Grundtvig Action gave adult education a place
In a series of blogs, EPALE ambassador Jumbo Klercq takes us through the history of how adult education eventually ended up in Erasmus+. In this fourth blog, we zoom in on the possibilities of the Grundtvig Action, a programme that originated under Socrates II and ended in 2013 with the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP).
Although Erasmus+ took over in 2014, it is important to reflect on what Grundtvig meant. The Action not only gave adult education a full place within the European education spectrum, but also provided space for growth, innovation and cross-border cooperation.
Adult education as a full-fledged pillar
With Grundtvig, adult education was given the same status as secondary or higher education within the LLP. It was aimed at adult learners, teaching staff and support staff. In addition, the LLP explicitly drew attention to the educational challenge of an ageing population. The Action was intended to contribute to a modern knowledge society with more jobs, social cohesion and economic growth. Opinions differ on whether all this was achieved, but I have no doubt that Grundtvig was of great importance for adult education.
A rich structure with diverse possibilities
Grundtvig offered a wide range of possibilities: from personal mobility to network and innovation projects. The Actions were divided into four categories:
1. Mobility of individuals
Adult teachers could offer international further education by applying for an individual grant from their National Agency to participate in an in-service training, seminar or internship abroad. A unique opportunity in a sector where professional development was still scarce at the time. Between 2008 and 2013, I organised more than ten European seminars on setting up education for older people, together with colleagues from Cyprus and England. In total, no fewer than 26,000 mobilities were realised under Grundtvig. Participants rated the experience highly (79%), indicating that it benefited not only their own development but also that of their organisation as a whole (70%). In addition, they usually received a certificate afterwards (72%).
2. Learning partnerships
Organisations could apply to the National Agency for a learning partnership with partners from at least three countries. The topics ranged from basic skills to inclusion, and the mutual visits provided new insights, cultural exchange and the breaking down of stereotypes. The partners were mostly institutions working with a similar target group or the same theme. People usually looked for partners in countries they did not know so well or where they thought they would find new inspiration. For the employees of the participating organisations, it was often their first international experience. As many as 91% indicated that the project had improved the European vision of individuals and institutions. Between 2000 and 2013, some 3,000 of these partnerships were established – an impressive number. Of the applicant organisations, 83% indicated that the project would not have taken place without Grundtvig. More than 56% worked with a partner for the first time, and totally 92% mentioned a sustainable collaboration. However, there was also a downside: smaller or commercial institutions in particular were often left on the sidelines because staff costs were not reimbursed.
3. Multilateral projects
These projects were more substantive and focused on product development and innovation. The partnership had to include institutions from more than three European countries and had to be applied for at the Executive Agency (EACEA) in Brussels. Many themes were eligible: active citizenship, language learning, intercultural dialogue, European history, integration, basic skills, cross-generational learning, later learning, digital skills, gender issues and prison education. In addition, there were many projects for specific target groups, such as migrants and people with disabilities. Projects in line with a theme of the European Year were considered particularly relevant. In 2007 this was Equal Opportunities for All, in 2008 Intercultural Dialogue, in 2009 Creativity and Innovation, in 2010 Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, in 2011 Volunteering, in 2012 Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations, and in 2013 Citizens. I myself was a partner in the Pretty Ageing project (2012-2015), which improved existing models for education for the elderly. In total, more than 600 of these projects were funded. They did provide a budget for personnel costs, which increased interest – but also competition. Despite the relatively small number, they were very successful: the vast majority of the outcomes proved to be usable in practice (83%), even after the end of the project (75%).
4. Networks
Finally, Grundtvig hosted European networks, originally intended to improve and disseminate relevant good practices and improve quality. Only established organisations with extensive international experience could qualify for this – after all, you had to work with partners from at least ten countries. These applications were also processed via the executive agency. I myself led PEFETE (2003-2006), a network for education for the elderly with partners from sixteen countries. This led to publications, knowledge sharing and increased attention for education for the elderly, especially in Eastern Europe. At the same time, other networks were active, such as NILE for intercultural learning, DARE for human rights education, IntALWine for the Week of Learning and PAN European for artistic education in prisons. However, much of the knowledge gathered in the networks disappeared because, contrary to expectations, follow-up requests were not honoured. From 2007 onwards, the networks became more project-based: within the project period, certain products had to be delivered, such as a database of best practices. In total, approximately 44 networks were active.
Dissemination as a permanent focus
A strong point of Grundtvig was the focus on the dissemination of results. Projects had to focus on visibility from the start – within their own organisation, the region, the sector and ideally also at European level. The European Commission and the National Agencies supported these efforts with publications, compendia and thematic publications, such as the 2006 brochure on Grundtvig Success Stories.
A legacy with lessons for the future
At Grundtvig, everything was possible, space was created that did justice to the multi-coloured palette of adult education in Europe. It was important that the Action made institutions think about their internationalisation policy and that education staff looked beyond their borders. Positive results were achieved in various areas. The specific focus on the ageing population resulted in an impetus for projects that contributed to a more positive image of older people and growing older and resulted in the development of age-conscious personnel policy and sustainable employability. Were there only successes? No, there were also missed opportunities and too many project results that were subsequently left on the shelf. Moreover, the Action ignored the major differences in the preconditions under which adult education was established in different countries. The sector was not professionalised everywhere, in many countries the work mainly revolved around volunteers. This could have been addressed by paying more attention to it. Erasmus+ has taken over many elements from the LLP and integrated them into a broader structure, but it is good to reflect on what we lost with Grundtvig. The accessibility for individuals, the emphasis on personal growth and the recognition of the importance of small-scale cooperation were a strength that is sometimes missed today. The mobility projects have been redesigned, as have the partnership projects. Individual mobility and networking have unfortunately disappeared as separate lines of Action. The target group description has also been adjusted and there is more focus on impact. Although Erasmus+ has become a powerful successor, the focus is now strongly on larger and often more complex projects. As a result, the small-scale, low-threshold cooperation – in which Grundtvig excelled – is in danger of being snowed under. That’s a shame, because it is precisely on this small scale that the power lies to reach new people, connect pioneers and stimulate innovation from the bottom up. The future of adult education in Europe requires programmes that are not only efficient and results-oriented, but also offer space for encounter, exploration and experimentation. The Grundtvig Action was not just a funding instrument, it was a movement that made adult education visible and meaningful in Europe. Let us keep the spirit of Grundtvig alive by continuing to advocate for programmes that are based on trust in people and their learning potential – regardless of age, background or level of education.
The statistics in this blog come from the Grundtvig Tenth Anniversary Conference 2010 – facts, figures and examples. The reflection on the Grundtvig Action was partly created via the Grundtvig Review Workshop Würzburg 2021.
Previous blogs in this series:
