Executive summary
Context

The Scottish Government introduced the Scottish Education Exchange Programme (SEEP) Test and Learn Project to support Scotland’s post-Brexit international education ambitions and address gaps left by the UK’s withdrawal from the Erasmus+ programme. This evaluation focuses on years one and two of the Test and Learn Project, which was designed to enable innovative and inclusive models of mobility and international collaboration, providing both staff and students, particularly widening participation groups, with opportunities for meaningful global engagement.

Purpose and scope of the evaluation

Blake Stevenson Ltd were commissioned by the Scottish Government to evaluate the process, design and implementation of the Test and Learn Project. The evaluation team were also tasked with gathering sector perspectives on the project’s strengths, challenges, and areas for improvement as well as producing insights and recommendations to inform future mobility policy and programme design. The evaluation drew on:

23 survey responses from institutions that delivered SEEP-funded projects;
interviews with staff at seven funded institutions (covering 11 projects) and two non-funded colleges;
a working group discussion with Colleges Scotland, Universities Scotland, and the British Council; and
an analysis of 54 applications and 52 end-of-grant reports from across the programme’s two funding cycles.

Key findings
Project design

The SEEP Test and Learn Project was widely regarded by participating institutions as accessible, flexible, and well-supported. The application and grant management processes were described as clear and user-friendly, with many respondents highlighting the responsiveness and helpfulness of Scottish Government staff. The programme was seen as well aligned with institutional priorities for internationalisation and mobility, enabling applicants to design projects that reflected their strategic aims.

Nevertheless, a few institutions, particularly colleges or those with limited experience in international funding, found aspects of the application process more challenging. These institutions sought additional clarity on eligibility rules, allowable expenditure, and required documentation.

The programme’s most frequently cited challenge was its compressed timeline, a result of the Scottish Government’s annual funding cycle. Institutions noted difficulties associated with short notice of funding calls, tight application deadlines, and limited delivery windows.

Additional design challenges included the administrative burden associated with gathering partner information. Monitoring and reporting requirements were generally seen as appropriate to the scale of funding.

Project delivery

Despite some of these constraints, SEEP funding delivered a wide range of activity across both Test and Learn Project cycles. In total:

56 projects were delivered by 29 institutions across Scotland’s colleges and universities;
over 100 students and more than 340 staff members in Scottish institutions participated in projects; and
across 63 countries, more than 380 staff and over 100 international partner organisations were engaged including universities, colleges, cultural institutions, community organisations, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

The breadth and diversity of SEEP-funded projects reflected institutions’ ability to tailor delivery models to their specific contexts. These included:

curriculum co-design and pedagogical exchange;
inclusive mobility;
strategic partnership building;
staff development and peer learning; and
civic and cultural engagement.

A number of projects embedded digital or hybrid elements, including pre-travel sessions, joint online collaboration platforms to extend the reach of projects and support student confidence, especially for first-time travellers.

Projects did face some delivery challenges, including logistical barriers to inward mobility such as visa delays (noting that visa policy is reserved to the UK Government) and limited availability of affordable accommodation in some locations. Additional challenges included staff capacity constraints for managing administration and travel logistics, as well as limited flexibility to respond to illness or unforeseen disruption. While many of these factors were external to SEEP, they nonetheless had a bearing on the scale and pace of delivery and are important contextual considerations for interpreting the evaluation findings.

Despite these issues, institutions consistently expressed appreciation for the programme’s design and intent. Many reported that SEEP’s flexibility had allowed them to pursue more innovative and ambitious approaches than would not have been possible under more prescriptive funding models. In particular, the programme was seen as supportive of capacity building, pilot initiatives, and institution-led experimentation, particularly for colleges and less internationally experienced teams.

Project impact

SEEP-funded projects delivered a broad range of positive outcomes for students, staff, and institutions. The programme strengthened institutional capacity for international engagement, built staff confidence, and widened student access to global experiences.

Student impact

Projects significantly benefited students, particularly those from widening participation backgrounds, by boosting confidence, cultural awareness, and transferable skills such as teamwork and communication. Hybrid and digital formats enhanced digital collaboration abilities. For many students, SEEP participation was a significant milestone in their learning.

Staff development

Staff benefited through professional development and international exposure. Many early-career lecturers had their first opportunity to lead international work, manage budgets, or co-design curricula with global partners. Staff returned with new ideas, teaching practices, and enhanced confidence. Online survey data collected as part of this evaluation showed 73% of institutions reported increased staff confidence and 66% said international themes were integrated into teaching.

Institutional benefits

SEEP helped institutions re-engage internationally post-Brexit and post-pandemic. For some, it marked their first substantial international activity. The project funding helped foster new cross-departmental relationships and peer learning, helping institutions become more agile and prepared for future international collaborations or funding bids. It also highlighted the need for more inclusive mobility structures—though progress was made, barriers such as visa costs and eligibility restrictions persisted for some learners. While these challenges fall outside the remit of SEEP, they emerged repeatedly across projects.

Learning and insights
Flexibility and support

SEEP Test and Learn Project was consistently recognised by participating institutions for its flexible and supportive design. SEEP was seen to offer greater adaptability to local priorities and the specific needs of staff and student populations, with some participants describing it as less rigid than their experience of Erasmus+ or Turing. Respondents appreciated the Scottish Government’s approach, highlighting the programme’s low-barrier entry, proportionate reporting, and responsiveness to institutional contexts. This flexibility was especially important for colleges and smaller institutions navigating the disruption caused by Brexit and the pandemic.

Scope for innovation

The flexibility of SEEP funding enabled experimentation and innovation. Many institutions used the opportunity to test alternative forms of mobility and collaboration, such as virtual exchanges, joint staff-student activities, interdisciplinary modules, and arts-based engagement. The ability to fund partner scoping visits and early-stage development activities allowed institutions to pilot new models that might not have been possible under traditional funding streams.

Widening participation and inclusive design

Widening access to international opportunities was a central feature. Projects targeted students typically excluded from traditional mobility schemes, such as English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) learners, care-experienced students, single parents, and those from rural or disadvantaged backgrounds. SEEP’s flexibility allowed for more inclusive project design such as shorter mobility trips or tailored wraparound support. However, participants also called for future programmes to broaden definitions further to include the “squeezed middle”, students who do not qualify under standard metrics but still face practical barriers.

Suggested improvements for future mobility programmes

Participants identified areas for improvement in future schemes:

timing and planning: short lead in times constrained project design and delivery, particularly when internal approvals or staff release were needed. Institutions requested earlier communication and longer delivery windows;
clarity on eligibility: while SEEP’s flexibility was praised, institutions reported ambiguity around eligible costs and activities. They recommended clearer guidance, annotated templates, and optional pre-application support; and
college-specific support: for some colleges aspects of the application felt more geared toward universities. Colleges requested more tailored guidance, examples, and peer-learning opportunities to improve readiness.

Sustainability and long-term impact

Institutions highlighted the role of the Test and Learn Project in generating internal momentum, enabling cultural shifts, and fostering cross-departmental collaboration. Some projects have informed wider institutional strategies or helped secure future funding. Examples include co-funding for follow-on work, enhanced international partnerships, and new staff networks. However, sustaining these gains requires continued support. Institutions flagged risks such as staff turnover, lack of core international funding, and short programme cycles.

Comparative reflections

SEEP was viewed as complementary to, and more enabling than, existing schemes. Compared to Turing, it supported a broader range of activities, particularly for staff development and partnership building. Many participants saw value in SEEP’s devolved design and alignment with Scottish sector values, likening it to the Welsh Taith programme.

SEEP’s distinctive Test and Learn Project approach created a safe and supported environment for innovation. It was particularly effective at enabling inward mobility, early-career staff engagement, and strategic relationship-building. The phased funding cycles allowed for iterative improvement, and the simplified reporting requirements made SEEP accessible to institutions with lower capacity or limited international experience. As a result, SEEP widened participation and supported institutions to build a more inclusive and confident international education offer. They suggested that any future mobility funding in Scotland should build on the strengths of SEEP: flexibility, inclusion, and proportionate administration.

Conclusions and recommendations

The SEEP Test and Learn Project made a timely and valuable contribution to advancing Scotland’s international education ambitions in the post-Brexit period. It enabled a broad mix of colleges and universities to explore new forms of international engagement, particularly in contexts where existing programmes such as Turing were considered too restrictive or inaccessible. The project successfully re-energised international activity across the sector and was particularly impactful in building confidence and capacity within colleges and less internationally experienced institutions.

Its design was key. Flexibility, alignment with institutional strategies, and light-touch management approach created supportive conditions for projects to be developed. Even with modest funding levels, SEEP proved effective at catalysing internal investment, embedding internationalisation in long-term planning, and enabling inclusive, locally shaped mobility.

However, the evaluation also surfaced practical challenges most notably around short application and delivery timelines, limitations on capacity, and issues with sustainability.

Importantly, the policy environment has evolved since the evaluation began. In March 2025, the Scottish Government published a position paper outlining its ambition to see Scotland rejoin Erasmus+ as part of any future UK-wide reassociation agreement, recognising that participation in Erasmus+ is a reserved matter. While the UK Government has indicated it is working toward potential reassociation, at time of publication this remains under discussion. In this changing landscape, a future version of Test and Learn Project could serve a complementary role by bridging gaps in provision, supporting early-stage engagement, and widening participation for learners and institutions not immediately served by Erasmus+.

Recommendations

Four key recommendations are proposed:

Recommendation 1: for any future mobility scheme, align programme design with academic cycles;
Recommendation 2: for any future mobility scheme, strengthen support and build capacity;
Recommendation 3: facilitate sector collaboration and shared learning; and
Recommendation 4: formalise engagement with strategic stakeholders to provide oversight and coherence to future developments.