ESEP Has Pressed Pause on External Courses. That Should Make Us All Pay Attention

Why Quality in Erasmus+ Staff Mobility Shouldn’t Be Optional

ESEP has paused external courses on its catalogue. That is not just a platform update. It is an overdue signal that quality, real professional growth, and structural change can no longer be treated as side concerns.

What Educators Should Learn from It

The European School Education Platform (ESEP) has paused external course listings from May 2026.. Here is why that matters for educators, schools, and the future of Erasmus+ KA1 staff mobility.

Let's unpack the reasoning behind this decision, what it tells us about quality in Erasmus+ staff mobility, and why participants, coordinators, and schools should respond with more care.

If ESEP can pause a catalogue, the sector has to pause and reckon with itself.

Why is ESEP doing this?

ESEP has been quite open about its reasoning.

The catalogue has grown massively over the years. What began as a focused Comenius-era resource became a much larger ecosystem, and with that growth came many growing challenges.

Quality control efforts were held back by legal and operational limits. Complaints from beneficiaries about poor course experiences grew and kept growing. The platform also became more exposed to cybersecurity pressure.

So this pause is not random, and it is not for cosmetic purposes.

It is a response to a REAL problem: too many listings, not enough meaningful quality control, and too many participants who have been left disappointed with what they had signed up for. That’s simply not right!

ESEP has also said the pause is meant to create space for reflection. The platform has decided not just to test a different approach to the catalogue, but to examine how beneficiaries can identify serious, high-quality courses outside the platform, particularly as the next Erasmus+ programme for 2028-2034 begins to take shape.

This is not just about visibility on a platform

What is happening here should not be reduced to whether a course appears in one catalogue or another.

The real question is much simpler: what kind of professional development are we willing to defend?

Because if we are to be honest here, this decision surely did not arrive out of nowhere. It came from years and years of mixed practices and gathered feedback.
Some providers do treat their work seriously, with structure, depth, and real learning outcomes. Others treated the system as something to fill, sign, and pass through as quickly as possible. That difference is not small!

And now ESEP is forcing everyone to look at it more directly.

We will not be part of a mobility signing documents factory

This is where our position becomes very clear.

We do not want to be part of a system where the goal is simply to travel to a destination, sign documents, “host” participants, and let the week pass like a holiday with paperwork attached. “Yay, everyone’s happy, right?” No! We are against that, completely.

And yes, there have been cases where participants themselves expected exactly that when coming to the courses we provide. We have encountered this more than once. We refused, and we would refuse again. They leave unhappy and angry.
And yes, sometimes it does affect the learning environment, but we refuse to let this situation prevail. We call these participants “vacationeers”.

As clearly always stated before any participant enrolls in our courses, the steps that every course provider should take are to sign contracts and have agreements in place at the moment of enrollment.
We don't back down just because participants decided they don't want to be present in the learning mobility and that the papers are enough, as they say: "You've already been paid, so don't worry. You just have to sign for us, and we'll be out of your way." This isn't okay.

Of course, that does not always make things easy.

We know many people arrive exhausted. We know the pressure they are under. We know that sometimes the temptation is to treat mobility as an escape rather than as a real professional commitment. Honestly, we understand where that feeling comes from. People are overworked, stressed, and pulled in too many directions. But even with all of that being true, the point of these programmes cannot be emptied out.

There is still a responsibility attached to them. There is still an agreement behind them. There is still a purpose.

If mobility becomes only about attendance, signatures, and getting through the week, then something essential is lost, right?

Why these opportunities are supposed to matter

When the Erasmus+ programme works properly, it does much more than move people from one country to another for a few days.

It gives participants space to step out of their routine, reflect on their own practice, encounter different methods, test new ideas, exchange perspectives, and return home with something concrete. Not just inspiration in the abstract, but tools, strategies, approaches, and renewed confidence that can actually be used back in their own learning environments. That is the part worth protecting.

Because the value of these courses is not in the flight, the certificate, or the photos from the week. The value is in what remains afterwards: what changes in practice, what gets introduced back home, what gets shared with colleagues, and what eventually reaches students through better teaching, sharper planning, and a stronger professional mindset.

This is why quality matters so much.

And this is why ESEP taking this step should be understood for what it is. Not a punishment. Not a formality. A warning sign that standards have to mean something.

This moment asks for more honesty from everyone

The pause on external courses creates inconvenience for us too, yes. It also creates uncertainty. But we believe it also creates something useful: a reason to stop pretending that every listed course is automatically a good one, or that visibility on a European platform is the same as credibility. It is not.

A listing was never a guarantee of depth. It was never a guarantee of seriousness. It was never a guarantee that participants would be challenged, supported, and genuinely developed. That is why this moment calls for more careful choices from everyone involved.

What it means for participants and coordinators

It means looking beyond the catalogue entry and asking harder questions: Who is behind the course?
What do they actually do day to day?
What is their approach?
What do past participants say about them?
Is the work visible?
Is the trainer's profile clear, and do they have experience in the topic?
Is there evidence of consistency, not just marketing?

These questions matter more than ever now.

What trust should be built on

Trust should never rest on a platform listing alone.

It should be built on visible work, clear values, real delivery, and a track record that people can actually verify.
Trustpilot reviews matter. (Here are ours) ;)
Facebook reviews matter.
Google reviews matter.
The quality of a provider's own pages and website matters.
Trainer profiles matter.
The way a course is communicated matters.

The seriousness behind the whole structure and communication matters.

All of that tells a much fuller story than any listing ever could.

And for participants who genuinely care about their professional growth, that story is not hard to recognise. Serious participants usually know the difference once they start looking closely. They are not looking for a week to pass. They are looking for something they can carry back with them and actually use.

That should remain as the standard practice.

So where does this leave us?

For now, ESEP has paused external course publishing while it reassesses what quality support should look like in this space. More updates will come, especially as the next Erasmus+ cycle for 2028-2034 becomes clearer.

But one thing feels obvious.

If this pause pushes the sector away from surface-level participation and closer to real, accountable, meaningful professional development, then it may be uncomfortable for many, but it is necessary.