The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the Period 2000-2006

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the Period 2000–2006 Evaluation Report

Tempus Public Foundation, 2007

contents

I

Context and methodology of evaluation 5 Evaluation methodology 5 II Actions implemented under the programmes 6 II.1 Socrates 6 Priorities 6 Target groups and motivations 7 Motivations 8 Erasmus 8 Involvement of other resources 8 Dissemination activities 9 II.2 Leonardo 10 Goals and priorities 10 The European dimension 10 Beneficiaries 10 Participating institutions 11 Motivations 11 Synergy 12 Destinations and language preference 12 The quality of mobility 12 Dissemination and exploitation 13 Lessons and recommendations to the Lifelong Learning Programme 13 III THE IMPACT OF THE PROGRAMMES IN HUNGARY IN THE LIGHT OF GOALS AND PRIORITIES III.1 Socrates 14 Indicators measuring impact 14 Impact of mobility programmes 15 Equal opportunities 15 III. 2 Leonardo 16 Goals in the light of which impact can be assessed 16 Impacts on individual beneficiaries 16 Institutional impact 17 Systemic impact 18 IV PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT 18 Decentralised schemes 19 Centralised projects 19 Funding 20 Recommendations to the Lifelong Learning Programme 21 V conclusions 22 VI annex to the evaluation of the socrates programme 23 VII annex to the evaluation of the leonardo da vinci programme 32

14

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the Period 2000–2006 Evaluation Report

I CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY OF EVALUATION

The background work of evaluating Phase II of the Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci programmes was determined partly by the requirements laid down in the Guidelines on the one hand, and partly by opportunities.

As new questionnaire-based data collection was not possible after the 2003 interim Socrates and Leonardo evaluations and the 2004 Leonardo beneficiary study, mainly qualitative methods were applied relying on the extensive data bases and reports of the National Agencies operating in the context of Tempus Public Foundation and implementing the Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci programmes. From the available data we prepared our own database for analysis. Between December 2006 and May 2007 extensive fieldwork was carried out by commissioned experts. Programme reports and the bulk of project documentation were processed, as were informative and dissemination materials and publications intended for different target groups, reports, review articles and earlier evaluations and assessments by the Commission. Materials of earlier research studies about the implementation of the programmes in Hungary were also used together with the experience of the national consultation series on the future of European programmes. Another important aspect of data collection was a set of about 50 interviews (with ministry officials, National Agency staff, members of the governing bodies and project coordinators), and eight focus group discussions, where about 50 participants offered their insight into almost 300 projects. In the case of LdV Procedure ‘B’ projects

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

Evaluation methodology

5

This national report is part of the work aimed at a comprehensive report by the Member States on the implementation of the Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci programmes to be prepared by the end of 2007 in accordance with European Council Decisions 382/1999/EC (Art. 13.4) and 253/2000/EC (Art. 14.3). The purpose of this report is to give an overview of actions implemented in the period 2000-2006, and to promote the effectiveness and impact of work in the new phase of the programmes on both national and international level by formulating recommendations based on the findings.

As supervisor of the implementation of the Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci programmes, the Ministry of Education and Culture commissioned the Hungarian Institute for Educational Research and Development at the end of 2006 to prepare the report. The work was controlled by professionals who have been involved in drafting the 2003 evaluation as well as that of other European programmes.

As Socrates and Leonardo were operated in close cooperation but in partially separate frameworks headed by independent managements until 2006 the two programmes will be discussed separately in Chapters II and III respectively. The data referring to the two programmes are likewise presented in separate chapters in the Annexes.

we relied mainly on monitoring and product reports, interviewed project coordinators and checked project web sites. Information was obtained about the accessibility of products, and standardised telephone interviews were conducted about their utilization.

II ACTIONS IMPLEMENTED UNDER THE PROGRAMMES II.1 Socrates

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

6

Priorities Due to the multifarious project types and the large numbers of EU priorities it is not easy to give a general evaluation of how these priorities were actually implemented.

As Hungary joined the European Union in the middle of the reported period interpretation of the European dimension in the context of projects has changed to some extent over the years. Unlike before 2004, projects no longer focus on preparation for EU accession. One of the main goals of Comenius projects is currently to make the idea of belonging to the European community a personal experience. Most of these projects developed and implemented multifaceted activities that can be potentially used by other public education institutions. In tertiary education other dimensions of the European ideal were put into focus primarily in conjunction with the Bologna process. Institutions focus more on an increasingly global education and training market, and the European labour market has also found its way also into students’ perspective.

An explicit and special national priority is to increase the number of people with foreign language competences (justified mainly by the fact that the rate of foreign language speakers in Hungary is half of the EU average).

Essentially all Socrates and LdV activities are highly efficient tools to implement this priority through multilateral cooperation and individual mobility as they provide opportunities for intensive language learning, which in turn promotes further learning. The significance of promotion of language learning as a “Hungarian priority” is indicated by a special national programme titled Világ – Nyelv (World – Language) launched in 2003 in the context of the umbrella organization operating the Socrates and LdV National Agencies and SNA staff played an important part in preparing the programme.

Major changes are on the agenda of the Hungarian education system, for instance expanding the integrated education of students with special educational needs, introduction of technologically advanced devices in the classroom (e.g. SMART Board interactive whiteboard), development of skills and competencies instead of traditional encyclopaedic knowledge-based education. Different projects give teachers an opportunity to study these new approaches in operation in schools in other countries, and this gives them an advantage within their school and the school will have an edge over competing schools. However, albeit successful, these projects can hardly be described in terms of mere figures. Compared to the 2003 evaluation, a major change is that teachers involved in the projects are much more aware of the importance of the non-quantifiable outcomes. These outcomes (for example development of teachers’ and students’ attitudes and enhancement of their self-confidence) are seen not as an ancillary result but rather as one of the most important outcomes of multi-year projects.

Another new feature (compared to the findings of the 2003 interim evaluation) is an increasingly conscious reflection of the educational benefits of mobility in teachers’ reports. While it is not expressly identified as such, there are clear indications of an increasingly conscious “mobility pedagogy”, which is capable of fit in international cooperation with the school’s curriculum and educational programme. This is a marked significant change in the day-to-day implementation of the “European dimension” that was considered rather abstract and obscure at the turn of the millennium.

On the whole, the priorities laid down in strategic documents drafted by the educational administration in recent years are fully in line with the Socrates priorities. However, the Ministry’s attention paid to monitoring the implementation of priorities depends to a large extent on whether the particular area (public education,

vocational education, higher education) has deployed funds to support the particular sub-programme or not.

Substantial additional government funds supporting the implementation of priorities were allocated mainly to vocational education and training.

Target groups and motivations

7 The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

The criteria required for a successful public education application (partners abroad, sufficient fluency in a foreign language at least on the part of the coordinators, having some own resources as well as the competence to write an application) are very hard to fulfil for an average school. Moreover, the considerable extra work to organise a project generally goes unremunerated, except in very few schools. Substitution for teachers who travel abroad under the projects is a significant drain on school budgets and requires serious commitment on the part of principals and/or school maintainers. Scarcity of funds and the financial regulations pertaining to public education institutions make it difficult for schools to advance project costs. So the ”threshold of entry” is high for schools, which in itself is a strong selection factor. So the strongest selection (or self-selection) in the Comenius Programme has already taken place before the projects were submitted.

The number of projects submitted is not very high compared to the number of eligible applicants and the rate of successful application is high: in 2000, 153 of 185 Comenius projects submitted were awarded funds (82.7%), and schools from 72 cities and towns were involved, mainly from Budapest and other cities. The number of projects also increased over the years: in 2006 301 out of 424 applications were successful (80%), and funds were distributed among 115 cities and towns. A lot of schools do not apply because although they are familiar with the programme the principals and municipal officers as well as the teachers do not think they have the conditions required for a successful project. This means that only a fraction of the approximately 4000 public education institutions eligible to participate are directly concerned by the opportunities offered by the Programme. A small number of schools, about 60–70, are regular applicants, and about 30–35 participate in several projects simultaneously (Socrates and LdV jointly).

The territorial distribution of applicants and awardees seems to be relatively stable. Somewhat disproportionate geographical distribution is a lasting trend. Budapest dominates in almost all competitive systems of funds allocation in Hungary, and this is conspicuous to some extent in the Comenius Programme, although there are considerations at the level of assessing applications that are designed to offset this trend. In 2000, the first year of the period reported, 28.1% of projects submitted in the context of Comenius were from Budapest institutions, and 25.5% of successful applicants were from Budapest. In 2006, 21.4% of the projects submitted, and 22.6% of those awarded funds were from Budapest. Village schools are grossly underrepresented among the applicants. (See Socrates Annex Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4.)

The most detailed information is available about the Erasmus Student Mobility Programme, where the number of beneficiaries is very high. The figures show Germany as the most popular destination for the entire duration of the period examined. France, Italy and Finland are also attractive. (Socrates Annex Figure 10.) Mobility targeted to new Member States is insignificant at this stage, and will only become attractive, according to institutional Erasmus coordinators, if they expand their choice of foreign language (primarily English) courses. There was only a modest increase in the number of foreign, mainly Western European, students coming to Hungary, also due to the limited choice of courses offered in English, according to the experts asked. Accordingly, while there was a slight improvement in the balance of outbound and inbound students, equilibrium is still a long way off.

The proportion of women is significantly higher, around 65% in Erasmus from the beginning. This substantial difference is not justified by the generally higher proportion of women in higher education (54%), similarly to other countries. The average duration of mobility is somewhat longer among male students.

Short-term teacher mobility shows a certain amount of fluctuation. According to the institutional representatives, this is related to changes in the magnitude of support. Relatively few teachers are involved in medium-term mobility, which is probably explained by difficulties of education organization at the level of institutions, and lack of personal incentive on the part of teachers.

Participation in transnational public education networks requires a great deal of effort from schools and particularly from teachers on top of their regular duties. As networking schools are not required to keep in touch with the NA, the NA has minimal information about the functioning of networks with Hungarian participants.

Higher educational thematic networks in the context of Erasmus are highly diverse. Their results are highly dispersed and their operation generally lacks transparency. This is regrettable despite the fact that their actions are relevant to a narrower group of beneficiaries.

The number of projects implemented in the context of the Grundtvig Programme showed a five-fold increase in 2000-2006, which went hand in hand with the increase of funds available for support. Projects are diverse; new forms of training offering a second chance are gaining ground, although here again, there is a dominance of Budapest in the geographical distribution and competition is moderate as regards beneficiaries.

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

8

Motivations Motivations for inclusion in the Programme can be clearly identified. Institutions are motivated mainly by the need to secure funds for new and ongoing development, and for new professional experience. In the case of mobility projects the main source of motivation is to secure certain competitive advantage by acquiring experience that cannot be obtained otherwise. This also applies to Erasmus projects. A few months’ studies abroad represents considerable added value to the diploma; moreover, it promotes foreign language skills to a very large extent.

Only a smaller number of students are interested in developing long-term relations with the educational institutions of the host country, primarily those who seek a career in science. According to the findings of a questionnaire-based survey conducted among Erasmus students in 2003, the choice of destination is generally influenced by long-term plans to possibly find jobs in the given country. After EU accession, familiarization with a particular country and assessment of opportunities it may offer became an even stronger motivation.

The fact that absence of foreign language competences in Hungary is perceived as a sore problem is conspicuous in the key role language teachers have played in the implementation of public education projects since 2000. This was expressed in the 2003 evaluation but no significant progress has been achieved as yet.

The dominance of language teachers prevails in projects despite the fact that many of the schools interviewed reported efforts to involve teachers of other subjects, and that in some cases, the success of projects or, conversely, the realization that absence of fluency in a foreign language was an obstacle, stimulated several non-language teachers to make a serious effort to learn a foreign language.

Erasmus The scheme reaching the largest number of students within the Hungarian higher education system is the mobility programme. It has been characterised by dynamic growth in recent years. In the evaluation period the initial student mobility numbers of 2000 approached 3000 by 2006. (Socrates Annex Figure 7.) However, this is still a very modest figure, given the overall size of student population in higher education. About two in 100 students have access to supported studies abroad under the Programme.

A short on-line survey consisting of four questions was conducted among institutional Erasmus coordinators supplemented by short standardised telephone interviews. The following questions were addressed: 1) Has recognition of studies abroad improved in the various institutions; 2) How do institutional coordinators cooperate and learn from each other’s experience; 3) What opportunities of expanding mobility to the new Member States do they see; and 4) What are the directions of developing Erasmus?

The institutions are of the opinion that the credit system provides a more favourable framework for the recognition of foreign studies but a choice of courses that differs from the Hungarian educational content still creates a problem. On the whole, there has been no radical change in credit transfers and course recognition since the 2003 student survey, although the institutions considered their efforts in this respect efficient. An increasing number of higher education institutions, particularly those with large student numbers, set up an institutional level coordination body for the management of Erasmus, which facilitates harmonization of selection and rules of procedure and improves efficiency of information.

Involvement of other resources In 2001 Socrates still relied on PHARE as an additional source of funds (its contribution was 16% of the overall amount of support awarded). In the period 2002–2004 the Programme was complemented by other funds mainly from ministry resources that contributed approximately 10–13% of the total support awarded (9.7% in 2002, 13.5% in 2003, and 9.1% n 2004). (See Socrates Annex Table 2.)

After the withdrawal of supplementary funding to the Erasmus student mobility programme (2004) other resources mainly meant institutional (departmental) funds. In some cases students have recourse to other resources, e.g. foundations, student self-government or local authorities. In the 2005/2006 academic year higher education institutions provided approximately 328,000 euros from their own resources in support of student mobility. The biggest universities took the lead in securing and providing supplementary funds.

Each of the mobility project reports emphasized that participation in such a programme was an unparalleled motivation for language learning, and that immersion in a native environment was also important for language teachers.

Language teacher assistants gave a very positive report on the prep programme organised by the Hungarian SNA before their travel.

Dissemination activities

http://www.tpf.hu/pages/content/index.php?page_id=522 http://www.tpf.hu/upload/docs///GenERAtion/vegso.pdf

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

1 2

9

One of the cardinal findings of the 2003 evaluation was the need to enhance dissemination. In the period since, there has been a noticeable improvement in many respects both at the level of projects and in the nationwide dissemination of experience and results.

First of all, due to the efforts of the Programme management the level of awareness of dissemination and application of low-cost information channels have considerably improved. Upon the initiative of the LdVNA a Hungarian dissemination manual was prepared, several dissemination conferences were organised, and there was a greater emphasis on presenting successful projects in periodical publications (magazines). In 2006 the SNA and the LdVNA launched their joint series of dissemination booklets titled “Hoppá” (Oops!).

The seven booklets published in 2006 can also be downloaded from the Programme web site. The series will be continued under the LLP. Dissemination across Socrates as a whole was also effective. In the spring of 2004 and 2005 the European Commission launched an invitation to SNAs to submit dissemination projects with the intent to share experience gained in conjunction with Socrates in a broader circle. Implemented with the coordination of the Hungarian SNA, the aim of the project was to compile, process and disseminate experiences gained so far from the mobility component of the Socrates / Erasmus action and use them to build a common pool of knowledge for the its future development with the participation of 20 countries. The project was concluded in 2006. Six topics were selected as having high priority with respect to the expansion of mobility and were discussed in depth at different venues (e.g. education and economy; placement and internship; marketing of higher education in the context of the globalization of mobility). Available in Hungarian and English, the web site of the project1 provides detailed information about the work accomplished. The final report of the project is accessible on the web site of the umbrella organisation of the Hungarian NAs. 2 In 2005 a project titled “Project-Based Teaching” was started with the participation of the Czech, Polish, Slovak and Hungarian SNAs and coordinated by the Hungarian SNA. The e-learning version of the project was also developed. The work was continued in the form of a continuing teacher training programme that drew on the results of projects of the same title. The project was a major success among teachers in Hungary (in 2006 168 teachers were trained in 10 groups); applications far exceed the originally envisioned figures.

The training was incorporated in the national continuing teacher training system, and even more importantly, it serves as a model for the intensive exploitation of project results. As a byway remark, training has become an increasingly important and intensive tool for exploitation of project results. As an accredited training facility Tempus Public Foundation organises and implements training programmes. In 2006 approximately 1500 persons participated in 95 groups in 15 different training programmes.

II.2 Leonardo Goals and priorities

By Phase II of LdV applicants learnt how to handle goals and priorities. In the seven-year period there was no invitation that would have restricted applicants’ intentions that were independent from the goals set in the invitation. The orientating force of goals and priorities is negligible particularly in the case of mobility projects.

The proposals submitted tend to contain the most general goals of the invitation. A very large number of Procedure ‘B’ proposals were aimed at e-learning content development while there were hardly any proposals in the field of (continuing) teacher training, transparency and quality assurance, and their success rate was no higher. The Hungarian professional public perceives these topics as weaknesses and this is reflected by the absence of proposals.

No national priorities were determined in the first year. In the following year the EU priorities were broken down in great detail to national priorities, which did not provide much in the way of orientation. While the number of these national priorities was over 20 it was only recommended but not mandatory for applicants to indicate them in their proposals. In 2005 almost 70% of the applicants indicated one or more of the five clearly conceived priorities with roughly the same frequency (30%-15%-18%-17%-19%).

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

10

The European dimension In the later part of LdV Phase II the European dimension appears to be an increasingly conscious element of projects at the institutional level and at the level of the individual perception. This is possibly due to Hungary’s accession to the EU in 2004 and the fact that the EU frameworks have a very direct effect on many walks of life. While earlier reports by beneficiaries were mainly about the personal experience of a bilateral relationship “in a foreign country” reports in later years are about experience “in an EU Member State” with the perspective of exploitation in the EU. Participating institutions but sometimes even individual beneficiaries become members of vocational networks and new multilateral partnerships as a result of LdV projects in increasing numbers. Inclusion in a wider system of cooperation is not a happy coincidence of privilege – rather it is a direct consequence that regular successful applicants benefit from.

Beneficiaries There was an overall balanced participation of men and women in the categories of initial vocational training and young workers and professionals with some annual variation. Participation of people with disabilities in PL1 projects was over 5% but only sporadic in other project categories. There was a slight increase in the average age of students in initial vocational training involved in mobility slightly increased in the second stage of the Programme. About half of all the beneficiaries are involved in initial vocational training related projects and a quarter of them participate in exchange programmes. As regards longer- term projects, one and a half times more students participate in mobility compared to young workers and young graduates. (See LdV Annex Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7.)

The geographical distribution of applications and successful mobility projects is uneven. If application activity is matched to the population of the counties the dominance of Budapest institutions is more than double the average. Even if the facts that Budapest has one-sixth of the Hungarian population and operates more than a quarter of the entire supply of vocational training programmes are taken into consideration, Budapest is more than 1.5 times overrepresented in terms of funds awarded compared to the average, and five times compared to the most passive quartile of counties. Only two or three counties have a success rate comparable to the capital city.

The two stages of LdV Phase II (2000–2003 and 2004–2006) show a certain amount of change in terms of participation of the counties (see LdV Annex Tables 23–24) but these are mainly due to the activity or withdrawal of some key applicants. The capital lost some of its advantage over the counties in the period 2000– 2006. There seems to be no correlation between counties’ position and their level of economic development.

Participating institutions

Motivations to active participate in the Programme should be examined on two levels: institutional and individual.

On an institutional level, motivations of the most active vocational schools (which represent only a few percent) are rather obvious: they have already experienced the positive impact of international cooperation on the attractiveness of their institution and its quality of training, and LdV projects have become an integral part of their life and of their strategic activities. Withdrawal from the Programme would have negative consequences, so this option never really arises. Less active schools may have a variety of motivations. Some consider it a possible source of funds, and they submit their application to whatever comes up provided they can mobilise capacities. Others recognise the strategic importance of international relations but seldom apply, as they have no capacities to spare. The rest, in fact the great majority of vocational education institutions never feature among the applicants. Although they are aware of the Leonardo da Vinci Programme a large number of potential applicants are held back by the additional workload involved by international projects.

Higher education institutions very rarely formulate an institutional goal. Leonardo is seen as an auxiliary scheme because of the size of the institutions and other mobility opportunities. Admittedly, these are rarely aimed at placement and internship. Non-education institutions have individual motivations. NGO goals, efforts to enhance the culture of a vocational subject, better integration of international experience in the vocational education of a region, or a specific study trip feature among them.

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

Motivations

11

The 47 projects under Procedure ‘B’ awarded support in the 2000-2006 period was submitted by 41 institutions.

Of the 41 institutions 31 (76%) are from Budapest or the Budapest conurbation. Only one coordinator, a higher education institution was granted support for a Procedure ‘C’ project (the EU rate is 0.7% of all projects). A total of 37 Hungarian partners (2.9%), mainly from Budapest, participated in 26 projects (about one-sixth of the projects).

The distribution institutions undertaking of pilot projects and language projects is much more even: 14 (34%) are economic agents, most of them micro businesses, and the same number are higher education institutions.

Seven (17%) of the successful applicants are secondary vocational education institutions. Participants in Procedure ‘C’ projects also represent all types of institutions.

Somewhat more than 60% of all mobility projects are implemented by secondary vocational schools. Over 81% of their projects are aimed at placement for almost exclusively ISCED 3 and ISCED 4 vocational students.

About one-fifth of the projects are aimed at teacher and trainer mobility; the number of language projects is insignificant.

Student mobility contributes 60% to projects by higher education institutions, which organise about onefifth of the projects. The remaining 40% are distributed evenly between internship of young graduates and teacher/expert mobility. Some universities have a central organisational unit and staff that is also responsible for student mobility, others relegate this task to the departments. The great majority of technology and business colleges that are particularly interested in this profile have not submitted any proposals as yet, although the key institutions feature among the participants and are generally recurrent successful applicants.

Almost one-fifth of projects are organised by non-educational institutions. The projects are highly varied in this respect. Vocational education institutions aspiring at LdV funds tend to submit projects every other year, each having been awarded funds to implement 2.4 projects in Phase II. Among them, 13 schools have at least six and another 22 at least four successful projects. The strategy of about 5% of vocational education institutions contains the organisation of placement in a foreign country as a long-term and successfully implemented goal. Almost half of the 150 mobility applicant vocational schools that were awarded funds at least once have only submitted one project so far, and contribute less than 20% to the total number of projects.

Vocational education institutions are perhaps the most important institutional target group of LdVP. After Hungary’s EU accession in 2004 mobility activity could become substantially keener and involved about twice as many institutions and beneficiaries in later years than at the beginning of Phase II. As a result of intensive information and services the number of new entrant schools in the Programme amounted to 40 each year and the number of participants in mobility doubled in three or four years. Conversely, almost 80% of vocational education institutions still do not participate in the Programme.

Individual motivation depends on the type of project, the role of the individual in the project, and the person’s general life situation. Beneficiaries who have limited resources or who realise the importance of an opportunity are strongly motivated and ready to deploy intensive preparation. This does not hold so much for individuals who see mobility as an adventure or a tourist opportunity. Mention should be made of negative motivation, i.e. factors that reduce the willingness to participate. Absence from one’s private and family life, the need to relegate the burden of family to others are negative motivations not always offset by the benefits of mobility, particularly in the case of longer-term mobility and accompanying teachers, mainly female teachers, in fact it may occur they stand to lose financially due to the Hungarian payroll accounting regulations.

Synergy

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

12

Synergy of EU programmes seldom appears as a policy goal. Synergy is promoted by the education administration’s decision to group Socrates, LdV and other policy-related programmes (for instance World – Language) under a single umbrella organisation. Tempus Public Foundation’s organisational and coordination structure was developed in such a way that it has promoted synergies between Socrates and LdV, and resulted in harmony and contact with other programmes funded from Hungarian resources. Many of the institutions surveyed reported new cooperation that grew out of their relationship in the context of Comenius and LdV, and led them from participating in one to involvement in the other Programme; or initial mobility led to a project for development cooperation. Another benefit with a long-term perspective is when after two or three mobility projects involving the same partners, where municipal leaders participate at the related ceremonial events, the cities start a twinning programme (there have been four such cases so far). This clearly improves the cooperation and resource involvement potential.

Destinations and language preference Germany is by far the most important destination for Hungarian projects hosting more than one-third of beneficiaries of initial vocational education and exchange programmes. (See LdV Annex Tables 14–15.) The other two main destinations are France and Great Britain. The three countries host 57, 57, 51 and 56% of mobility visits in the context of PL1, PL2, PL3 and EX4 projects. Besides these three countries of preference programmes are increasingly varied and are directed to an increasing number of destinations including almost the entire choice of potential partner countries. Finland’s openness and economic success and the traditionally good relationship between the two countries explain the large number of projects aimed at it.

Austria’s and Italy’s relatively large share is due to their proximity and strong ties to Hungary and also to these host countries’ priority role in the mobility of workforce. The number of projects targeted to CEE countries is not high but the trend is ascending.

The most frequently used language in all types of mobility projects is English and its share is increasing, though it is still below 50% in all types. (See LdV Annex Table 13.) The use of German is slowly diminishing.

Nevertheless, German is the lingua franca in about one-third of the cases, with differing shares by project type. The third most frequently used language is French, also slightly on the wane, while Italian and Spanish are slowly gaining ground. The three Latin languages are jointly used in one-tenth of initial vocational training mobility projects and in a quarter of mobility projects involving students and young workers and graduates.

It is to be noted that a regular 2-3% of projects involves communication in minor languages not mentioned here specifically.

The quality of mobility The NA has emphasized the quality of mobility since the very beginning of Phase II of LdVP. Tempus Public Foundation was among the first to join the Austrian initiative and awards a national Mobility Quality Award on an annual basis. This is a very popular initiative and even nomination is regarded highly among the applicant institutions. Hungarian professional circles consider the quality of Hungarian mobility projects very high, which is supported by Hungary’s top ranking in the unofficial European mobility quality award launched twice so far, terms of both nominations and awards.

The ten-point Quality Charter for Mobility in Education and Training has become increasingly widely known.

Weighting of criteria is being continuously refined. Not all of the criteria listed in the Charter are of equal

importance. In one of the surveys most respondents considered language proficiency as the most important criterion and highlighted it as the area with the greatest potential for quality improvement. General preparation and information provision are the strengths of the Hungarian mobility projects at the stage of application as well as implementation. The role of the mentor is becoming more significant and the recognition of placement if it takes place as part of a formal study or training programme is also general. Hungary was quick to introduce the Europass and the recognition of more than two-thirds of placements and internships is entered in this document.

Dissemination and exploitation

By the end of the 2000–2006 period the frameworks necessary for the operation of a diverse programme system have been consolidated. Opportunities and benefits provided by the Programme to difference stakeholders of of the national education and training system have become widely known. Within the logic of the Programme the various types of project and actions cover the main stakeholders and activities. There is no group that is important for the operation of the education system that would have no access to one or other type of programme. However, because of limited resources and the consequent keen competition, the number of those who are direct involved in projects is still relatively low compared to the size of student

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

Lessons and recommendations to the Lifelong Learning Programme

13

The NA attributed great importance to dissemination. The level of awareness of the Programme in the most directly concerned target group is high. In the publication of Tempus Public Foundation interesting reviews and articles are published twice a year about current rounds of application, specific project outcomes and beneficiary reports.

Tempus Public Foundation organises several dissemination events annually from funds secured and/or reserved specifically for this purpose. Attendance is high and the evaluation sheets distributed regularly at the events reveal very positive reception. Some of the recent events are related to thematic monitoring. One of the outputs was the numerous Hungarian language publications that appeared over the past three years describing projects and good practices. All of them are also available online.

The LdVNA strictly requires project-level dissemination. This is reflected in the assessment of proposals. A detailed plan is required and its implementation enforced. Online beneficiary reports allow deeper insight into project-related happenings so projects can be evaluated on a more genuine basis than before. Another new development is blogs by beneficiaries. NA staff regularly attends local events, closing conferences, etc. This is perhaps even more important as it underscores the local significance and symbolic importance of the event and the project as a whole. NA representatives provide up-to-date information, put the event into a broader context for local actors, promote evaluation and obtain first-hand experience about the project and its publicity.

There is one point of criticism regarding the effectiveness of project-level dissemination. All dissemination efforts regarding mobility and even more importantly, Procedure ‘B’ project, are events and news communications with a PR, marketing and prestige focus. Analysis and evaluation of experiences, presentations, articles and web contents that would promote the learning process of others are few and far between if not entirely missing.

Project coordinators have little interest in, and often scarce resources for, implementing these processes at a higher level of quality.

The concept of valorisation has become more widely known for three or four years. Its exploitation component is still a critical element, although in this respect, too, some progress has been achieved lately. Thematic monitoring mentioned earlier belongs in this category. Exploitation of the outcomes of development projects continues to be highly problematic even though reports on product quality, access and utilisation have clearly improved. Only scant information is available about the actual use and exploitation of products outside the development organisation.

The work of Hungarian partners in development projects implemented by foreign coordinators is generally hidden from the NA, the evaluators and the entire profession along with its result. Exploitation, if any, remains within the bounds of the institution or a narrow circle. Efforts to promote the Hungarian exploitation of these outcomes by means of funds available for translation, adaptation and implementation have been unsuccessful.

14 The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

populations in public or higher education. Expanding the scope of beneficiaries would therefore be extremely important. One way is to promote outreach to target groups not yet involved; another possibility is further improvement of existing, and identification of intensive, indirect methods (e.g. dissemination), not least the expansion of national or EU resources. The know-how needed for high-quality and efficient cooperation has been acquired, so the system is now capable of absorbing additional resources.

With the enlargement of the EU new potential partners have appeared that have so far been less known to the majority of “older” Member States because of their geographical distance and their different historical development. Their “discovery” would be greatly promoted if the certain advantages were offered to proposals that involve cooperation with these new members.

Introduction of the higher education system of smaller and less frequented countries or new Member States, or special promotional campaigns such as “In Focus…” would acquaint potential partners with the values of these countries and expedite their becoming attractive destinations.

Mobility with the intent to pursue education has been gaining ground in public education. The need to exploit the inherent educational and vocational potential raises the necessity for more conscious, wider and betterorganised preparation of teachers. In addition to mobility project management this should involve mastery of the tools of pedagogical preparation and impact analysis. Practising teachers, who have experience with successful projects, could make a valuable contribution towards a short course in “mobility pedagogy” or a “manual”.

Analysis shows that the main long-term impacts of mobility projects are generated by the new professional and human relations that point towards further international cooperation at both individual and institutional levels. Therefore preference should be given to projects and project types that are more likely to generate new relationships. The role of accompanying teachers and the importance or preparatory visits should be highlighted in this respect. Both deserve greater resource allocations to partially cover the costs of more accompanying teachers and more prep visits. Demanding as much as 30–50% own contribution would ensure that these additional funds would only be involved where it really makes a difference.

III T HE IMPACT OF THE PROGRAMMES IN HUNGARY IN THE LIGHT OF GOALS AND PRIORITIES III.1 Socrates Indicators measuring impact Given the time frame and the relatively modest resources available as well as the large numbers and diversity of beneficiaries, no comprehensive and direct impact analysis, where beneficiaries were polled, was possible.

To quantify the impact of the Programme baseline or benchmark data should have been recorded first. But even if such data were available it would still be extremely difficult to select from among the effect of different development mechanisms, the ones that can be directly related to the Programmes. Furthermore, the very special nature of some impacts including some that the evaluators considered most important (e.g. putting own activities in a new perspective, enhancement of confidence and informedness, improved language skills, greater motivation) are factors that are very difficult to measure methodologically.

In the case of public education programmes, impact measurement and evaluation is made more difficult by the highly decentralised character of the Hungarian education system, which makes institution-level trends less transparent. Nevertheless, some of the impacts explored in the course of analysis and evaluation can be clearly identified, if not easily quantified.

It was not possible to conduct full-fledged or representative surveys among the participants of public education projects. However, some of the tools of the ProTeacher survey were used when the evaluators developed the questions for interviews and visits to institutions, and they were also incorporated in the focus group discussions with public education project managers. Based on this, the most typical and direct impact of

the Hungarian public education projects surveyed (mainly the Comenius school development and language projects) on teachers was a general improvement of project planning and management skills, and enhanced thematic cooperation skills as a result of cooperation in the context of the projects. The use of new ICT tools was promoted by the Programme in that communication is essentially built on e-mails in all projects, which is a source of compulsion and motivation for participants at the same time. Projects that focused entirely or partially on ICT directly acquainted beneficiaries with novel classroom devices.

The impacts of the Programme were also determined by the characteristic features of the Hungarian education model. Public education institutions are highly decentralised and have substantial professional autonomy.

Institutions decide whether they are prepared to embrace new methodological innovations, or are the free choice of the teacher. Innovations that require substantial investment or funds, or the restructuring of curricula are slower and more difficult to accept. Communication between public education institutions and sectors is poor, which is a great hindrance in the way of innovation, and further exacerbated by the “market-based” competition between institutions.

Tangible changes are conspicuous in the classroom work of individual teachers and the self-evaluation of teaching staff. Again, this is very difficult to quantify. In our experience, institution-level change and integration of new concepts is quick in cases where the head of the institution is also directly involved in the international exercise and has first-hand experience related to cooperation. This also means that projects have the most intensive effect on those who participate in them, and indirect impacts are much weaker and more difficult to identify. The same applies to teacher-student relationship: it changes under the effect of shared experience in the context of a project.

Impact of mobility programmes

In order to promote equal opportunities Tempus Public Foundation created a position of special coordinator ensuring cooperation between all programmes (including Socrates and LdV). Representatives of organisational units and programmes work together in an equal opportunities working group. This ensures ongoing evaluation of experience and unified interpretation and implementation of jointly developed strategies.

A special score system was devised to give disadvantaged applicants more chance, and additional funds are awarded to compensate for disadvantages in the case of successful projects. The rules have been developed by the Board of Tempus Public Foundation in 2005. Accordingly, in 2006 a quarter of the proposals under the schemes concerned (Socrates/Comenius 1, Socrates/Comenius 2.2c, Socrates/Comenius 2.2b, Socrates/ Grundtvig 2, Socrates/Grundtvig 3, and LdV/mobility projects) were submitted by applicants who were at a disadvantage.3 The extra points resulted in 31 proposals being awarded funds that would have otherwise been turned down. This means that the number of projects awarded funds because of higher scores on the 3

The term ‘disadvantage’ and its scope are defined in detail by the Hungarian Public Education Act. The Board relied on this definition when drafting the rules.

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

Equal opportunities

15

All beneficiaries underscored the benefits they acquired as a result of the mobility programme. The biggest benefit was the improvement of language competence. All of the beneficiaries interviewed reported a massive improvement in their communication competence in the foreign language. Development of other personal competences such as improvement of self-confidence and informedness in their areas of specialty, acquisition of knowledge which might give them an edge in the labour market, and personal relations that can be kept up in the long term are also rated as important. A large number of beneficiaries considered the mixture and further development of professional and private relations as another positive outcome.

When the 2003 evaluation was conducted we often met project managers who told us they were surprised to discover their own strengths on the basis of their international experience and it came as a revelation that their work at home is up to international standards. In the current evaluation, project managers emphasized that many of the Hungarian teachers realised they not only learnt from their foreign colleagues but that their work and institution also often offered interesting and innovative methods (i.e. good practices) for their foreign partners to follow.

grounds of disadvantaged applicants increased 2.5 times. Currently 42% of education institutions awarded funds under Socrates/Comenius 1 involve disadvantaged students in the implementation of projects.

Equal opportunities are also promoted by events and consultation about writing projects. Additionally, the Programme has an effect on disadvantaged groups and groups of people with disabilities in two ways. Firstly, integrated education for students with special education needs was a topic of many projects, which provided a strong incentive and good examples in handling integration-related challenges and the learning process leading to integration. The impact has ramifications in the form of publications presenting good practices, regional information events, dissemination conferences and teacher’s continuous training.

The other impact mechanism is no less important. Supporting the participation of young people with disabilities in projects is not important because of the numbers involved, as the target population is relatively small. Although their numbers have steadily increased since 2000, not more than a few dozen students are concerned. The value lies in the fact that these projects serve as a model for a wider audience and show that with due care and a little extra support it is possible to include students in this form of learning who have so far been barred from the opportunity by insurmountable obstacles.

Special mention should be made of the “blind and partially sighted user-friendly” version of Tempus Public Foundation’s web site prepared in 2005 and updated on a regular basis since. The Public Foundation has also published an equal opportunities newsletter, which provides information on special programmes.

III. 2 Leonardo

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

16

Goals in the light of which impact can be assessed The goals set forth in LdVP invitations are so general that their implementation can only be discussed in equally general terms. It is obvious that LdV projects have an overall positive effect in these general dimensions but we were unable to clearly determine the magnitude of this effect. The direction of impact of LdV projects is different from that of the impact generated by other development funds. Typical positive changes include conversion of passive language skills to active competence, the effect of having to cope in a foreign environment on the personality, the experience of fears from a multicultural environment replaced by the emerging ability to cooperate in such an environment, and what it does to self-confidence, etc.

Beneficiaries and institutions have more specific goals; some are openly formulated, others implicit. For the individual, development of foreign language competence, improvement of skills in language for special purposes, study of special areas, enhancement of technology or methodological knowledge, and the experience of discovering a different – vocational and non-vocational – culture, travelling to “foreign parts” are the most important goals. For institutions gaining a competitive edge, improving the institution’s attractiveness, meeting the demands of training for the European labour market should be mentioned.

Measuring specific impacts would require targeted analysis. There have been no impact analyses, carefully designed methodologically, that would separate the impact of Leonardo from other effects (such as impact analyses with control groups, for example). So the questions cannot be answered with exactitude, as evaluators could only rely on beneficiary reports, project coordinators’ opinions, feedback from NA experts, and scarce empirical background data.

Impacts on individual beneficiaries Different outcomes are identified in various categories of beneficiaries, and their dimensions also differ by group.

Considering the dimension of vocational culture, students in initial vocational education participating in placement programmes were most impressed by the new work culture they experienced. They were equally impressed by their encounter with advanced technologies in many vocational subject areas, which particularly the younger age groups found extremely interesting. The main experience for older and more qualified groups was related to technology, novel organisational structure, work organisation and culture. After the initial revelation these groups followed a more conscious learning curve.

Enhancement of language competence has been mentioned by all beneficiaries. In more recent mobility

Institutional impacts are generally detectable in a small number of initial vocational education institutions that are regular applicants. The strongest impact is probably the increase of school management’s awareness of the value of international relations and its inclusion in the school’s strategy. The majority of institutions are engaged in international cooperation also outside Leonardo, and these institutions are noticeably more active in schemes other than LdV. In the opinion of teachers their school’s prestige and competitiveness, a key issue given the current demographic trends, have been strengthened. Their openness to information from the world outside the school has also increased since their participation in the LdV Programme. Conversely, only a

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

Institutional impact

17

cases, language competence is measured before pre-mobility language preparation, before leaving for the host country, and after returning. Language learning is still a strong motivation right after returning to the home country but it fades quickly if there are no incentives or measures to keep it up. Language preparation plays an increasingly important role. Most exchange programmes involve language teachers who act as interpreters, which means participants’ language development is not significant. Conversely, accompanying teachers gain a lot in terms of foreign language competence, as they are the most active communicators. Besides an overall enhancement of linguistic competence foreign language teachers also score great progress in the use of language for special purposes. The smaller group of accompanying teachers, i.e. teachers of vocational subjects with some foreign language knowledge improved their FL communication skills and their passive language became active.

A measurable outcome of projects is the number and duration of new contacts emerging as a result of mobility.

This is in strong correlation with the initial level of fluency in a foreign language and the length of time spent in the host country. Three-quarters of those who spent at least six weeks abroad formed new relationships as opposed to only half of those whose placement was shorter. The role of accompanying teacher is eminently suitable for forming new relationships that may become useful later in life or result in considerable advantages for the institution.

Beneficial effects on the individual’s character are always mentioned: confidence, self-reliance, openness and sense of responsibility increase. An important trigger of attitudinal changes is the cultural effect that a longer stay in a foreign country has on the individual. For most students in initial vocational education this is the first trip abroad, and even some accompanying teachers experience a foreign visit of several weeks as a cultural shock.

The introduction of the Europass brought a quick and positive change in the recognition of placement and internship. Most programmes now issue, in addition to a certificate of placement/internship, a Europass, too.

Both a paper-based certificate and a Europass were issued in 70– 80% of cases in 2005. (See LdV Annex Tables 16, 17 and 18.) Only sporadic anecdotal information exists as to the use of the Europass as there are no reliable data regarding beneficiaries’ success in the job market and whether and how their position is affected by the Europass.

LdVP has other indirect social impacts. And important impact is the appearance of valuable contents in the relations of twinned cities and counties. There are also examples where long-term well-working projects led to cooperation or twinning between the larger communities. Another ancillary effect is economic, and takes the form of cooperation between businesses, new investment in the LdV partner city or town, and increasing employment in foreign countries.

Direct and indirect effects on social inequalities should also be mentioned. Given its size, LdVP cannot exercise a substantial direct effect in this respect; however, its approach to, and management of, inequality may have an important indirect impact. The Statutes of Tempus Public Foundation set forth the need to pay special attention to the issue of disadvantages. In March 2005 the Public Foundation created the position of equal opportunities coordinator, whose activity includes also the Leonardo Programme on the basis of a specially conceived equal opportunities strategy with annual reports on its implementation. As a result, there is a noticeable improvement in the rate of inclusion of disadvantaged groups in the Leonardo projects. At least 40% of students in at least one-fourth of placements related to initial vocational education have are disadvantaged by the statutory definition. The involvement of this target group is further enhanced by the additional funds that can be acquired by applicants.

small number of institutions reported a noticeable increase in teachers’ willingness to learn foreign languages as a result of the Programme.

Vocational education institutions that have been regular LdV participants have acquired relative advantages resulting from their widening international dimensions, which has given them a competitive edge in every conceivable respect (sectoral, local, national and international). They are among the elite of an increasingly global education system. In other respects, these schools are not necessarily considered as elite. From another angle, a large number of reputable vocational education institutions of high standards show no interest in EU programmes.

Systemic impact

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

18

Experience of diverse and multifaceted international vocational education practices are conspicuous in many areas of vocational education and promote attitudinal change in the vocational education sector. Hungarian practices and training outcomes are measured by international standards. Awareness of a multitude of training organisation and cooperation patterns as well as methodological solutions and good practices appear in the system, and has a positive impact on local innovativeness and, on a more general level, on system-level innovativeness.

Awareness and recognition of the Leonardo Programme is wide in vocational education as well as in public administration. This, however, is not necessarily reflected in the strategic importance of the Programme: for instance, this efficient development tool is often relegated to the background when it comes to decisions on the involvement of support from Structural Funds. On the whole, despite its favourable image and unequivocal popularity and success branch policy still considers LdV as an “add-on” feature.

IV PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT An important element in the implementation of the Programmes is the fact that Tempus Public Foundation has been an umbrella organisation for not only Socrates (since 1998) and LdV (since 1999) NAs but for a number of other European and nationwide programmes as well. They include CEEPUS, the Pestalozzi Programme, “World – Language”, a Ministry of Education scheme launched in 2003 to promote FL learning, and “Útravaló”, a grant programme to promote equal opportunities. TPF is also engaged in information activities in relation to Erasmus Mundus, Tempus III and the EU R&D Framework Programme. It is involved in the activities of the Hungarian Europass Centre, operates the Alumni Network of former scholarship holders, and has a web site for foreign students and teachers coming to Hungary besides other similar functions. The entirety of target groups of programmes managed by TPF cover the whole sector of education, training and R&D. This is a major challenge and also exceptional opportunity in that it offers a multifarious overview of training and education processes and their interconnections.

Established in 1996, TPF has become the most important organisation managing mobility programmes in Hungary. The Ministry of Education as supervising entity also tries to make use of the wide range of experience of TPF’s staff mainly in European relations. TPF prepares annual reports to the Ministry and has semi-annual oral information sessions with Ministry officials in order to ensure the continuous flow of information. Frequent changes at the level of the Ministry and the complex structure of programmes hamper the bidirectional information process. TPF’s positive and cooperative relationship with the vocational education policy is indicated by the fact that the Ministry and the conciliation organisation operated by the Ministry with the participation of the social partners allocated additional funds to LdV on several occasions.

Organisation development and management also takes place in this broader context at the level of the umbrella organisation. Several functions (PR, monitoring, finance) are so-called horizontal functions, which means they provide background services and support to several NAs. This organisational structure is highly advantageous for the synergy of various programmes. Continuous improvement of the organisational structure

The decentralised schemes managed by TPF follow a clearly conceived and well-established routine in which information is a key element. Its tools include TPF’s web site, where Socrates and LdV are allocated special space of their own, and a variety of events promoting personal exchanges, communication and dissemination.

Office staff processes all project reports. Monitoring visits are made at the beginning and in the last third of the term of projects that have been awarded the largest budgets. Project monitoring involves experts of the particular area. Thematic monitoring is harmonised with financial monitoring, which has different formats.

In line with policy goals, mobility management is aimed at enhancing the quality of mobility and enlarging the scope of applicants. The success of both efforts is proven by figures (e.g. the number of application awarded support, the high level of satisfaction of beneficiaries, quality awards, increasing numbers of new applicants).

The consequence is that high-quality mobility would be capable of absorbing more than currently allocated, even after the 2004 increase in the budget of the Programmes. Extra funds would mean that more proposals deserving support could actually be supported; their lack means that the outreach of the currently supported projects is smaller that their full potential.

Centralised projects In the case of centralised projects National Agencies focus mainly on information. Regrettably, despite the recommendations of the 2003 report there has been no major change in the availability of information on projects involving, but not coordinated by, Hungarian partners because the information received from the European Commission as manager of centralised projects seldom contains useful facts in this respect. Partner institutions have virtually no obligation that would promote exploitation of outcomes on a national level.

Information available in central databases is the bare minimum and even that is often inaccurate to the point that in some cases it was impossible to identify the Hungarian actors even after lengthy investigation.

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

Decentralised schemes

19

and efforts to find the most efficient method of operation is another feature. In 2004 TPF acquired the ISO 9001:2000 quality assurance certificate.

Besides the management of programmes TPF has recently made special efforts to disseminate its experience in education and innovation projects to all those concerned. To this end, it acquired accreditation as an adult education and training institution. It offers a variety of training programmes, most of them related to the implementation of EU funds.

Communication involves information provided to potential applicants, consulting in drafting proposals and implementing projects, and promoting the exploitation of results through different channels of information. The most typical forms of communication are events, publications, TPF’s web site and media appearances.

The Customer Service Desk can be contacted by telephone or e-mail. They register hundreds of contacts every year, typically by phone, as this form of communication provides instant response.

Typical forms of information and consulting include info days designed for specific target groups of topics, seminars on proposal writing, coordinators’ meetings, monitoring seminars, dissemination conferences and exhibitions. In 2006 a total of 69 events were staged for about 4200 participants. The umbrella organisation publishes 23 printed publications including the “Dissemination Booklets” series launched in 2006.

Last year TPF edited 12 thematic newsletters sent electronically on a monthly basis to about 20,000 persons and entities that registered their interest. The TPF web site is a particularly important information tool with about 300–400,000 hits annually. Hits of the English site are also in the magnitude of ten thousand. The prevalence of electronic communication notwithstanding, in 2006 TPF featured in the printed media 1.5 times more frequently than a year earlier in almost 900 different articles and other items.

The quality of TPF’s services has been recognised by applicants, the National Authority as well as the public at large. Criticism was formulated only exceptionally, and there were many feedbacks praising TPF’s services, general work culture and the helpfulness of staff in the highest terms. Many emphasized the NAs’ conspicuous efforts of focusing control and audit on exploring and remedying, and preventing problems in a timely fashion. Heads of the National Agencies have been in their position for years and many of the staff also has several years’ experience on the job. Increase in workloads after Hungary’s accession to the EU did not cause any problem.

Availability of information on the goals, products and experiences of centralised projects for a wider Hungarian audience is very limited and depend purely on the intent of participants. Hungarian professional circles learn about centralised projects only on an occasional basis. The same applies to information about partners involved in development projects. TPF made repeated attempts to disseminate outcomes of centralised projects in Hungary and promote their adaptation by inviting applications for funding. The results are very modest and the problem persists.

The dual (Hungarian and Brussels) assessment of Procedure ‘B’ projects is not considered as a seamless process and gives rise to inconsistencies and differing professional evaluations. As a result some projects contributed products to results whose quality fell short of the levels expected given the amount of funds allocated.

The first half of Phase II of LdVP gave rise to the practice of thematic and product monitoring of Procedure ‘B’ projects according to a set algorithm by specialists of the particular area. The intent was to improve quality.

Developed further down the road, the method proved very useful and had a positive influence on the quality of products. The seriousness of thematic monitoring is indicated by the fact that the quality of implementation of four projects did not meet the required level, as proved by documentary evidence. Consequently some of the personnel expenses had to be repaid. This is a very positive achievement and has a beneficial effect on the quality of other projects.

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

20

Funding The total amount of funds allocated in the context of the Socrates Programme increased 2.8 times in the period 2000–2006. The level of utilisation of the funds available is very high although it varied somewhat in the evaluation period. Afters 93% in 2001 it peaked in 2002, then fell somewhat, only to slowly pick up again in the last three years. (See Socrates Annex Table 2.)

The amount of financial support has increased significantly since 2004. In harmony with the intent of the SNA, the expanded resources are used for increasing allocations per project rather than the number of projects.

As a result of this approach most of the project managers interviewed considered the funds sufficient for the implementation of the project, which is a positive change. Beneficiaries raised difficulties of detailed planning and those of modifying the budget as problems. In some instances, mainly in the case of public education projects the breakdown of the budget is contested (for instance while large amounts can be spent of travel some of the development costs are not recognised as eligible). Although project managers generally seem to appreciate the efforts to simplify administrative process, this does not actually alleviate the burdens of schoollevel project managers due to the complexity and differing nature of accounting in public education.

Until 2004 the education administration supported the Erasmus student mobility programme with social grants to the amount of approximately 150 million forints (or about 600,000 EUR) per year. This allocation was supposed to make up for the dismantled PHARE resources, and added another 50 euros to the otherwise modest (on an average 250 EUR per month) student grants of about 40% of the students involved. This additional support was withdrawn in 2005. Institutions are keener to provide some support within their own financial capabilities, for example higher education institutions commit considerable sums to help underprivileged students participate.

The Ministry of Education provided approximately 42 thousand euros to support intensive language courses in the context of Erasmus, to organise Arion seminars in Hungary, and to award the European Language Award. The Ministry of Information and Communications, which was dissolved in 2006 allocated about 200 thousand euros in support of 82 Erasmus students pursuing IT studies, and the provide own contribution to IT projects. The British Council provided extra support to Erasmus students travelling to the UK. LdVP funds increased sharply between 2000 and 2006, particularly those available for mobility. Specific support to Procedure ‘B’ projects stayed roughly at the same level in 2000–2006, that of mobility projects increased slightly, but this was mainly due to the increase in the number of beneficiaries per project.

Supplementary national resources were involved on several occasions. They were intended mainly to cover extra costs related to disadvantages and allowed room for equitability, and also helped expansion. In the period 2003–2005 the placement of more than 1000 beneficiaries was funded from supplementary national allocations. The funds were contributed by the branch ministries and the Labour Market Fund with the support of the social partners.

It is difficult for this evaluation to assess the national-level impact of the Programmes in operation for over ten years. No indicators and approaches have been developed to reliably measure immediate and longterm indirect impacts of programmes and actions. As regards public education projects, a national effort to develop measurement and evaluation systems has been started. It would be very useful if similar tools were also developed and propagated, possibly in conjunction with these efforts, for the analysis of long-term direct and indirect impacts of projects. While the Programmes have been widely recognised and appreciated in professional circles, in the absence of an impact analysis it is impossible to tell whether it would be more effective to allocate a lot more, or on the contrary, a lot less, funds for the Programmes or their components, or whether the emphases should be slightly changed in the invitation of proposals. Therefore the evaluators suggest targeted impact analyses be conducted in international cooperation, whose feedback would have a positive effect on the various components and the whole of the Programmes. In addition, impact analyses would help better integration of the Programmes in national policies. In this way some of the obstacles barring the exploitation of results could be dismantled probably for the benefit of other countries, too.

The Hungarian professional public receives very sporadic information about centralised projects, their outcomes and the activity of the Hungarian partners involved. In our opinion, it would be necessary, and given the size of budget involved, also justified to have better information about centralised projects. Organizational and management guarantees and contractual obligations of the partners should be laid down to ensure appropriate information on this form of international cooperation, and to promote the exploitation of products in the countries involved. Obviously it depends on the nature of the development project whether more information should be provided about the project work or the product. But in any case, better exploitation at the level of Member States requires that the result of the development efforts be interpreted and “translated” for propagation through the communications channels and professional circles of the given country. This would improve transparency and exploitation of centralised projects

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

Recommendations to the Lifelong Learning Programme

21

The stakeholders consider funding in the context of the Leonardo Programme has flexibly improved over the past years. As a result there are only rare cases where a project fails for financial reasons (for instance because of a lack of reserves needed for prefinancing). Consequently, there are no more reserves in the mobility programme; experience of a decade allows “gauging” the level of support required with great accuracy. This also means that some areas are underfinanced, which bars further expansion of the scope of potential applicants. Development projects continue to be well funded.

Financial support and monitoring functions are efficient and appreciated by the stakeholders. The financial culture required by EU schemes is essentially in place in the case of recurrent applicants; only first-timers have some difficulties.

Successful applicants have differing amounts of own contribution to deploy for their projects. In Procedure ‘B’ projects the amount and form varies depending on the particular development goal and generally causes no problem. Some LdV projects are implemented with only about 10% own contribution, others commit 30–50%, the typical level being 25–35%. The projects could not be implemented without the unpaid extra work and effort undertaken by the people involved. Institutions where there is no such dedication – and there are many – do not feature among LdVP applicants. A general observation by applicants is that the level of support did not follow the increase in the costs of living.

Leonardo mobility projects are considered efficient. There are no financial reserves in the scheme and in fact underfinancing is a factor that to a certain extent diminishes efficiency. When the number of beneficiaries must be cut in high-quality projects submitted by institutions with a history of high-quality mobility it results in higher specific costs. Well-founded evaluation of the efficiency of Procedure ‘B’ projects would require indepth analysis and particularly knowledge about the afterlife of products.

The rate of utilisation of Leonardo funds has been around 93% annually. Some of the remaining 7% can be channelled to the budget of ongoing projects if they have been awarded funds for less than the originally submitted number of beneficiaries. This indicator is much lower, 83–95%, in the case of Procedure ‘B’ projects, where the average is significantly is pulled down by the few projects not deemed entirely satisfactory by the evaluators and as a result some of the personnel costs had to be repaid.

22 The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

Despite some progress scored in recent years the weakness of the Programmes is the poor exploitation of development outcomes. The short history of valorisation does not appear to be a success story: stakeholders interpret it in different ways and often regard it as a mere slogan. In our opinion, progress in the field of valorisation is a key issue. This is only conceivable if the efforts are coordinated at a European, and particularly at a national level. The main actors, though not necessarily, can be the NAs. In the absence of incentives and capacities project coordinators cannot be expected to deploy additional efforts; besides their dissemination duties they should only undertake guarantee for cooperation, preferably even after the project is concluded.

On a European level, the main task is to create useful and user-friendly databases, and to provide for the framework and regulation of access and cooperation. On a national level, tasks should include regular screening of results from the point of view of their adaptability, and the development of related strategic plans and mechanisms of exploitation suited to local conditions. All these tasks should be funded from the budget available for development; this would result in a better exploitation of the overall funds available. The newly launched innovation transfer projects are a step in this direction but they are not sufficient in themselves.

All stakeholders see the framework of the Programme, Brussels and national level competences and cooperation, the rules of planning, implementation and monitoring as stable. There is one element that should deserve more attention and would probably improve the effectiveness of projects. More attention should be paid, and more funds allocated, to thematic and product monitoring and evaluation, particularly in the case of bigger projects, as monitoring also has a support function in addition to the valuation. Uniform rules of thematic and product monitoring should be developed on the basis of national experience, at least at the level of recommendation; the feedback and consequences of monitoring should be made a regular norm. It should also be linked with incentives that are more closely related to quality and the proportions of funding should be changed accordingly. Less should be allocated to product development, and the funds reserved in this way should be used for rewarding partnerships that produce quality and are efficient in exploitation of results.

V CONCLUSIONS The 2000–2006 period of the Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci programmes was highly successful as substantiated by numerous facts described in this comprehensive evaluation. Activity of each programme grew dynamically from the beginning of Phase II and the quality of projects improved. Getting familiar with the advantages and difficulties of cooperation within the EU was a very important learning process in Hungary’s preparation for accession to the European Union.

In the second stage, significant progress was scored in some areas, for example in implementation of equal opportunities, monitoring of development projects, and management of a wider exploitation of project results.

After the conclusion of Phase II the frameworks of the new programmes were created, and a clearer structure was conceived to differentiate actions and subprogrammes by target groups. The first feedbacks regarding the new structure and regulations are definitely positive.

Implementation of both programmes was very successful in Hungary. The operation of both National Agencies is of very high quality, even outstanding by Hungarian standards. Maintaining the achievements reached so far will require significant efforts in future. Further improvement in the quality of work can result mainly from reaching target groups that are difficult to involve, expansion of institutions implementing projects, and alleviation of territorial disproportions by, for instance, involving schools in smaller villages.

Vi annex to the evaluation of the socrates programme Table 1 Number of decentralised Socrates activities, 2000–2006

Activities and actions

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

538

431

434

394

463

546

597

Comenius 1 School projects 153 191 161 120 147 206 Comenius 1 Language projects 19 10 14 14 26 32 Comenius 1 School development - 14 30 27 37 55 projects Preparatory visits 79 44 62 72 42 36 Comenius Continuing teacher 142 124 132 131 169 174 training grants Comenius Language teaching 28 45 36 30 42 41 assistant grants

Erasmus (Higher education)

218 47 35

Comenius (Public education)

43

~3000 18 23

158

Grundtvig 2

9 15 19 32 41 47 Study connections Grundtvig 2 1 1 6 11 19 14 Preparatory visits Grundtvig 3 5 13 3 7 10 18 Adult education teacher mobility Arion study visits 39 40 38 40 46 52

Centralised project 19 15 29 37 15 55 Preparatory visits

Source: Socrates National Agency and Tempus Public Foundation annual reports Note: The data reflect the state at the time the report was drafted.

54 12

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

Student grants (pers.)

1623 1576 1779 1970 2059 2678 Additional support to students 5 3 10 17 17 15 with disabilities Intensive language prep. course, - 51 63 73 71 147 support to students Short-term teacher mobility 627 571 453 442 452 586

Grundtvig (Adult education and training)

47 206

Table 2 Financial indicators of decentralised Socrates activities, 2000–2006

Activities and actions

2000

2001 2002/2003

2003

2004

2005 2006

Socrates funds Budget available (EUR) Funds awarded (EUR) Relative increase (baseline 2000, %) Including: Public education Higher education (Erasmus) Grundtvig Arion Budget used (%)

3 158 301 3 653 799

4 156 480

4 195 511 6 277 235

7 335 446 8 623 104

3 042 012

3 423 635

4 130 499

4 158 411 6 070 093

7 186 255

8 519 048

100

112.5

135.8

236.2

280.0

934 302

1 053 185

1 582 367

1 338 021 2 121 067

1 944 658

2 131 215

2 253 657

2 607 415

77 358

119 903

144 991

266 073

354 424

442 907

37 860

39 700

37 850

39 558

64 050

66 648

68 685

96.31

93.00

99.30

99.10

96.67

97.96

98.79

399 052*

563 111*

553 291*

919

3 179

the socrates and leonardo da vinci programmes in hungary in the period 2000–2006

24

Supplementary support Phare funds / support (EUR) Total number of approved decentralised proposals

136.7

199.5

2 374 902 2 559 287

3 601 711 4 346 694

5 435 873

550 153 670

2 666

2 851

3 223

946

Source: Socrates National Agency and Tempus Public Foundation annual reports Note: The data reflect the state at the time the report was drafted. * Converted from HUF (1 EUR = 260 HUF)

Figure 1

Comenius public education projects – geographical distribution of total applicants, 2000

Figure 2 Comenius public education projects – geographical distribution of successful applicants, 2000

25 The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

Figure 3 Comenius public education projects – geographical distribution of total applicants, 2006

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

26

Figure 4 Comenius public education projects – geographical distribution of successful applicants, 2006

Figure 5 Comenius public education projects – funds awarded by county (EUR) 2000

Figure 6 Comenius public education projects – funds awarded by county (EUR) 2006

27

Source: Socrates National Agency data

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

Figure 7 Number of Erasmus mobility students, 2000–2006

Table 3 Distribution of Erasmus mobility students by sex and provenance 2000–2006

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Students total 2001 1734 1829 2058 2315 2669 3129

Including: men 692 596 640 715 815 945 1039 % 34.5 34.3 34.9 34.7 35.2 35.4 33.2 women 1 309 1 138 1189 1 343 1500 1724 2090 % 65.5 65.7 65.1 65.3 64.8 64.6 66.8

Budapest students 932 845 887 1 067 1272 1350 1632 % 46.6 48.7 48.5 51.8 54.9 50.6 52.1 Non-Budapest students 1 069 889 942 991 1043 1319 1479 % 53.4 51.3 51.5 48.2 45.0 49.4 47.9

Total 15735 5442 34.5 10293 65.5 7985 50.7 7732 49.3

Source: Socrates National Agency data

Table 4 Distribution of Erasmus students by destination, 2000–20061

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

28

Country

2005

2006

Total

Austria 92 93 104 111 119 160 Belgium 113 93 82 98 124 137 Bulgaria 2 2 Cyprus Czech Republic 5 14 Denmark 57 43 48 44 69 80 United Kingdom 135 112 96 108 108 131 Estonia 1 6 Finland 199 152 184 201 206 227 France 275 223 214 276 283 321 Greece 48 37 37 41 42 59 The Netherlands 145 121 136 146 162 173 Ireland 8 7 11 15 8 16 Iceland 1 Poland 17 34 Latvia 1 Liechtenstein 4 8 Lithuania 1 Germany 536 460 497 567 611 680 Norway 33 47 Italy 205 189 208 225 237 272 Portugal 36 34 56 42 44 42 Romania 5 Spain 91 120 100 125 157 150 Sweden 61 50 56 58 63 71 Slovakia 1 5 Slovenia 9 7 Turkey 10 19 Total 2001 1734 1829 2057 2315 2669

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

151 167 4 4 39 104 176 11 243 335 53 188 18 4 51 4 3 5 688 41 272 58 13 197 65 14 19 36 ~2963

830 814 8 4 58 445 866 18 1412 1927 317 1071 83 5 102 5 15 6 4039 121 1608 312 18 940 424 20 35 65

Source: Socrates National Agency data 1

efore Hungary’ accession to the EU Erasmus mobility was not supported to other participating non-EU Member States B (associate countries + EFTA countries).

Figure 8 Distribution Erasmus mobility students by sex, 2000–2006

29

Distribution of Erasmus mobility students by provenance, 2000–2006

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

Figure 9

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006 30

Figure 10 Distribution of Erasmus mobility students by destination, 2000–2006

References n

n n n n n n n n

“ Mobility and European Cooperation” Hungarian Expert Report – Hungary (in Hungarian).

Edited by Tempus Public Foundation, June 2003 ProTeachears – Comenius 1 Project Analysis http://www.saaic.sk/proteachers/files/analyza.pdf Tempus Public Foundation – Public Report for 2000 Tempus Public Foundation – Public Report for 2001 Tempus Public Foundation – Public Report for 2002 Tempus Public Foundation – Public Report for 2003 Tempus Public Foundation – Public Report for 2004 Tempus Public Foundation – Public Report for 2005 Tempus Public Foundation – Public Report for 2006

Relevant interviewees n n n n n n n

n n n n

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

n

31

n

Experts involved in the assessment of proposals Senior officer of the supervising ministry (contact person) Head of Tempus Public Foundation Head and members of the professional advisory board Head of the Socrates National Agency Programme coordinators of the Socrates National Agency (Erasmus, Comenius) CFO of Tempus Public Foundation (as umbrella organisation) PR officer of Tempus Public Foundation (as umbrella organisation) Customer service officer of Tempus Public Foundation (as umbrella organisation) Equal opportunities coordinator of Tempus Public Foundation (as umbrella organisation) Institutional coordinators of the Erasmus Mobility Programme Project managers (21 interviews) Individual beneficiaries (Erasmus, Arion, Comenius language teaching assistants)

VII annex to the evaluation of the leonardo da vinci programme Table 1 Number of mobility proposals submitted and supported amount of funds awarded (1997–2006)

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Proposals submitted % of previous year

24

54

87

103

118

110

133

174

157

235

225

161

118

114

93

121

145

91

150

Proposals supported % of previous year

24

38

44

59

71

68

69

102

125

159

158

129

134

120

96

101

148

123

127

100

70

51

57

60

62

52

66

80

68

200 000

486 122

635 250

8 333

12 793

14 438

Supported/ submitted (%)

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

32

Funds awarded (EUR) Funds awarded per project (EUR)

1 028 804 1 062 288 1 132 043 1 160 000 2 566 096 2 930 000 3 417 598

17 437

14 901

16 648

16 811

22 314

Public reports, TPF annual reports, Pályázati Pavilon magazines (TPF)

Figure 1 Number of submitted and supported mobility projects, 2000–2006

23 440

21 494

Table 2 Funds available and awarded to mobility and Type ’B’ projects (EUR)

Mobility Type ’B’ projects

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

1 028 804 1 062 288 1 132 043 1 162 400 2 566 096 2 930 000 3 471 000 883 570 1 434 451 1 681 999 1 752 266 2 844 655 2 097 713 2 174 063

Figure 2 Funds available and awarded to mobility and Type ’B’ projects

33 The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

Table 3 Number of projects submitted and supported, Type ’B’ (pilot, language for special purposes and networks), 2000–2006

Pilot Language Network Total Supported Funds awarded per project (EUR)

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

47 14 1 62 6 147 262

52 10 0 62 5 286 890

24 7 2 33 5 336 400

35 7 3 45 6 292 044

31 4 2 37 11 258 605

20 3 1 24 7 299 673

33 3 0 36 7 310 580

Figure 3 Specific support to Type ’B’ projects, EUR

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

34

Table 4 Number of beneficiaries of mobility projects, 1997–2006

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2000–2006

Initial vocational education students University and college students Young workers and young graduates Teachers, experts, HR managers

154

247

304

460

524

388

578

805

850

1091

4696

0

15

57

71

136

126

152

282

250

260

1277

4

15

10

32

92

78

81

122

203

168

776

73

205

135

201

214

200

227

276

361

359

1838

Total

231

482

506

764

966

792

1038

1485

1664

1878

8587

Figure 4

Number of beneficiaries by project type, 2000–2006

35 the socrates and leonardo da vinci programmes in hungary in the period 2000–2006

Table 5 Distribution of mobility beneficiaries by sex, programme type and year, 2000–2005, %

2000–2005

2000–2005, N

Initial vocational M 61.8 45.4 42.6 47.9 57 56.8 52.8 education F 38.2 54.6 57.4 52.1 43 43.2 47.2 students

2027 1810

36

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

University and M 60.6 44.9 34.9 35.5 33.2 34.9 college students F 39.4 55.1 65.1 64.5 66.8 65.1

37.3 62.7

414 696

Young workers and M 78.1 42.4 60.3 42.0 52.1 52.4 young graduates F 21.9 57.6 39.7 58.0 47.9 47.6

51.8 48.2

368 342

Teachers, experts, M and HR managers F

62.3 37.7

1081 655

Table 6

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

2000

61.8 38.2

55.9 44.1

61.3 38.7

65.4 34.8

62.4 37.6

64.7 35.3

Rate of mobility beneficiaries with disabilities by year and programme type, 2000–2005, %

2005

2000–2005

2000–2005, N

Initial vocational

0 1.6 6.4 12.1 4.9 4.8 education students

2000

2001

5.7

219

University and 0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 college students

0

3.2

35

Young workers and 0 0 0 0 0 young graduates

0

0

0

Teachers, experts, and HR managers

0

0.2

3

0

0

2002

0.5

2003

0.4

2004

0.2

Table 7 Distribution of mobility beneficiaries by age, year and programme type, 2000–2005, %

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005 2000–2005

2000–2005, N

Initial vocational <18 education students 18–21

n.a.

39.1 31.2 39.1 18.9 24.1 27.7 n.a.

53.8 50.9 54.8 63.2 61.6 59.4 22–25 n.a.

6.9 8.4 5.7 17.5 14.1 12.5 25>

n.a.

0.2 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.4

University and college students

<18

0

1012 2170 456 13

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.4 46.3 32.5 31.1 12.3 16.7 23.3 22–25 69.0 50.0 57.9 47.7 71.0 65.9 62.5 25>

4.2 3.7 9.5 21.2 16.1 16.7 13.9

4 258 693 154

Young workers and <18 0.0 young graduates 18–21 0.0 22–25 25.0 25> 75.0

3 110 229 368

18–21 26.8

0.0 28.3 23.9 47.8

0.0 19.2 52.6 28.2

0.0 21.0 29.6 49.4

0.8 15.1 34.5 49.6

0.5 8.5 27.5 63.5

0.4 15.5 32.3 51.8

Table 8 Distribution of duration of mobility for initial vocational education students, 2001–2005, %

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2001–2005

2001–2005, N

3–13 weeks At least 14 weeks

97.3 2.7

n.a. n.a.

94.6 5.4

88.2 11.9

90.8 9.2

91.4 8.6

2947 276

Table 9 Distribution of duration of mobility for higher education students, 2004–2005, %

2004

2005

5.7 78.9 10.0 5.0 0.3

25.1 60.6 10.8 3.6 0.0

13 weeks

14–20 weeks

21–30 weeks

31–40 weeks

Over 40 weeks

2000–2005, N 80 388 57 24 1

2004

2005

9 weeks 10 –14 weeks 15 –20 weeks 21– 30 weeks 31– 40 weeks Over 40 weeks

13.1 27.9 30.7 16.4 0.8 11.1

18.0 23.8 25.4 19.6 2.1 11.1

2000–2005, N 66 113 123 77 6 48

Table 11 Average duration of placement / internship by target group

Minimum duration (weeks)

Average duration (2005)

Initial vocational edu.

Higher education Young workers / young graduates

3 13 9

5.6 16.8 20

Average duration (2006) 5.85 17.04 17.41

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

37

Table 10 Distribution of duration of mobility for young workers and young graduates, 2004–2005, %

Table 12

Distribution of duration of mobility for exchange participants, 2004–2005, %

2004

2005

1 week 2 weeks At least 3 weeks

50.3 43.4 6.3

59.2 35.3 5.5

2000–2005, N 451 329 49

Table 13 Distribution of languages used in mobility, 2000–2005, %

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

38

Initial vocational education students

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2000–2005

English 20.4 49.1 46.1 47.2 48.7 49.6 German 22.5 33.3 43.3 38.5 40.2 40.1 French 52.9 10.9 6.6 5.5 2.0 2.4 Italian 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.0 4.9 4.3 Spanish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 Hungarian 4.2 0.0 3.4 2.9 1.1 1.7 Other 0.0 6.7 0.4 2.7 4.8 1.9

University English 32.4 34.2 28.8 39.4 38.2 40.5 and German 53.5 40.9 41.1 25.0 26.3 30.5 college French 2.8 17.4 19.9 16.1 13.1 14.1 students Italian 0.0 0.0 8.2 3.9 5.5 4.1 Spanish 11.3 6.7 2.1 5.6 14.6 10.4 Hungarian 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 1.7 0.4

Young English 65.6 35.0 13.8 38.9 50.8 52.9 workers and German 34.4 14.0 27.6 37.8 21.2 25.6 young French 0.0 13.4 28.7 0.0 11.1 11.6 graduates Italian 0.0 20.4 11.5 22.2 6.1 5.4 Spanish 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 7.7 2.9 Hungarian 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 0.0 2.6 4.6 1.1 3.1 1.6

Exchange English 20.4 43.3 43.3 51.9 37.4 48.6 programme German 22.5 35.7 44.7 34.1 36.2 36.5 participants French 52.9 0.0 4.6 4.5 8.4 8.5 Italian 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.2 Spanish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 Hungarian 4.2 17.0 7.4 9.4 12.8 4.1 Other 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.2

2000–2005, N

47.2 38.5 6.6 3.1 0.2 1.7 2.8

2118 1724 295 138 9 75 124

37.0 32.1 14.5 4.3 9.7 0.3 2.1

456 396 179 53 120 4 26

44.4 23.9 11.8 10.3 4.6 2.5 2.5

402 216 107 93 42 23 22

41.5 35.4 10.5 1.3 0.8 9.6 0.9

834 712 211 26 16 194 19

Languages used in initial vocational education mobility, 2001–2005

Figure 6

Languages used in student mobility, 2001–2005

39

Figure 5

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

the socrates and leonardo da vinci programmes in hungary in the period 2000–2006

40

Table 14

Destination of initial vocational education mobility by year, 2000–2005, %

1. Germany 2. France 3. UK 4. Finland 5. Austria 6. Italy 7. Sweden 8. Denmark 9. Slovakia 10. The Netherlands 11. Ireland 12. Czech Republic 13. Spain 14. Norway 15. Portugal 16. Belgium 17. Greece 18. Poland 19. Malta 20. Romania 21. Iceland 22. Turkey

Table 15

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2000–2005

21.5 64.4 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0

23.3 17.2 17.2 9.0 12.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.8 0.0 1.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

40.6 9.4 16.1 11.8 2.2 4.3 0.0 0.0 2.7 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

33.0 14.5 7.1 2.1 14.0 6.9 7.3 5.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 2.1 0.7 2.9 0.5 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

37.6 5.4 10.1 9.0 6.0 9.1 4.5 3.4 3.2 1.3 4.0 2.7 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1

37.5 7.5 8.5 7.1 7.8 9.4 4.4 3.0 5.2 1.0 2.9 2.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

34.7 11.7 10.3 7.8 7.7 6.9 4.5 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.2 1.5 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1

1439 486 426 322 318 285 187 114 108 94 91 64 36 32 29 26 23 20 19 8 3 2

Destination of mobility by programme type in the order of destination of initial vocational education, 2000–2005, N and % Initial vocational education 2000–2005 2000–2005 % N

1. Germany 2. France 3. UK 4. Finland 5. Austria 6. Italy 7. Sweden 8. Denmark 9. Slovakia 10. The Nether.

11. Ireland 12. Czech Rep. 13. Spain 14. Norway 15. Portugal 16. Belgium 17. Greece 18. Poland 19. Malta 20. Romania 21. Iceland 22. Turkey

2000–2005, N

21.5 64.4 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0

23.3 17.2 17.2 9.0 12.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.8 0.0 1.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Higher education 2000–2005 2000–2005 % N

40.6 9.4 16.1 11.8 2.2 4.3 0.0 0.0 2.7 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

33.0 14.5 7.1 2.1 14.0 6.9 7.3 5.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 2.1 0.7 2.9 0.5 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Young workers, young graduates 2000–2005 2000–2005 % N

37.6 5.4 10.1 9.0 6.0 9.1 4.5 3.4 3.2 1.3 4.0 2.7 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1

37.5 7.5 8.5 7.1 7.8 9.4 4.4 3.0 5.2 1.0 2.9 2.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Exchange programmes 2000–2005 2000–2005 % N

34.7 11.7 10.3 7.8 7.7 6.9 4.5 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.2 1.5 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1

1439 486 426 322 318 285 187 114 108 94 91 64 36 32 29 26 23 20 19 8 3 2

Table 16

Recognition of placement of initial vocational education students by year, 2001–2005, %

Placem. abroad forming an integ. part of a recognised training prog. with Europass Placem. abroad forming an integ. part of a recognised training prog. without Europass Placem. abroad forming an optional part of a recogn. training prog. with Europass Placem. abroad forming an optional part of a recogn. training prog. without Europass Placement abroad not forming part of the prog.: certificate of attendance by

2001

2002

2003

2004 2005

0.0 24.6 4.2 33.2 38

0.0 35.4 0.0 13.8 42.3

4.3 39.3 12.6 22 14.7

58.1 7.1 26.1 5.7 3.0

0.0 0.0 100

0.0 0.0 100

7.1 0.0 100

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 100

47.9 10.0 29.4 8.3 4.5

host institution Placement abroad not forming part of the prog.: other certificate

Placement abroad not recognised / accredited

Table 17

Recognition of internship of higher education students by year, 2001–2005, %

2003

2004 2005

0.0 58.1 Internship abroad forming an optional part of a recogn. training prog. with Europass 0.0 Internship abroad forming an optional part of a recogn. training prog. without Europass 29.4 Internship abroad not forming part of the prog.: certificate of attendance by 12.5 host institution Internship abroad not forming part of the prog.: other certificate 0.0 Internship abroad not recognised / accredited 0.0

100

0.0 77.8 0.0 21.4 0.8

0.0 32.2 12.5 32.2 23.0

57.1 51.6 3.5 5.2 14.2 17.1 0.8 0.8 23.6 24.6

0.0 0.0 100

0.0 0.0 100

0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 100 100

Internship abroad forming an integ. part of a recognised training prog. with Europass

Internship abroad forming an integ. part of a recognised training prog. without Europass

Table 18 Recognition of placement and internship of young workers and young graduates by year, 2001–2005, %

Plm. / Int.ship abroad forming an integ. part of a recognised training prog. with Europass Plm. / Int.ship abroad forming an integ. part of a recognised training prog. without Europass Plm. / Int.ship abroad forming an optional part of a recogn. training prog. with Europass Plm. / Int.ship abroad forming an optional part of a recogn. training prog. without Europass Plm. / Int.ship abroad not forming part of the prog.: certificate of attendance by

2001 2002

2003

2004 2005

0.0 3.2 0.0 31.2 51.6

0.0 37.2 0.0 12.8 48.7

0.0 28.4 0.0 13.6 58.0

24.4 27.5 11.3 17.5 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.2 42.3

14.0 0.0 100

1.3 0.0 100

0.0 0.0 100

8.8 11.1 2.1 1.6 100 100

host institution Plm. / Int.ship abroad not forming part of the prog.: other certificate Plm. / Int.ship abroad not recognised / accredited

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

2002

41

2001

Table 19

Order of importance of the ten dimensions of the Quality Charter for Mobility on the basis of survey among project implementers (in brackets: the number of the dimension in the Charter)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Linguistic considerations (5) General preparation (4) Role of the mentor (7) Recognition (8) Personalised mobility (3) Logistic assistance (6) Information, guidance, orientation (1) Training / study plan (2) Commitments and responsibilities (10) Reintegration and evaluation (9)

Table 20

2000

42 the socrates and leonardo da vinci programmes in hungary in the period 2000â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2006

Number of submitted and approved mobility projects by year and project type, 2000â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2006

2001

Submitted Approved

PL1 PL2 PL3 EX4 EX5

60 11 6 25 1

%

34 56.7 7 63.6 2 33.3 15 60.0 1 100.0

2004

Submitted Approved

60 11 6 25 1

%

34 56.7 7 63.6 2 33.3 15 60.0 1 100.0

2005

Submitted Approved

71 22 26 49 5

2002

49 19 14 30 3

% 69.0 86.4 53.8 61.2 60.0

Submitted Approved

48 17 10 31 5

33 10 7 15 3

% 68.8 58.8 70.0 48.4 60.0

2006

Submitted Approved

71 23 15 47 1

2003

%

56 78.9 20 87.0 14 93.3 34 72.3 1 100.0

Submitted Approved

126 20 32 52 5

84 17 20 33 5

% 66.7 85.0 62.5 63.5 100.0

Submitted Approved

64 21 12 34 2

34 13 5 17 0

% 53.1 61.9 41.7 50.0 0.0

Table 21

Support to mobility projects per project (PR) and in total by year and project type, 2000–2006

2000 PR

2001

EUR EUR / PR PR

2002

EUR

EUR / PR

PR

2003

EUR EUR / PR PR

EUR EUR / PR

PL1

34

519 036

15 265.8

32

547 456

17 108.0

33

463 959

14 059.4

34

499 404

PL2

7

225 561

32 223.0

13

370 206

28 477.4

10

275 309

27 530.9

13

270 947

20 842.1

PL3

2

60 310

30 155.0

9

227 497

25 277.4

7

159 262

22 751.7

5

182 541

36 508.2

EX4

15

201 755

13 450.3

16

205 932

12 870.8

15

202 728

13 515.2

17

207 108

12 182.8

EX5

1

22 142

22 142.0

1

3 190

3 190.0

3

22 790

7 596.7

0

0

59 1 028 804

17 437.4

71 1 354 281

19 074.4

68 1 124 048

16 530.1

Total

2004 PR

2005

EUR

EUR / PR PR

EUR EUR / PR

PR

EUR EUR / PR

22 005.8

56 1 197 447

21 383.0

84 4 620 668 55 008.0

730 243

38 433.8

20

707 566

35 378.3

17

931 305 54 782.6

14

435 456

31 104.0

14

627 537

44 824.1

20

821 200 41 060.0

30

286 717

9 557.2

34

393 980

11 587.6

33

531 235 16 098.0

3

35 396

11 798.7

1

3 470

3 470.0

5

86 872 17 374.4

22 313.9 125 2 930 000

23 440.0

159 6 991 280 43 970.3

Support per project by mobility project type, 2000–2006, EUR (2000–2005: awarded, 2006: requested support)

the socrates and leonardo da vinci programmes in hungary in the period 2000–2006

* 2006 – Requested support

43

49 1 078 284

Figure 7

* 16 811.6

2006

19

115 2 566 096

69 1 160 000

14 688.4

Table 22

Support to mobility projects per beneficiary (Ben) by year and project type, 2000–2006

2000 Ben

2001

EUR EUR / Ben Ben

EUR

2002 EUR / Ben Ben

2003

EUR EUR / Ben

EUR EUR / Ben

PL1

460

519 036

1 128 524

547 456

1045 388 463 959

1196

578

499 404

864

PL2

71

225 561

3 177 136

370 206

2 722 126 275 309

2185

152

270 947

1783

92

227 497

2 473 78

159 262

2042

81

182 541

2254

1 114 214

209 122

977 200 225 518

1128

227

207 108

912

1 347 966 1354 281

1402 792 1 124 048

1419 1038 1 160 000

1118

PL3

32

60 310

EX

201

223 897

Total

764 1 028 804

1 885

2004 Ben

2005

EUR EUR / Ben Ben

2006

EUR EUR / Ben

Ben

EUR EUR / Ben

805 1 078 284

1339 850 1 197 447

1409 1091 4 620 668

4235

282

730 243

2590 250

707 566

2830

931 305

3582

122

435 456

3569 203

627 537

3091

168

821 200

4888

276

322 113

1167 361

397 450

1101

359

618 107

1722

1761 1878 6 991 280

3723

1728 1664 2 930 000

260

44

1485 2 566 096

the socrates and leonardo da vinci programmes in hungary in the period 2000–2006

Ben

Figure 8

Support per beneficiary by project type, 2000–2006, EUR (2000–2005: awarded, 2006: requested support)

Table 23

Geographical distribution of PL100 proposals

PR Num. of Ben.

Funds Ben./PR requested

(EUR)

2000 / 2003

2004 / 2006

2000 / 2003

2004 / 2006

Budapest

54

56

785

1200

Baranya

7

7

149

80

175 714

72 713

Bács-Kiskun

3

6

60

44

73 916

Békés Borsod-Abaúj-

2000 / 2003

2004 / 2006

2004 / 2006

2000 / 2003

2004 / 2006

14.5

21.4

1722

1786

21.3

11.4

1179

909

52 374

20.0

7.3

1232

1190

1 351 625 2 142 998

2000 / 2003

Funds requested Ben. (EUR)

3

12

40

164

81 414

367 704

13.3

13.7

2035

2242

10

8

82

134

234 054

212 270

8.2

16.8

2854

1584

25

30

212

331

641 197

489 151

8.5

11.0

3025

1478

5

9

29

260

36 030

359 124

5.8

28.9

1242

1381

11

17

136

284 220 125 315 590

12.4

16.7

1619

1111

Zemplén Csongrád Fejér Győr-Moson- Sopron Hajdú-Bihar Heves Komárom-

9

13

97

193

200 137

248 029

10.8

14.8

2063

1285

11

3

75

53

122 336

73 148

6.8

17.7

1631

1380

7

4

61

88

83 904

132 214

8.7

22.0

1375

1502

Esztergom Nógrád

0

67

0

123 935

*

9.6

*

1850

15

245

389

279 590

503 443

20.4

25.9

1141

1294

Somogy

11

11

122

151

134 764

191 819

11.1

13.7

1105

1270

4

9

92

216

157 818

367 423

23.0

24.0

1715

1701

24

14

244

214

480 894

341 249

10.2

15.3

1971

1595

Tolna

4

6

15

105

117 214

200 023

3.8

17.5

7814

1905

Vas

1

2

10

24

8 115

13 279

10.0

12.0

812

553

15

8

131

162

219 577

228 674

8.7

20.3

1676

1412

176 315

43 034

9.1

9.6

2415

897

4 794 739 6 478 194

11.9

17.4

1804

1540

Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Jász-Nagykun- Szolnok

Veszprém Zala Total / Average

8

5

73

48

224

242

2658

4207

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

7

12

45

0

Pest

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

46

Figures 9 and 10 N umber of PL 100 project beneficiaries by county per 100,000 inhabitants, 2000–2003 and 2004–2006

Table 24 Geographical distribution of exchange proposals

PR Num. of Ben.

2000 / 2003

2004 / 2006

2000 / 2003

2004 / 2006

Budapest

35

63

294

Baranya

5

8

44

Bács-Kiskun

4

2

15

Békés Borsod-Abaúj-

Funds Ben./PR requested

(EUR) 2000 / 2003

2004 / 2006

2000 / 2003

977

486 009

1 262 445

104

67 256

105 548

30

19

102 660

12

118

187

6

11

35

15

27

0

6

2

6

90

Funds requested Ben. (EUR)

2004 / 2006

2000 / 2003

2004 / 2006

8.4

15.5

1653

1292

8.8

13.0

1529

1015

17 049

7.5

9.5

3422

897

249 630

232 842

7.9

15.6

2116

1245

154

51 845

191 937

5.8

14.0

1481

1246

88

243

112 011

262 230

5.9

9.0

1273

1079

0

62

0

78 628

*

10.3

*

1268

4.7

1244

1055

Zemplén Csongrád Fejér Győr-Moson-

28 111 927 29 546

45.0

Sopron Hajdú-Bihar

6

5

41

34

69 801

50 174

6.8

6.8

1702

1476

Heves

3

9

15

158

20 715

233 080

5.0

17.6

1381

1475

Komárom-

7

5

36

64

102 057

98 098

5.1

12.8

2835

1533

Nógrád

5

0

163

0

154 145

0

32.6

*

946

*

Pest

7

7

83

82

112 010

91 969

11.9

11.7

1350

1122

Somogy

1

3

4

57

5 640

65 930

4.0

19.0

1410

1157

Szabolcs-Szat-

3

6

20

130

29 311

266 104

6.7

21.7

1466

2047

5

5

129

181

130 512

123 434

25.8

36.2

1012

682

Tolna

2

2

10

11

8 601

8 647

5.0

5.5

860

786

Vas

1

2

2

5

3 005

8 769

2.0

2.5

1503

1754

Veszprém

5

4

45

33

71 492

40 201

9.0

8.3

1589

1218

Zala

5

2

13

36

35 461

45 357

2.6

18.0

2728

1260

132

185

1260

2565

1 924 089

3 211 987

9.5

13.9

1527

1252

Esztergom

Szolnok

Total / Average

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

Jász-Nagykun-

47

már-Bereg

The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci Programmes in Hungary in the period 2000–2006

48

Figures 11 and 12 Number of exchange programme beneficiaries by county per 100,000 inhabitants, 2000–2003 and 2004–2006

Imprint Authors: György Mártonfi and Éva Tót Published by: Tempus Public Foundation, 2007 Responsible for publication: Gabriella Kemény director Publication editor: Kata Vilimi Tempus Public Foundation H-1093 Budapest, Lónyay u. 31.

Infoline: (+36 1) 237 1320 E-mail: info@tpf.hu Internet: www.tka.hu This publication was funded by the European Commission and the Hungarian Ministry of Education and Culture.

Please note that the views expressed within this publication are not necessarily those of the European Commission.