A Framework for European Commission
Programme Funding
Analysis, Recommendations and Proposal for Discussion
prepared by
the European ODL Liaison Committee
www.odl-liaison.org
approved 21 January 2002
released 4 February 2002
Introduction
The eLearning Action Plan, underlying notes and following Calls for
Proposals constitute a major challenge for all member states', and prospective
members', governments, education leaders at all levels and industries/organisations
working in the field.
It is therefore evident that the Liaison Committee (LC) and the constituent
Networks give ample attention to the policies adopted and measures, taken and
projected, to implement them.
We underline that, although the Networks in the LC cover many different areas
of education, eLearning has a message for all Networks and their members, and
all feel deeply committed.
The LC has been informed about the project HECTIC (EU policies and Strategic
Change for eLearning in Universities) and follows further steps taken in the
context of that project with great interest and, in the case of some Networks,
also involvement. However, there is more: HECTIC was deliberately designed in
such a way that the Programme structure of the European Commission and the processes
around EU projects would not draw attention away from higher order, more
political deliberations.
Precisely the Networks in the LC, on the other hand, are constantly under pressure
of their members to give (more) attention to a careful, constructive but also
honest appraisal of the day-to-day project practice. The LC has therefore decided
that it would itself take up and discuss the issue, and if possible come up
with practical recommendations. It wishes to establish an open dialogue with
involved officers of the European Commission and try and find ways together
to move forward to further improvement of the EC funding system.
This note has been written to enable a concrete discussion and focuses on a
set of proposals for direct implementation.
We limit ourselves to education in its full width, as covered by the Networks
in the LC, but take into consideration the full array of stimulation and research
programmes of the European Commission. Statements which are thought to be rather
evident are not always fully argued for sake of brevity.
Discussion
The Liaison Committee focuses this discussion on its impression that the European
Commission has to use the Progamme Funding instrument also for the implementation
of approved major political objectives and priorities. This means that the discussion
will address only a certain part of the whole of Programme Funding, viz. the
parts designed to realize these major political objectives, like at present
eLearning in the context of eEurope. As will be argued below the LC thinks
that for such processes the instrument is not adequate, but can be modified
within their constraints to satisfy the needs of the Commission.
In other words, this means that the LC does not propose to discuss the whole
of EC Programme Funding for Innovation in Education but only a rather restricted,
identifiable part of it. However, part of the observations made below may well
apply to the whole of Programme practice and the LC thinks that the European
Commission would lose an opportunity if it would not take these into account
in its usual monitoring and evaluation of Programmes.
The LC has organised the discussion of the Programme Funding instrument for
major political objectives into three parts: an analysis giving the arguments
for its intervention, general recommendations and a proposal in which it illustrates
how improvement could be achieved..
Analysis
For the sake of discussion we distinguish in this note the following three
aspects which in reality are strongly interrelated:
- Political Objectives of Programmes
- Programme Structure
- Handling of Programmes in Practice
Political Objectives of Programmes
The members of the European Communities/Union have received complementary stimulation
by the European Commission for education/formation/training over more than 15
years and much longer for research/technological development. Programmes were
defined to enable the Commission to distribute the money made available for
the simulation of e/f/t and r/td.
The stimulation of innovation and cross-border cooperation are the constant
objectives of all Programmes. Further objectives that define the different Programmes
have become more elaborate over the years when the European Commission launched
major operations, increasingly involving the sectors of education and research,
and came with sets of more detailed goals and objectives that found their ways
in the different Programme Work Plans. This increase runs parallel with the
gradually enlarged responsibilities of the European Commission.
There is increasing friction between the way European Programmes are structured
and organised, essentially as a result of progressive incremental adaptation
over many years rather than fundamental (re)thinking, and the complex and targeted
political objectives which at least part of these Programmes are gradually intended
to serve.
We have the impression that also in EC circles doubts exist which are related
to these observations when reference is made (with regret) to the scarcity of
project proposals addressing organisational issues (model development, implementation,
change management, etc.). But why would serious proposers join in bids if they
seriously risk that even successfully executed projects end up in one-off outputs?
Conclusion:
The Liaison Committee agrees with the European Commission that the European
Union has to play a stimulating and dynamic role in sectors of activity where
Europe-wide effects and interests are at stake. It comes, however, to the conclusion
that it will be necessary to redesign fundamentally the mechanisms used to implement
such general and overarching policy objectives if it wishes to be effective
and sustainable in this complex and huge task.
Programme Structure
The Liaison Committee thinks that selective project funding has been, is, and
will be a valuable tool for the support of creative bottom-up initiatives of
different sizes, both small, medium, and large ones. A wealth of innovative
or just practical, easy to handle and cheap new developments and applications
have become available. But the problem is that conditions are unfavourable for
these innovations to come - in genetic terms - to expression in the mainstream
of education. They are not sustainable, not because they are bad, but because
they do not meet an appropriately conditioned environment, institutionally,
nationally or internationally. The creation of such environments is not a bottom-up
but a top-down process and calls for overall leadership and institutional enabling
leadership to become effective. This side has insufficiently evolved during
the evolution of the Programme structure with stronger emphasis on serving major
political goals. Especially needed would be a more committed, intensive and
continuous interaction between the different political and operational levels
involved.
A positive observation is the (relatively recent and hopefully
growing) emphasis that is put on sustainability (Ten Telecom, eLearning). This
implies that funding should only be granted to cooperation with at least a serious
degree of capability and probability to survive the project term. Such statement
may not be interpreted as a plea to only fund existing consortia or networks:
newcomers (e.g. from new member states, but also from social organisations and
institutions that are new in the field of cross-border collaboration) should
get the opportunity of becoming involved as well; but even then the perspective
of sustainability must remain an objective and criterion for selection.
Another related problem that had negative effects in the past is that the Programme
structure did not give partnerships sufficient time to include the sustainability
phase in their project term, while the Programme rules and definitions did not
open perspective of a continuation. Also, political pressures are said to call
for giving chances to other groups of applicants. By this shifting of funds
from successful projects to others before the results had been consolidated
the EC contributed to the loss of credibility of the Programme structure.
Although innovation has been a constant objective from almost the start of
EC Programme funding, it remains largely unclear what the arguments are for
innovation as an objective (economic development of the EU / support for R&D
of its industry / support for the creation and maintenance of the consumer market
/ competition with US / dissemination of good practice / etc.), what type of
innovation is aimed at (only / primarily technological innovation / pedagogical
innovation / social innovation / cultural innovation), and which kind of innovation
bears priority (if we have to rely on the level of funding, then clearly the
technological one !). The impression exists that over the years and the various
Programmes different interpretations are/have been used (e.g. pedagogical innovation
seems to get a different interpretation in 5th Framework Programmes, in Social
Fund Programmes and in education and training ones). It is not only confusing
for the project applicants, but also for those who have to evaluate project
proposals and review projects and their outcomes.
The LC also noted that serious doubts exist whether similarity of Programme
structures and regulations, for instance between R&D-oriented and innovation-oriented
Programmes is beneficial for the results. Should public (EU-) funding of research
and development and funding of innovation in education be allocated according
to the same mechanisms and procedures? There have been many pressures for simplification
but we do not think that the right choices have always been made.
Also, at least some attempts in the past to cover several Programme structures
in Joint Calls for subjects exceeding the thematic limits of one Programme have
worked out rather disastrously for many contractants. Finally, the LC noted
that there is no global evaluation of the Programme structure, neither systematic
as part of the Programmes themselves, nor incidental at crucial moments.
Conclusions
- The present Programme structure is not capable of ensuring the uptake
of interesting bottom-up project results and otherwise obtained innovations
in the mainstream of European educational practice. The structure itself should
not be blamed for that but the cause is that insufficient attention has been
given to the fact that implementation of major political objectives needs
other, more top-down oriented process developments for which adequate stimuli
do not exist now, neither at the national nor at the European level.
- Within the present Programme structure so many complicating factors
have been introduced that careful evaluation and revision, after redefinition
of the objectives, seems to be inescapable.
Handling of Programmes in Practice
The burocratic approach of Programme regulations and of the EC administration
make work at times very hard: the increasing administrative overload, connected
to regulations that must prevent a misuse of EC financial resources; the moment
on which projects can start effectively (conflicting with the timing of academic
year / school year); the necessity to connect national projects in an international
cooperation (Adapt / Social Funds) with different national starting and ending
dates for collaborating national projects; etc.
The grown practice of contracting Technical Administration Offices for the running
of Programmes has a negative effect on a fluid feed-back of experiences of users
to those who conceive the Programmes, i.e., the Commission officers.
Conclusion
The revision of the Programme structure should lead to revision of the way
of handling projects, from call for proposals to final acceptance of the financial
justification.
General Recommendations
The Liaison Committee thinks that the wealth of results of dedicated work at
all levels, from the individual teacher engaging in a project to the European
Commission officer who designs and evaluates the projects, justifies its intention
to contribute to improving the overall effectiveness and uptake of these results
in the mainstream of the educational activities for which the Networks in the
LC stand : the whole of European education.
As stated in the Introduction it seeks cooperation with the officers of the
European Commission to achieve this. It proposes to discuss not only the matter
itself but also the actions that need to be taken (contacts with political persons/bodies,
both European and national, that have to play a role in the adoption of a revised
structure, publicity, discussion with members of the Networks, etc. in a coordinated
way that generates powerful synergy).
Elements of the subject matter would be, following our conclusions above:
- Agreement on the need of new instruments for research and implementation
of major policies in education, including other, closer and more interactive
relations with Networks/organisations of stakeholders.
- Definition of the objectives and main characteristics of these new instruments.
- "Cleaning" of the present Programme structure of elements that
were mainly introduced to let the Programmes play a role in policy implementation;
if this would not appear to be effective, reconsideration of the funded programme
approach.
- Parallel to this cleansing: streamlining of the Programme rules, regulations
and practices.
- The result aimed at should be no less than to have in place the best mechanisms
to implement any agreed policies.
- All this avoiding becoming trapped in the Programme structure under scrutiny
when certain works have to be carried out.
The LC is aware of the fact that a discussion of the general problem as outlined
so far is not very effective and that it may be difficult for officers of the
European Commission to engage themselves in such an exercise except on a strictly
personal basis. Moreover the LC is convinced that concrete action and thus results
of a discussion are needed and it therefore proposes to focus on one specific
area within the whole domain of education, i.e., eLearning. This option
has the advantage that it addresses exactly the domain for which the LC has
been created and that it concerns the matter for which major policy development
is under way. Moreover, it could serve as a test bed for ideas and processes
developed and may be followed in the future - when windows of opportunity are
coming up - in other domains as well.
Proposal
We venture to state as our point of departure that the European focus should
be on content rather than on funding mechanisms and project management. Moreover,
essential changes are not only effected by EU funding programmes ( for example
in H.E. the process to implement the Bologna Declaration). Basic issues should
be identified and funding should be linked to core business. It should be attempted
to use the principle of subsidiarity as an asset instead of a limitation at
the European level.
The proposal of the LC therefore consists of three parts:
- Conceptual strategic ideas
- Relation European Commission <- -> education world
- Instruments, incl. mechanisms and sources for funding
Ad 1. In the analysis section we have argued that the present organisation
of programmes leading to sequences of pilots is inadequate to achieve major
educational policy goals since this practice does insufficiently lead to sustainable
results which from within and bottom up effectuate institutional innovation
and change. We have also argued that this lack of connectivity originates from
the lack of stimulating/enabling conditions in institutions operating in the
field of education. The character of these conditions may vary according to
the sector and kind of education and should be further analysed. For instance,
in the case of Higher Education the HECTIC project has made it clear that institutional
leaders (rectors, etc.)are insufficiently equipped to carry through a fundamental
process of strategic definition of the market niche that fits the institution
best and implement the changes leading to taking that market position.
We claim that the networks represented in the LC are competent to analyse this
aspect in the different sectors/kinds of education and the networks commit themselves
to doing this within the time limits set in the further discussions with the
Commission.
This definition process will lead to sectoral goals, like in the case of Higher
Education the creation of enabling environments in individual institutions.
With these goals in the picture, long term action lines with systems of related
projects to achieve them can be designed in committed but open cooperation.
Ad 2. In the preceding section we have made it clear that input will
be needed, and given if we agree to cooperate, from outside the European Commission
to define the goals for achieving sustainable results in institutions for education
and training. Along the same line of reasoning it will be clear that a similar
input will also be essential in the next phases, programme design (definition
and setting of priorities), and implementation (mechanisms, rules, monitoring
of progress).
Umbrella organisations can provide this input. They have the overview, can
inform or consult and get feed back from their members, can make manpower available
in such a way that the interests of the organisations and their members as proposers
of projects in ongoing programmes are not harmed (agreement on code of practice/conduct
needed), and they can monitor progress, select in their opinions best things
done and care for continuity. They can assist in the creation of mutual synergy
between innovation driven activities and research. Finally, they can also draw
on other communication lines of their members with national authorities than
can the Commission. When compared with the prevailing actual situation this
means an essential position between the Commission and its relevant DG's and
offices and the target groups and a content-fed enrichment of the tasks now
done by the TAO's.
The networks in the LC are umbrella organisations and declare themselves willing
to engage themselves in agreed operational activities.
Ad 3. When discussing possible instruments the LC concluded that improvement
is not "simply" a matter of larger projects. The Commission should
be able to rely on a larger diversity of means to encourage and enable creation
of ideas and incentive work. The approach should be changed; there is a need
for diversification of tools supporting development, and - not less - of the
way how to use them.
In the preceding sections instruments have already been mentioned or implied:
adoption of the principle of cooperation between the European Commission and
the networks to implement objectives and goals in a committed way; investigation
of the reasons of the lack of connectivity that hinders institutional take up
of bottom up project outcomes; definition of goals that will result in relevant
implementation of European Policy Objectives; long term action lines consisting
of skilfully combined project activities; objective driven proposals (not money
driven proposals); input by the networks and participation of persons from the
target sectors of education in relevant parts of the management of agreed EC
actions; a process design and time schedule that satisfies the needs of the
EC (and national authorities) to show robust progress at the same time coordinated
with other ongoing national and European political actions and reforms, so that
synergy results, down to the level of institutional leaders; a process which
challenges rather than commands.
In order to realise all this we shall also have to look for appropriate financial
instruments which can be applied in selected cases to show that it will pay
off for individual institutions (either individually or in consortia) to do
more than the average. This could also mean that systems of multiple funding
are developed in this domain and that funding of agreed activities may come
from a combination of them or from a single source. In this motivating way the
EC principle of cofinancing may be bypassed in appropriate cases. We do not
exclude a role for the Commission, or nearby the Commission, of venture capital
broker (private sources or EIB, etc) to bring more freedom into the process
of educational innovation and reform.
Concluding remarks
The Liaison Committee hopes to have paved the way for a fruitful discussion
with the European Commission about a subject which may seem sensitive but can
be handled, the LC thinks, in a way that serves and thus satisfies all parties.
In order to achieve this we also aim in our initiating talks to make procedural
arrangements that guarantee substantial progress within existing constraints
as far as they are inevitable.
|
