During the last months the European Commission has launched several public consultation processes in the context of the preparations for the next programme generation after 2013. EAEA as European umbrella organisation for adult education took part in the consultation. We met Gina Ebner, EAEA Secretary General to talk about the new education programme.

Where do you see the strengths and weaknesses of the current Lifelong Learning programme?

I think that the LLP has pushed forward the vision of a European area of lifelong learning. If we look at Grundtvig in particular, it has not changed a lot since the programme was launched ten years ago. Large numbers of adult education organisations took part in Grundtvig, in small initiatives like learning partnerships or larger projects. The intended Europeanization has been realized to a certain extend – that is the main strength of the programme. The promotion of innovation by exchange of ideas and good practice between organisations and innovative multilateral projects is a further strength. Lots of good things happened and have been developed. The weakness of the programme is for example that the innovation could not be integrated in the mainstream. EAEA has been criticizing this for a long time: Innovative projects often develop good strategies for example to activate marginalized groups but failed reaching the adult education mainstream, the adult education systems and the systems of lifelong learning in the member states. We need further efforts, funding and ideas from different stakeholders. A further problem is the still existing high degree of bureaucracy that sets administrative obstacles for the participation of smaller organisations. There is still a long way to go. This leaves room for improvement in the next programme generation.

Like many other organisations, EAEA participated in the consultation concerning the new programme generation after 2013. What do you expect from a future programme for adult education in Europe? Where do you see the priorities of such a programme?

There are several expectations: The first concerns the simplification of the application procedure that allows more organisations and persons to participate in the programmes. An important item for EAEA is more funds for Grundtvig in the next funding period. Currently its percentage share is about 4%, negligible compared to other programmes. Considering how successful the programme has been even so and what could be reached more, we would like to see 20% for Grundtvig. That could have a positive effect on the impact Grundtvig will have combined with the Action Plan. Erasmus for example has reached a high awareness and a dimension, which makes a real difference for students in Europe. If one could adopt this only partially for Grundtvig, we could reach a significantly different impact. We would also welcome the further accessibility of the LLP for participating Organisations and persons from non-EU countries, for example via a Grundtvig Mundus programme. I think there are strong arguments especially for the involvement of the neighbouring countries. We expect an initiative by the Polish presidency and the eastern partnership countries in the second half of the year. We really appreciate this support. The programme should be extended, especially as I can imagine an important exchange with the neighbouring countries. We suggest that the basic structure of the programmes remains unaffected. One could think about programmes addressing certain target groups. But as the programme works well, any modification would disturb it. Co-operation between the sectors should be easier; I can imagine collaboration between the school sector, the university sector, adult education and vocational training within a project for early school leavers. Why should that not be possible? The transversal programme already allows this rudimentary. Our main expectation, of course, is the further support of the idea of a European area of lifelong learning, the promotion of flexible learning opportunities, and free access to education and education for all.

Not only the LLP, but also the Europe for Citizens programme will expire in 2013. Inter alia, it can be used to promote active citizenship through adult education projects. Do the commission’s proposals for the new citizenship programme take into account the education sector sufficiently?

We hope that they will do. We had meetings with different decision-makers who assured us that DG Communication and DG EAC will co-operate in the programme and bridge the gap between citizenship and active citizenship. We were told that there is a broad concept of active citizenship and that the role of civil society and civil society organisations will be strongly supported. We also stressed that in our contribution to the consultation.

The Commission has also conducted a consultation on the validation of non-formal and informal learning which is linked to the EQF and NQF. During a conference last year, EAEA has discussed the opportunities and problems linked with this developments. Which results of this conference could you include in EAEA’s position in the consultation process?

As a European association we had some difficulties with this consultation because many of the questions aimed at national situations. We brought in a statement that followed the results of the conference. We stressed the importance of involving adult education institutions, adult education and civil society organisations in the process. We consider this to be our future task. Currently we think about how to deal with the results of the conference and the commission’s activities on this topic but we also have to observe how the situations in the different countries develop and if and how adult education is involved.

As scheduled in our long-term working plan we will surely deal with learning outcomes. We believe that the shift from regarding learning processes to learning outcomes will take effects.

The validation of learning outcomes is generally an essential question for specific target groups: This year we will focus on migrants. In such cases this problem is a central one. That means we will deal with the development in the sense of monitoring but also with the relevance of the topic for certain target groups.

Last year the Grundtvig programme celebrated its 10th anniversary – many referred to it as a success story. What sort of feedback on the adult education programme did you get from your member organisations during the last years?

Yes. We conducted a survey among our members with a high level of response.  Let me start with the negative part: Criticism is often related to bureaucracy and access to the programme, language problems. In the main those who participated told us that they benefit from the programme, that it influenced them personally, that the organisations became more open and European thinking, maybe even innovation-friendly. It is a common experience to go elsewhere and see how things are done there and take these experiences home. All this was pointed out. We also asked if our colleagues had the impression that the programme helped to support the work on a political level. Most of them were sceptic. This influence could increase with a stronger Grundtvig programme. What our members really appreciate are the recently introduced smaller programmes such as workshops that require only little bureaucracy. For this reason also smaller organisation have the opportunity to participate.

What are the strengths of the European consultation procedure? Is this instrument already used sufficiently by the adult education community in Europe?

Yes and No. On the one hand many consultations are broad-based, which is partially really necessary. I know that our members participate in the consultation processes, depending on the capacity of the organisation. We put more effort in supporting our members by providing a model they can supplement by adding specific paragraphs. We have to improve the co-ordination of lobbying on European and national level in future. It works well with organisations that have already developed a lobbying strategy for adult education.  Not every organisation has such a strategy; we have very differently structured member organisations and the adult education work is often a priority. We should strengthen the co-operation with our members on different levels in order to better lobby for adult education, more and better structures, more and better funding etc…

Which are the most important issues and priorities for adult education in the coming years?

I see three basic questions: Financing adult education in the context of the financial crisis and cut-backs of public funding. Which role adult education will play how funding and structures will look like and what will happen next? This will have direct impact on the second topic I want to stress. It will be important to deal with the problem that parts of the population have no access to adult education and have nothing to do with it. We know the Matthew effect; those who have will be given. The problem of less qualified was also brought up in the EU 2020 strategy and will be on the agenda. We can not accept the situation without protest, this is one of the fundamental questions. The fear is that further cut-backs from structural funding have a negative impact on the work with these groups. The third challenge is the development of European education systems towards more flexibility. As an Austrian I know the difficulties that occur if one once decided for vocational training and later wants to enter the university system. It has become easier by now but is still extremely difficult. Breaking up these education impasses and allowing really everybody an access to education systems for further qualification is a basic challenge for educational systems in Europe.