actions is incomplete (elements of coordination exist, but no complete countrywide coordination of all players or actions in a given dimension; or not all dimensions are coordinated). However, plans for setting up complete coordination are being prepared.
The existing support actions to disadvantaged learners (or at least some of them) are monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.). But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations for future improvement, implementing them, and following them up along time for (re)adjustment. However, a plan to set up such a systematic process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
The country has taken actions of two of the three types.
3
The country has taken actions in three of the five dimensions.
Incomplete coordination of support actions / dimensions. There are no plans to make the coordination complete.
The existing support actions to disadvantaged learners (or at least some of them) are monitored. But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations oriented towards future improvement, and there are no plans to develop any.
The country has taken actions of one of the three types.
2
No such process exists but there is an intention to set up one
The country has taken actions in two of the five dimensions.
No countrywide coordination of support actions, but preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop one has begun
The existing support actions to disadvantaged learners are not monitored. However, a plan to develop a monitoring or evaluation process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
The country has not taken any actions of any of the three types. However, preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop at least one measure has begun.
1
No such process exists and there is no intention to set up any
The country has taken actions in one or none of the five dimensions.
No countrywide coordination of support actions, and there is no plan to set up any
The existing support actions to disadvantaged learners are not monitored, and there are no plans to develop any monitoring or evaluation process.
The country has not taken any actions of any of the three types, and there are no plans for developing any such measure.
| Degree of closeness/distance to full implementation of Recommendation | Countries by level of performance |
|---|---|
| Good performance |
Croatia Czechia Estonia Finland France Germany Lithuania Norway |
| Some progress has been made |
Belgium-DE Bulgaria Cyprus Italy Latvia Luxembourg Malta Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden |
| Little progress has been made so far |
Austria Belgium Belgium-FL Belgium-FR Denmark Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland United Kingdom |
| No data |
Netherlands Romania |
| Countries' average performance | |
|---|---|
| Some progress has been made | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES |
| Some progress has been made | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES+IS+NO |
1.10. Indicator 10 – Role of multipliers
The “Youth on the move” Recommendation invites Member States to:
- encourage the use of ‘multipliers’ such as teachers, trainers, families, youth workers and young people who have participated in a mobility experience to inspire and motivate young people to become mobile. Encourage employers in the field of education to recognise and value teachers’, trainers’ and youth workers’ commitment to learning mobility;
- promote and support opportunities for learning mobility as a component in the initial training and continuous professional development of heads of educational institutions, teachers, trainers, administrative staff and youth workers.
The indicator for measuring how this reference behaviour is applied is defined based on the following five criteria:
- Countries have a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of using multipliers to promote learning mobility in IVET;
- Countries have in place actions to:
- Encourage the use of ‘multipliers’, such as teachers, trainers, families, youth workers and young people who have participated in a mobility experience, to exchange with not yet mobile learners and inspire and motivate them to become mobile;
- Encourage IVET institutions to recognise and value teachers’, trainers’ and youth workers’ commitment to learning mobility;
- Mainstream learning mobility as a component in the initial training and continuous professional development of heads of IVET institutions, teachers, trainers, administrative staff and youth workers;
- The existing initiatives to develop and involve multipliers are coordinated countrywide so as to ensure their consistency, convergence and effectiveness;
- The existing initiatives to develop and involve multipliers are subject to evaluation oriented to improving the next generation of this policy strand;
- Involvement of learners and stakeholders in making the Multipliers initiatives effective and better over time is ensured through:
- A visibility and access policy by which learners and stakeholders are informed about the initiatives to develop and involve multipliers and how to access them;
- Learners and stakeholders surveys are carried out to check their satisfaction with the initiatives to develop and involve multipliers and get their feedback in view of taking account of it in the evaluation process;
- Impact measurement / Assessment of the extent of use of the initiatives to develop and involve multipliers is in place and part of the evaluation process.
The table below presents the indicator in terms of criteria and benchmarks.
Indicator 1 – Information and guidance
Criterion 10.1 – Target setting
Criterion 10.2 – Action taking
Criterion 10.3 – Coordination
Criterion 10.4 – Evaluation
Criterion 10.5 – Involving learners and stakeholders
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Description of criterion
Countries have a process for setting up countrywide policy targets (whether quantitative or qualitative) in the area of using multipliers to promote learning mobility in IVET
Countries have taken initiatives to:
- Encourage the use of ‘multipliers’, such as teachers, trainers, families, youth workers and young people who have participated in a mobility experience, to exchange with not yet mobile learners and inspire and motivate them to become mobile;
- Encourage IVET institutions to recognise and value teachers’, trainers’ and youth workers’ commitment to learning mobility;
- Mainstream learning mobility as a component in the initial training and continuous professional development of heads of IVET institutions, teachers, trainers, administrative staff and youth workers.
The existing initiatives to develop and involve multipliers are coordinated countrywide so as to ensure their consistency, convergence and effectiveness
The existing initiatives to develop and involve multipliers are subject to evaluation oriented to improving the next generation of this policy strand
Learners and stakeholders are involved in making the Multipliers initiatives effective and better over time. Involvement is ensured through:
- A visibility and access policy;
- Learners and stakeholders surveys;
- Impact measurement / Assessment of the extent of use.
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
Description of benchmarks
5
A process is in place
The country has taken initiatives in the following three dimensions:
- Encouraging the use of ‘multipliers’ to exchange with not yet mobile learners and inspire and motivate them to become mobile;
- Encouraging IVET institutions to recognise and value teachers’, trainers’ and youth workers’ commitment to learning mobility;
- Mainstreaming learning mobility as a component in the initial training and continuous professional development of heads of IVET institutions, teachers, trainers, administrative staff and youth workers.
Complete countrywide coordination of initiatives to develop and involve multipliers is ensured through a countrywide framework which is set by regulations and/or arrangements agreed between players
The existing initiatives to develop and involve multipliers (or at least some of them) are evaluated: not only are they monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.), but also recommendations for future improvement are set up, implemented and followed-up along time for (re)adjustment as necessary
The country has taken initiatives of the following three types:
- A visibility and access policy;
- Learners and stakeholders surveys; and
- Impact measurement / Assessment of the extent of use.
4
The country has taken initiatives in two of the three dimensions.
Coordination of initiatives to develop and involve multipliers is incomplete (elements of coordination exist, but no complete countrywide coordination of all players or initiatives in a given dimension; or not all dimensions are coordinated). However, plans for setting up complete coordination are being prepared.
The existing initiatives to develop and involve multipliers (or at least some of them) are monitored (e.g. through reports, audits, user surveys, etc.). But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations for future improvement, implementing them, and following them up along time for (re)adjustment. However, a plan to set up such a systematic process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
The country has taken initiatives of two of the three types.
3
The country has taken initiatives in one of the three dimensions.
Incomplete coordination of initiatives / dimensions. There are no plans to make the coordination complete.
The existing initiatives to develop and involve multipliers (or at least some of them) are monitored. But there is no systematic process of setting up recommendations oriented towards future improvement, and there are no plans to develop any.
The country has taken initiatives of one of the three types.
2
No such process exists but there is an intention to set up one
The country has not taken any initiatives in any of the three dimensions, but preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop at least one action has begun.
No countrywide coordination of initiatives, but preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop one has begun
The existing initiatives to develop and involve multipliers are not monitored. However, a plan to develop a monitoring or evaluation process has been at least initiated, e.g. in the form of preliminary preparation, initial debate / consultation / design, etc.
The country has not taken any initiative of any of the three types. However, preliminary preparation (initial debate, consultation, design, planning, etc.) to develop at least one measure has begun
1
No such process exists and there is no intention to set up any
The country has not taken any initiatives in any of the three dimensions, and there are no plans to develop any.
No countrywide coordination of initiatives, and there is no plan to set up any coordination
The existing initiatives to develop and involve multipliers are not monitored, and there is no plan to develop any monitoring or evaluation process.
The country has not taken any initiative of any of the three types, and no measure is in preparation.
| Degree of closeness/distance to full implementation of Recommendation | Countries by level of performance |
|---|---|
| Good performance |
Luxembourg |
| Some progress has been made |
Belgium-DE Bulgaria Cyprus Czechia Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Latvia Lithuania Netherlands Spain Sweden United Kingdom |
| Little progress has been made so far |
Austria Belgium-FL Croatia Denmark Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Malta Norway Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia |
| No data |
Belgium Belgium-FR Romania |
| Countries' average performance | |
|---|---|
| Some progress has been made | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES |
| Some progress has been made | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES+IS+NO |
Indicator 11 – Transversal indicator for policy target setting processes
Transversal indicator 11 focuses on countries’ performance in having in place processes for setting up targets for mobility policies. The indicator takes into account the extent to which the country has a complete process for setting up overall targets for mobility policy in general, and whether target setting mechanisms are in place in all ten thematic areas of mobility.
Indicator 11 (noted I11) for a country is defined as the average of the country's scores in (a) having a process for setting up overall targets for mobility policy in general (noted P11); and (b) target-setting-related criteria (noted C1.1 to C10.1) of the ten thematic areas:
I11 = P11 + C1.1 + C2.1 + C3.1 + C4.1 + C5.1 + C6.1 + C7.1 + C8.1 + C9.1 + C10.1 ⁄ 11
The score in having a process for setting up overall targets for mobility policy in general (P11) is defined as described in Table 11.1 below.
Table 11.1. - Scores in having a process for setting up overall targets for IVET mobility policy in general
Description of performance
5
An overall process is in place
4
There is a partial process with intention to make it overall
3
There is a partial process but with no plan for making it overall
2
No such process exists but there is an intention to set up one
1
No such process exists and there is no intention to set up any
| Degree of closeness/distance to full implementation of Recommendation | Countries by level of performance |
|---|---|
| Excellent performance |
Germany |
| Very good performance |
Estonia Finland France Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Netherlands Norway |
| Good performance |
Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czechia Greece Hungary Italy Malta Poland United Kingdom |
| Some progress has been made |
Belgium-DE Denmark Iceland Ireland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain |
| Little progress has been made so far |
Austria Belgium-FL |
| No data |
Belgium Belgium-FR Romania Sweden |
| Countries' average performance | |
|---|---|
| Good performance | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES |
| Good performance | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES+IS+NO |
Indicator 12 – Transversal indicator for coordinating mobility policies
Transversal indicator 12 focuses on countries’ performance in coordinating mobility policies. The indicator takes into account the extent to which the country has a complete process for coordinating mobility policy in general, and whether coordination mechanisms are in place in all ten thematic areas of mobility.
Indicator 12 (noted I12) or a country is defined as the average of the country's scores in (a) having a process for coordinating mobility policy in general (noted P12); and (b) coordination-related criteria (noted C1.3 to C10.3) of the ten thematic areas:
I12 = P12 + C1.3 + C2.3 + C3.3 + C4.3 + C5.3 + C6.3 + C7.3 + C8.3 + C9.3 + C10.3 ⁄ 11
The score in having a process for coordinating mobility policy in general (P12) is defined as described in Table 12.1 below.
Table 12.1. - Scores in having a process for coordinating IVET mobility policy in general
Description of performance
5
An overall process is in place
4
There is a partial process with intention to make it overall
3
There is a partial process but with no plan for making it overall
2
No such process exists but there is an intention to set up one
1
No such process exists and there is no intention to set up any
| Degree of closeness/distance to full implementation of Recommendation | Countries by level of performance |
|---|---|
| Very good performance |
Finland Lithuania Norway |
| Good performance |
Bulgaria Croatia Czechia France Germany Hungary United Kingdom |
| Some progress has been made |
Belgium-DE Cyprus Denmark Estonia Greece Iceland Italy Latvia Luxembourg Malta Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain |
| Little progress has been made so far |
Austria Belgium-FL Ireland |
| No data |
Belgium Belgium-FR Netherlands Romania Sweden |
| Countries' average performance | |
|---|---|
| Some progress has been made | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES |
| Some progress has been made | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES+IS+NO |
Indicator 13 – Transversal indicator for evaluating mobility policies
Transversal indicator 13 focuses on countries’ performance in evaluating mobility policies. The indicator takes into account the extent to which the country has a complete process for evaluating mobility policy in general, and whether evaluation mechanisms are in place in all ten thematic areas of mobility.
Indicator 13 (noted I13) for a country is defined as the average of the country's scores in (a) having a process for evaluating mobility policy in general (noted P13); and (b) evaluation-related criteria (noted C1.4 to C10.4) of the ten thematic areas:
I13 = P13 + C1.4 + C2.4 + C3.4 + C4.4 + C5.4 + C6.4 + C7.4 + C8.4 + C9.4 + C10.4 ⁄ 11
The score in having a process for evaluating mobility policy in general (P13) is defined as described in Table 13.1 below.
Table 13.1. - Scores in having a process for evaluating IVET mobility policy in general
Description of performance
5
An overall process is in place
4
There is a partial process with intention to make it overall
3
There is a partial process but with no plan for making it overall
2
No such process exists but there is an intention to set up one
1
No such process exists and there is no intention to set up any
| Degree of closeness/distance to full implementation of Recommendation | Countries by level of performance |
|---|---|
| Good performance |
Bulgaria Czechia Estonia Finland France Germany Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Norway United Kingdom |
| Some progress has been made |
Belgium-DE Croatia Cyprus Denmark Greece Hungary Iceland Italy Malta Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain |
| Little progress has been made so far |
Austria Belgium-FL Ireland |
| No data |
Belgium Belgium-FR Netherlands Romania Sweden |
| Countries' average performance | |
|---|---|
| Some progress has been made | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES |
| Some progress has been made | AVERAGE EU COUNTRIES+IS+NO |
Indicator 14 – Transversal indicator of the presence of an overall strategy in mobility policy
Transversal indicator 14 measures countries’ performance in terms of the presence of a national overall strategy in mobility policy. It adds up indicators 11 to 13, and accounts for the performance in terms of having at the same time target setting, coordination and evaluation processes.
Indicator 14 (noted I14) for a country is defined as the average of the country's scores in the indicators for target setting processes ( I11), coordination ( I12) and evaluation ( I13)
I14 = I11 + I12 + I13 ⁄ 3