Interim Evaluation of the Lifelong Learning Programme
Puukko, Mika; Roisko, Hilkka; Sallinen, Sini (2010)
Puukko, Mika
Roisko, Hilkka
Sallinen, Sini
opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö
2010
Julkaisusarja:
Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2010:16This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-485-947-9Tiivistelmä
This report is the outcome of the interim evaluation of the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) in Finland. It covers the whole Lifelong Learning Programme, with all its sectoral sub-programmes and decentralized actions, over the period 2007–2009. The report complies with the Commission’s Guidelines for the National reports on the LLP implementation 2007–2009 (LLP-047-2009, LLP/038/JOINT/2009). It fulfils the requirements set by the Commission to all EU member states to submit a national report on the implementation of the aforementioned programme. The major objectives of the interim evaluation were:
- to analyse results of the LLP achieved hitherto and to identify lessons learned and good practices;
- to give recommendations for improving the execution of the current programme in the remaining stage of its implementation and
- to give input for the preparation of the future programme in the field of lifelong learning.
This report focuses on the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the implementation of the LLP in Finland and meets the evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency.
This interim evaluation was directed by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, and the actual evaluation research was conducted at the Research Centre for Vocational Education at the University of Tampere. The steering group included representatives from the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Finnish National Agency for LLP (Centre for International Mobility CIMO).
Overall, the evaluation of the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of such a large programme as LLP with all its sub-programmes and actions is a challenging but certainly an essential task. An evaluation survey comprising of a total of nine (9) separate questionnaires for different sub-programmes, target groups and actions was the main tool for gathering data. Also, interviews with the national authorities as well as consultative discussions with the LLP staff of the National Agency CIMO were used for collecting knowledge about the LLP implementation. In the end an extensive amount of versatile data was reached. The different data gathering methods provided both qualitative and quantitative information for the assessment of the LLP and its sub-programmes.
On the whole, the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of the LLP implementation in Finland seem to be on a good level. The Finnish actors were effective in reaching the target groups of their sub-programmes. Related to this, it seemed that the sub-programmes are well-known among their potentially beneficiaries in Finland.
In general the goals set nationally and by the Commission to the LLP and its sub-programmes were achieved in a good level. Therefore, LLP promoted both the national policy goals as well as the EU goals. In addition, the national authorities, as well as the staff of the National agency, regarded the LLP objectives to be well in line with the national policy priorities and lifelong learning strategies. One major achievement has been the increased national and international cooperation and networking between the various project actors and colleagues and overall internationalization of the Finnish educational establishments. It can be said that LLP has increased European identity among the participants.
In spite of the numerous successes in LLP there were also obstacles and weaknesses in its implementation. The increased administrative burden and bureaucracy issues were obstacles that were repeatedly pointed out by the project coordinators. The management workload was regarded to be rather big throughout the LLP field. There were also concerns about the lack of effective dissemination activities and impact of the LLP results. The results seem to have rarely been utilized outside the organization that has implemented the project. Therefore, dissemination of the projects’ results remains one of the biggest challenges in the future.
The cooperation between the National Agency CIMO and LLP target groups/beneficiaries seemed to function extremely well. In administrating the LLP, CIMO was mentioned throughout every sub-programme to be professionally highly competent. That is significant when implementing and promoting the LLP programmes in Finland both currently and in the future.
The LLP is very important in respect to the other programmes available in Finland, especially when keeping internationalization and mobility in mind. LLP is the most prominent programme here and the other national and international programmes related to education more or less complement it. The integration of the previous programmes into one LLP seems to be a positive step and one of the main strengths of the whole LLP, as one LLP has more prestige in policy level than the previous set-up had.
Finally, it clearly became evident that there should be continuity to LLP for the programme period starting in 2013. The programme integration has removed artificial administrative borders and standardised practices in a positive way, even though much remains to be done. However, the overall funding should be increased to meet the high demand and be more balanced across the LLP and its various target groups. Concerning the sub-programme brand names, the recommendation is that they remain as they now are. They seem to be well-known and have a good reputation throughout the education field in Finland. The main development suggestions for the post 2013 period are collected below:
- Stability at program level, progress in integration
- Increased synergy between the sub-programmes
- Increase of funding and making it more balanced across LLP
- Cutting down of administrative work
- Development of LLPlink
- Increase of project effectiveness and result dissemination and impact
- Development of certificates
- Better synergy between centralized and decentralized. actions
- More flexible mobility durations and increase of virtual mobility
- to analyse results of the LLP achieved hitherto and to identify lessons learned and good practices;
- to give recommendations for improving the execution of the current programme in the remaining stage of its implementation and
- to give input for the preparation of the future programme in the field of lifelong learning.
This report focuses on the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the implementation of the LLP in Finland and meets the evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency.
This interim evaluation was directed by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, and the actual evaluation research was conducted at the Research Centre for Vocational Education at the University of Tampere. The steering group included representatives from the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Finnish National Agency for LLP (Centre for International Mobility CIMO).
Overall, the evaluation of the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of such a large programme as LLP with all its sub-programmes and actions is a challenging but certainly an essential task. An evaluation survey comprising of a total of nine (9) separate questionnaires for different sub-programmes, target groups and actions was the main tool for gathering data. Also, interviews with the national authorities as well as consultative discussions with the LLP staff of the National Agency CIMO were used for collecting knowledge about the LLP implementation. In the end an extensive amount of versatile data was reached. The different data gathering methods provided both qualitative and quantitative information for the assessment of the LLP and its sub-programmes.
On the whole, the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of the LLP implementation in Finland seem to be on a good level. The Finnish actors were effective in reaching the target groups of their sub-programmes. Related to this, it seemed that the sub-programmes are well-known among their potentially beneficiaries in Finland.
In general the goals set nationally and by the Commission to the LLP and its sub-programmes were achieved in a good level. Therefore, LLP promoted both the national policy goals as well as the EU goals. In addition, the national authorities, as well as the staff of the National agency, regarded the LLP objectives to be well in line with the national policy priorities and lifelong learning strategies. One major achievement has been the increased national and international cooperation and networking between the various project actors and colleagues and overall internationalization of the Finnish educational establishments. It can be said that LLP has increased European identity among the participants.
In spite of the numerous successes in LLP there were also obstacles and weaknesses in its implementation. The increased administrative burden and bureaucracy issues were obstacles that were repeatedly pointed out by the project coordinators. The management workload was regarded to be rather big throughout the LLP field. There were also concerns about the lack of effective dissemination activities and impact of the LLP results. The results seem to have rarely been utilized outside the organization that has implemented the project. Therefore, dissemination of the projects’ results remains one of the biggest challenges in the future.
The cooperation between the National Agency CIMO and LLP target groups/beneficiaries seemed to function extremely well. In administrating the LLP, CIMO was mentioned throughout every sub-programme to be professionally highly competent. That is significant when implementing and promoting the LLP programmes in Finland both currently and in the future.
The LLP is very important in respect to the other programmes available in Finland, especially when keeping internationalization and mobility in mind. LLP is the most prominent programme here and the other national and international programmes related to education more or less complement it. The integration of the previous programmes into one LLP seems to be a positive step and one of the main strengths of the whole LLP, as one LLP has more prestige in policy level than the previous set-up had.
Finally, it clearly became evident that there should be continuity to LLP for the programme period starting in 2013. The programme integration has removed artificial administrative borders and standardised practices in a positive way, even though much remains to be done. However, the overall funding should be increased to meet the high demand and be more balanced across the LLP and its various target groups. Concerning the sub-programme brand names, the recommendation is that they remain as they now are. They seem to be well-known and have a good reputation throughout the education field in Finland. The main development suggestions for the post 2013 period are collected below:
- Stability at program level, progress in integration
- Increased synergy between the sub-programmes
- Increase of funding and making it more balanced across LLP
- Cutting down of administrative work
- Development of LLPlink
- Increase of project effectiveness and result dissemination and impact
- Development of certificates
- Better synergy between centralized and decentralized. actions
- More flexible mobility durations and increase of virtual mobility