Erasmus+ 2028–2034: Is Europe Investing Enough in the Future of Education?
Our Perspective on the €55 Billion Budget, Programme Restructuring, Accessibility and Measurable Educational Impact
TEA Insights & Perspectives | October 2026
Teachers Education Academy
Introduction: A Defining Moment for Erasmus+
The discussions surrounding Erasmus+ 2028–2034 are about much more than the future budget of one of the European Union's most successful programmes.
They raise fundamental questions about the future of European education, international learning mobility, institutional cooperation and the opportunities available to schools, teachers, students and educational organisations.
As an education and international projects company working with schools, educators and European partners, Teachers Education Academy (TEA) follows these developments with particular interest.
Our perspective is shaped by our work in teacher professional development, international training, Erasmus+ project development and cooperation between educational institutions.
We welcome the efforts to strengthen Erasmus+ financially and make it more accessible.
However, we believe the next programme should be evaluated not only by the amount of funding available, but also by how effectively that funding supports meaningful educational improvement.
In our view, a budget of around €55 billion would provide a stronger starting point for Erasmus+ 2028–2034, provided that resources are distributed fairly and used effectively.
But the budget is only one part of the discussion.
The future of existing mobility and cooperation actions, administrative simplification, inclusion, digital transformation and the measurement of educational outcomes are equally important.
This article presents our institutional perspective on these developments and the kind of Erasmus+ we would like to see in the coming years.
1. Where Do the Erasmus+ 2028–2034 Discussions Stand?
The European Commission, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament have approached the future programme from somewhat different perspectives.
The European Commission: A More Integrated Programme
In July 2025, the European Commission presented its proposal for Erasmus+ 2028–2034, with a financial envelope of approximately €40.8 billion.
The proposal introduces a revised programme structure built around two broad areas:
Learning Opportunities for All
Capacity Building Support
It also envisages bringing Erasmus+ and activities currently supported through the European Solidarity Corps into a more integrated framework.
We understand the intention behind this approach.
A more coherent structure could improve coordination and make the programme easier to navigate.
However, a simpler structure on paper does not necessarily mean easier access for schools and smaller organisations.
The practical implementation will be decisive.
The Council: Preserving What Already Works
In May 2026, the Council adopted a partial negotiating position that places importance on preserving successful elements of the existing programme and maintaining appropriate Member State involvement in programme governance.
From our perspective, this emphasis on continuity is important.
Erasmus+ has developed effective mechanisms for international learning and cooperation over many years.
Any restructuring should build on these strengths rather than create unnecessary uncertainty for beneficiaries.
The European Parliament: A Larger Budget and Greater Accessibility
On 29 September 2026, the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) adopted its position on Erasmus+ 2028–2034, with 24 votes in favour, one against and one abstention.
The Committee supports a budget of approximately €47.39 billion, alongside stronger accessibility, administrative simplification and performance monitoring.
We welcome this direction.
Nevertheless, the Committee's position is not the final Erasmus+ Regulation. The programme's budget, architecture and detailed rules remain subject to the European legislative and budgetary processes.
2. The Budget Debate: Why We Believe €55 Billion Deserves Consideration
The difference between the Commission's €40.8 billion proposal and the CULT Committee's €47.39 billion position is significant.
The Parliament committee's figure represents an increase of approximately 16.2% over the Commission's proposal.
However, the financial demands placed on Erasmus+ are also increasing.
International mobility has become more expensive in many destinations.
Accommodation, transport and living costs can substantially affect the affordability of training courses, job shadowing, study visits and student placements.
At the same time, Erasmus+ is expected to reach more people, support inclusion, respond to new educational priorities and strengthen international cooperation.
For these reasons, we believe a financial envelope of around €55 billion would be a reasonable level of ambition to examine seriously.
This would be approximately 34.8% above the Commission's proposal and 16.1% above the CULT Committee's position.
We are not suggesting that €55 billion is a scientifically established minimum or that it guarantees better outcomes.
A definitive financial assessment would require detailed modelling of participation, programme costs, inflation and future activities.
Rather, €55 billion reflects our view that the next Erasmus+ should be sufficiently ambitious to respond to growing needs without treating budget expansion as an objective in itself.
Our central concern is not simply how much money Erasmus+ receives, but how effectively it reaches educational institutions and supports lasting improvements.
3. How Would We Prioritise a €55 Billion Erasmus+ Budget?
We believe discussions about the overall budget should be accompanied by equally serious discussions about its distribution.
The following figures illustrate how we would prioritise resources within a hypothetical €55 billion programme.
They are our own indicative calculations, not official European Union allocations.
Our Preferred Overall Distribution
Programme Area | Share | Amount |
Education & Training | 80% | €44.00 billion |
Youth & Volunteering | 15% | €8.25 billion |
Sport | 4% | €2.20 billion |
Administration & Flexibility | 1% | €0.55 billion |
Total | 100% | €55.00 billion |
We would favour maintaining education and training as the central component of Erasmus+.
An indicative 80% allocation would demonstrate a strong commitment to learning mobility, educational cooperation, teacher development and institutional improvement.
Youth participation, volunteering and sport would remain important components of the programme.
We recognise, however, that administration and flexibility require adequate resources. The illustrative 1% allocation would need to be tested against actual programme management costs and the final legal framework.
Our Preferred Distribution Within Education & Training
If €44 billion were allocated to Education & Training, we would consider the following distribution:
Education Sector | Share | Amount |
Higher Education | 34% | €14.96 billion |
Vocational Education & Training | 25% | €11.00 billion |
School Education | 22% | €9.68 billion |
Adult Education | 8% | €3.52 billion |
Horizontal & Cross-sectoral Activities | 6% | €2.64 billion |
Jean Monnet Actions | 2% | €0.88 billion |
Flexibility Reserve | 3% | €1.32 billion |
Total | 100% | €44.00 billion |
These percentages refer to the Education & Training allocation, not the entire programme budget.
We would particularly welcome stronger financial recognition for school education and vocational education and training.
Why Schools Deserve Greater Attention
Schools are where many of the foundations of lifelong learning are established.
They play a critical role in digital literacy, inclusion, democratic participation, sustainability and the development of essential competences.
Teachers are expected to respond to increasingly complex educational needs while adapting to technological and social change.
International professional development and school cooperation can help institutions respond to these challenges.
Yet many schools, especially smaller institutions, face practical and financial barriers to participation.
A stronger school education budget could help expand access to mobility and cooperation opportunities.
Why VET Also Matters
Vocational education and training is equally important.
International placements, cooperation with industry and exposure to different training environments can contribute to professional competences and employability.
We believe the next Erasmus+ should provide sufficient resources for high-quality vocational mobility and cooperation.
At the same time, we recognise the importance of higher education, adult learning and cross-sectoral activities.
Our illustrative distribution is intended to highlight priorities, not to suggest that one sector's educational value is inherently greater than another's.
4. Will KA1 and KA2 Continue?
The Commission's proposed programme architecture has naturally raised questions about the future of existing Erasmus+ actions.
Will KA1 and KA2 disappear?
Will actions such as KA122, KA210 and KA220 continue under different names?
At present, there is no definitive answer.
The proposed structure suggests that current forms of mobility and cooperation may be reorganised under broader programme areas.
Our expectation is that many established activities will continue in some form because they address fundamental educational needs.
However, this remains an interpretation of the proposals rather than a confirmed outcome.
For us, the names of the actions are less important than the opportunities they provide.
Learning Mobility Must Remain Accessible
Teacher training, job shadowing, teaching assignments and student mobility are among the most valuable opportunities offered by Erasmus+.
They should remain accessible, understandable and relevant to institutional needs.
Small-Scale Partnerships Must Not Be Lost
Small-scale cooperation opportunities, currently represented by actions such as KA210, are particularly valuable for smaller organisations and newcomers.
If the programme is reorganised, we hope these accessible pathways will be preserved.
Larger Partnerships Should Continue to Support Innovation
Cooperation partnerships allow educational organisations to develop resources, exchange expertise and build sustainable international networks.
We believe these opportunities should remain an important part of the future programme.
A new programme structure should make participation easier, not reduce the diversity of institutions able to participate.
5. Simplification: Will Erasmus+ Actually Become Easier to Access?
Reducing bureaucracy is a welcome objective.
However, from our experience working with educational institutions, administrative complexity is not limited to the number of programme categories.
Applicants must understand eligibility conditions, develop convincing project proposals, prepare budgets, manage partnerships and comply with reporting requirements.
For smaller schools and organisations, these responsibilities can be challenging.
We would welcome simpler application processes, clearer guidance and reporting obligations proportionate to project size.
At the same time, simplification should not come at the expense of transparency or accountability.
Real simplification should be visible in the everyday experience of applicants and beneficiaries.
6. Inclusion: Equal Opportunities Require Realistic Funding
The Parliament committee's discussions include a stronger focus on participation by individuals with fewer opportunities.
We welcome this emphasis.
However, inclusion cannot be achieved through numerical targets alone.
The actual cost of international mobility can vary considerably between countries and destinations.
Travel, accommodation and living expenses may prevent participation even when an individual or institution is formally eligible.
We believe future Erasmus+ grants should reflect realistic participation costs and provide appropriate support where additional barriers exist.
Inclusion should also be assessed through the quality of participants' experiences and learning outcomes.
The objective should be meaningful participation, not simply higher participation statistics.
7. From Project Activities to Measurable Educational Change
One development that particularly interests us is the Parliament committee's proposed emphasis on performance indicators.
We welcome the principle of stronger evaluation.
However, we believe the discussion should go beyond counting participants, mobilities, events and project outputs.
From our experience in Erasmus+ project development and evaluation, meaningful project quality begins with a clear understanding of institutional needs.
We favour the following approach:
Problem → Evidence → Baseline → Objective → Activity → Learning Outcome → Indicator → Measurable Change → Institutional Impact
Consider a school planning international teacher training in digital pedagogy.
Participation in a course is an activity.
Receiving a certificate is an output.
Demonstrating improved professional competence is a learning outcome.
Applying new teaching approaches in classrooms represents a change in practice.
Sustaining those improvements through institutional processes is a further level of impact.
These distinctions matter.
A well-designed Erasmus+ project should establish a credible connection between the original educational need, the selected activities and the intended improvements.
However, we also believe evaluation requirements should remain proportionate.
More indicators do not automatically produce better evidence.
The goal should be meaningful educational improvement, supported by credible evidence, rather than additional reporting for its own sake.
8. Teacher Professional Development: Quality Matters More Than Attendance
Teacher professional development is central to our work at Teachers Education Academy.
We have seen how international learning environments can support professional exchange, introduce new educational approaches and encourage cooperation between educators from different countries.
However, participation alone does not guarantee improvement.
The quality of the learning experience matters.
We believe high-quality international professional development should include clear learning objectives, active participation, practical application, structured reflection and opportunities for transnational exchange.
Equally important is what happens after the mobility.
Schools should have opportunities to integrate new competences into teaching practices and institutional development.
This does not mean that every training course should create extensive additional reporting obligations.
Rather, professional development should be designed with practical relevance and realistic follow-up in mind.
The value of teacher mobility should be reflected in what teachers learn, what they apply and how their institutions benefit.
9. Artificial Intelligence and the Next Generation of Erasmus+
Artificial intelligence is already influencing educational planning, teaching, assessment and institutional management.
The 2028–2034 programme will operate during a period of continued technological change.
We believe Erasmus+ should support schools and teachers in responding responsibly to these developments.
Important areas include AI literacy, ethical technology use, digital pedagogy, inclusive learning, data protection and institutional readiness.
However, we do not believe digital transformation should be measured by the number of tools introduced into classrooms.
Technology should serve educational objectives.
Teacher competence, pedagogical quality and learner needs should remain central.
International cooperation can provide valuable opportunities to compare approaches, exchange experience and develop responsible educational practices.
10. International Cooperation and Participation Beyond the EU
The proposed programme also raises questions about participation by countries outside the European Union.
The concept of partial association may create additional opportunities for international cooperation, depending on the final arrangements.
We see potential value in broader educational partnerships.
However, eligibility, funding rules and responsibilities must remain clear.
International cooperation is most effective when institutions can plan confidently and understand the conditions under which they are working.
11. Sustainability: What Remains After Funding Ends?
One of the most important questions in any Erasmus+ project is what happens after the funded activities are completed.
Does the institution continue using the knowledge acquired?
Do teachers apply new approaches?
Are project resources maintained and shared?
Does international cooperation continue?
We believe sustainability should be considered from the beginning of project design.
It does not always require additional funding or new projects.
Sometimes sustainability means incorporating improved practices into regular institutional routines, maintaining professional networks or continuing peer learning.
A successful Erasmus+ project should create value that extends beyond its funding period.
12. What Concerns Us Most About the Future Programme?
While we welcome many of the emerging developments, several issues deserve careful attention.
Budget adequacy: Will the final financial envelope retain sufficient purchasing power over seven years?
Sectoral balance: Will schools, VET institutions and adult learning organisations receive resources that reflect their needs?
Accessibility: Will smaller organisations and newcomers find it easier to participate?
Programme restructuring: Will established mobility and partnership opportunities remain available?
Administrative burden: Will simplification reduce the actual workload of beneficiaries?
Educational quality: Will stronger performance monitoring encourage meaningful improvement without creating excessive bureaucracy?
Predictability: Will institutions receive timely and clear guidance during the transition to the new programme?
We consider these questions essential to understanding whether the next Erasmus+ will deliver on its ambitions.
13. The Erasmus+ We Would Like to See
Looking ahead to 2028–2034, our expectations are straightforward.
We would like to see an Erasmus+ programme that:
Has sufficient financial resources to support its expanding ambitions.
Maintains education and training as a central priority.
Gives stronger attention to schools, teachers and vocational education.
Preserves accessible mobility and cooperation opportunities.
Makes participation easier for smaller organisations and newcomers.
Provides realistic financial support for inclusion.
Supports high-quality professional development and international exchange.
Encourages meaningful evaluation of educational outcomes.
Helps institutions respond responsibly to AI and digital transformation.
Creates sustainable educational value beyond individual project activities.
These are not formal legislative recommendations. They reflect our experience, priorities and expectations as an organisation working in international education.
Conclusion: The Future of Erasmus+ Is About More Than Its Budget
The discussions surrounding Erasmus+ 2028–2034 represent an important opportunity to strengthen European educational cooperation.
We welcome the proposed increase in the programme's financial envelope and the growing attention to accessibility, inclusion and performance monitoring.
From our perspective, a budget of around €55 billion would represent a more ambitious and potentially more appropriate financial foundation for the next programme.
We would also favour a distribution that gives education and training a central role, with stronger financial recognition for school education and vocational education and training.
Nevertheless, the success of Erasmus+ cannot be measured by its budget alone.
The programme should continue to provide meaningful opportunities for schools, teachers, learners and educational organisations.
It should remain accessible to smaller institutions, support high-quality international learning and encourage sustainable educational improvement.
Above all, we believe that Erasmus+ should connect investment with results.
More funding should create more opportunities.
More opportunities should support better learning.
Better learning should contribute to measurable and sustainable educational change.
For Teachers Education Academy, this is the kind of Erasmus+ worth investing in.
Mehmet ALTAY
Founder & International Projects Director
Teachers Education Academy
TEA Insights & Perspectives | October 2026
Sources and Further Reading
European CommissionProposal for the Erasmus+ Programme 2028–2034, July 2025.https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-proposes-new-erasmus-beyond-2027
Council of the European UnionErasmus+: Council agrees position on the EU's flagship programme for education and training, youth and sport, 11 May 2026.https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/05/11/erasmusplus-council-agrees-position-on-the-eu-s-flagship-programme-for-education-and-training-youth-and-sport/
European ParliamentLegislative Observatory — Erasmus+ 2028–2034, Procedure 2025/0222(COD).https://oeil.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/en/procedure-file?reference=2025%2F0222%28COD%29
European University AssociationErasmus+: as MEPs outline proposals, member states must protect flagship programmes' budget in MFF negotiations, October 2026.https://eua.eu/news/eua-news/erasmus-as-meps-outline-proposals-member-states-must-protect-flagship-programmes-budget-in-mff-negotiations.html
Editorial note: This article reflects the independent views and professional experience of Teachers Education Academy. Budget figures and sectoral distributions attributed to TEA are illustrative perspectives, not official European Union decisions. The future Erasmus+ framework remains under negotiation.
Comments