Scottish Education Exchange Programme (SEEP) Test and Learn Project Evaluation

Learning and insights

This chapter draws together the strategic lessons emerging from the SEEP Test and Learn Project. While the previous chapter outlined delivery models and outcomes, this section focuses on what made SEEP effective as a funding model, what challenges limited its potential, and what institutions believe could strengthen its future iterations. It also highlights insights on widening participation and long-term sustainability, offering guidance for future policy design and programme development.

Effective design

Flexibility and support

Across institutions, SEEP was widely praised for its flexible design and the supportive approach taken by the Scottish Government team. SEEP was described as responsive and enabling, allowing institutions to shape projects around local needs, strategic ambitions, and available capacity. This was particularly valued in the context of staff and students who were new to international activity or returning after a period of disruption. As one college explained in their end of year report, “SEEP let us shape the programme around our learners’ lives, not the other way round.”

Institutions reported that SEEP’s low-barrier entry and proportionate monitoring helped build confidence among delivery teams. Smaller or newer participants were able to pilot international activities and develop internal relationships without the pressure of large-scale compliance.

Scope for innovation

Institutions found that SEEP aligned well with their own international strategies, especially where they were seeking to rebuild or reframe global engagement post-Brexit.

Many projects used SEEP to explore new formats or models of international collaboration, such as hybrid delivery, civic engagement, or interdisciplinary curriculum development. This innovation was often driven by the programme’s flexibility in what could be funded which included scoping visits, partner exchanges, and early-stage partnership development.

Several colleges and universities noted that SEEP allowed them to try approaches that would not have been possible under traditional schemes. For example, projects incorporated arts-based methods, virtual learning components, and joint staff-student activities, often for the first time. This experimentation was seen as an important test bed for future scale-up.

Widening participation

SEEP offered institutions the opportunity to test new approaches to widening participation (WP) in international mobility.

Institutions showed a strong commitment to supporting students who might otherwise not have had the opportunity to participate in international mobility. Projects targeted a range of groups including care-experienced learners, ESOL students, adult returners, and students from rural areas. However, there was also a call to broaden the definition of widening participation to include the “squeezed middle”, students who are not officially classified as disadvantaged but who still face significant barriers to international opportunities. This was articulated by one university interviewee, who reflected that: “we’re having to prioritise students with certain backgrounds – but what about those in the middle? They’re losing out, and that’s not right” (Interviewee, university).

Other institutions noted that strict interpretations of eligibility for schemes such as Turing sometimes excluded students with complex lives, such as carers or those in precarious work. In contrast, SEEP was praised for enabling more local definitions of disadvantage to be applied.

Inclusive programme design

Many projects took care to design inclusive models that could accommodate diverse needs. For example, one project worked closely with a single parent to design a mobility model that included childcare arrangements. Another institution’s project also enabled ESOL students to participate in international mobility for the first time, a group often excluded due to language or confidence barriers. These efforts went beyond simple participation and also included wraparound support such as pre-travel workshops, budgeting sessions, and tailored mentoring. Several institutions emphasised that this support made a significant difference in student engagement and success.

Institutions reported that SEEP’s flexibility, including shorter trips, preparatory visits, and the ability to fund staff support enabled this inclusive approach. “Our SEEP project was the first time we could say yes to students who usually get left out” (Survey respondent, university).

Suggestions for future mobility programmes

To further enhance and widen participation, institutions suggested that future mobility programmes should:

• explicitly allow for broader definitions of disadvantage to capture socio-economic status not captured by standard metrics;
• continue to support shorter or more flexible models of mobility, which work better for students with jobs, families, or other commitments; and
• offer guidance or case studies to help applicants design inclusive projects and justify widening participation criteria relevant to their local context.

Improvements to consider in future mobility programmes

Timing and advance notice of funding rounds

One of the most consistent reflections from both survey respondents and interviewees was the challenge of short timelines between the funding announcement, application deadlines, and project delivery. As mentioned in Chapter 3, institutions described difficulties aligning SEEP projects with academic calendars, securing internal approvals, and engaging partners within compressed timeframes.

This timing constraint limited participation in some cases and made projects scale down ambitions or exclude certain elements (such as summer mobility or inward visits). This particularly affected institutions trying to secure bookings, staff release, or internal approvals. “We had confirmation in January, and we were delivering in March — that created quite a challenge” (Interviewee, university). Institutions emphasised that even modest improvements, such as earlier communication about likely themes and eligibility or multi-year planning windows, could substantially increase impact and engagement. “If we had known the themes a few weeks earlier, we could have planned a lot more internally” (Interviewee, college).

Clarity on eligibility and expenditure

While SEEP’s flexibility was widely welcomed, several institutions reported that this came with occasional ambiguity around what could or could not be funded.

Some institutions were also unclear about eligible costs (especially partner costs, hybrid delivery tools, and staff time) and this led to cautious budgeting and potentially missed opportunities.

Survey feedback suggested that clearer documentation with examples of funded activities, enhanced frequently asked questions (FAQs), or annotated applications would help reduce uncertainty and improve confidence. Institutions also recommended optional pre-application sessions to help teams explore ideas and confirm eligibility early. One interviewee suggested, “even one short call at the start would have made us feel more confident we were on the right track” (Interviewee, college).

Aligning delivery windows with academic calendars

Participants highlighted that more flexibility in delivery timelines, ideally aligned to the academic year, would help embed projects more fully into institutional cycles and provide opportunities during optimal periods such as summer or reading weeks.

Longer delivery windows would also allow for better partner engagement, meaningful co-design, and contingency planning. Several projects had to compress activities or delay them into the following cycle due to timing issues, reducing their overall effectiveness.

Tailoring language and support for the college sector

A few colleges noted that while the SEEP programme was designed to be inclusive of both HE and FE, aspects of the application process felt more aligned to university contexts. Adjusting the language within the application form so it resonated more with applicants from the FE sector was suggested along with additional guidance or co-produced examples from the college sector, both of which would help improve confidence and clarity. “Examples of successful applications or just a short case study would have helped us shape our bid” (Interviewee, college). Some colleges also expressed interest in more peer-to-peer learning opportunities to build sector readiness and support first-time applicants.

Reflections on sustainability and long-term impact potential

A recurring reflection from institutions was the potential for SEEP-funded activity to act as a springboard for longer-term change. While project-level outcomes were often modest in scale, many institutions indicated that the funding had planted the seeds for future growth, embedded learning, and more strategic international engagement.

Embedding learning and practice

Several institutions reported that SEEP activity had contributed to cultural shifts within their organisations.

Staff-led dissemination activities, such as internal presentations, curriculum redesign, or peer mentoring, helped sustain momentum and ensure that benefits extended beyond the immediate project teams. One university explained that the learning from SEEP had been captured in internal reports and strategic updates, informing the development of a longer-term internationalisation plan.

Pathways to ongoing engagement and additional funding

For several institutions, SEEP acted as a proof-of-concept for approaches they hoped to scale. Survey respondents described SEEP as providing a low-risk opportunity to test new ideas and laying the groundwork for longer-term partnerships. One college interviewee described SEEP as enabling them to “take a first step” in international engagement and build confidence for future development.

There was also evidence that SEEP helped participants secure internal backing for future activity. Several institutions reported that their SEEP-funded projects served as a strategic foundation for future bids and leveraged additional funding from other sources. While some bids were still in development at the time of reporting, the early evidence suggests SEEP acted as a catalyst for both institutional investment and external funding applications:

• internal institutional co-funding: some institutions reported that SEEP funding made the case for internal matching or co-investment, particularly for staff time, digital tools, or curriculum development;”
• external bids and partnerships: SEEP-supported collaborations helped lay the groundwork for future bids to Horizon Europe, British Council funding calls, and other international partnership programmes. For example, one university is developing a joint research initiative with partners in India and Malaysia on inclusive education and sustainability. Similarly, another is progressing discussions with its Zambian partner on joint public health research and capacity-building, with a view to submitting a bid under UK and international development streams;
• strengthening international partner capacity: one institution reported that SEEP activity supported their Indian partner in securing formal recognition from their education authority, enabling future co-funded exchange activity;
• strategic positioning for longer-term investment: several colleges indicated that SEEP provided a valuable foundation for developing their international activity, helping them take initial steps towards longer-term partnerships and explore new opportunities for collaboration. While concrete income streams had not yet materialised, institutions felt the programme positioned them to engage more confidently in future international work.

Challenges to long-term sustainability

Some colleges noted that sustaining relationships with international partners required ongoing investment. “To properly develop these relationships, we need to go back — we need to invite them here — you can’t just do a one-off” (Interviewee, college).

Institutions faced barriers to sustaining SEEP-project type activities which included:

• staff turnover and time constraints: the loss of project champions due to staffing changes was cited as a risk to continuity;
• lack of core funding for international work: without designated budgets or staff roles, follow-on activity often relied on goodwill and spare capacity; and
• short-term nature of the programme: the absence of a multi-year funding made it difficult to plan strategic partnerships or long-term impact evaluations.

Institutions requested that future funding models consider tapered or multi-year support, particularly for partnerships in development.

Comparative insights with other mobility schemes

As described earlier in the chapter, institutions called for some improvements around guidance clarity, eligibility criteria, and better alignment with institutional academic calendars. They also noted that any future mobility programmes could be strengthened by extending funding duration, increasing support for low-capacity institutions, and more intentionally targeting areas where Turing falls short.

However, SEEP was widely viewed as filling important gaps left by the withdrawal from Erasmus+ and the limitations of the Turing Scheme. Compared to Erasmus+, it was considered more flexible and less bureaucratic. Compared to Turing, it enabled funding for a broader range of activity types, particularly for staff mobility, inward mobility, scoping visits, and strategic partnership development. Several institutions also pointed out SEEP’s similarity to the Welsh Taith programme. Taith was recognised as having stronger visibility and greater funding but was seen as aligned with SEEP in terms of its values and devolved governance model. They viewed SEEP as a devolved programme that reflected Scottish values and sector priorities and its flexibility, focus on inclusion, and alignment with institutional strategies gave it a legitimacy that was sometimes lacking in UK-wide schemes.

A comparison of the different mobility schemes is presented in Table 1.

* HEI students at least 4 weeks; FE at least 2 weeks; school placements 3 days.

** Youth 5-30 days; HEI students 2-12 months (work placement) or 3 months (study placement).

*** 2 days to 2 months.

Distinctiveness and added value of SEEP Test and Learn

The SEEP Test and Learn Project design was viewed as distinctive in its ability to fund inward mobility, early-career staff participation, and relationship-building projects. This contrasted with the student-only focus of Turing and the structure of Erasmus+. The capacity to build staff leadership and embed mobility into broader partnership goals was repeatedly cited as a key benefit, particularly by colleges. Several projects used SEEP to initiate or revive strategic collaborations, and they highlighted that the partnership-building function was not as easily accommodated within Erasmus+ or Turing.

The model also allowed for iterative improvements and flexibility across funding cycles. Institutions noted that the second round reflected lessons from the first, with adjusted timelines and improved communication. Several survey respondents described SEEP as a “safe space” to pilot new approaches, especially in a post-Brexit context where international collaboration had become more complex.

The accessibility and proportionality of SEEP’s application and reporting processes enabled colleges and newer participants to build confidence in international work without the pressure of large-scale funding compliance. Unlike schemes that require extensive pre-existing infrastructure or complex financial systems, SEEP’s manageable reporting expectations made it possible for institutions with limited experience or capacity to participate. This was particularly important for smaller colleges or teams that had not participated in Erasmus+ or Turing due to the perceived administrative burden or competition for funding.