Erasmus+ for all – including for parents?

Erasmus+ is built on an ambitious promise: mobility should be accessible to all students. Caring responsibilities are explicitly recognised as a barrier to mobility, and the programme encourages participating countries and institutions to address this. Yet much remains unknown about how parenting students are actually understood within Erasmus+ policy and how they are supported by those responsible for turning this policy into reality.

As someone who has worked with Erasmus+ for nearly 20 years – at institutional level, within a National Agency and at the European Commission – these questions have followed me throughout my career. It also became the starting point for my current PhD research project at Tilburg University, for which I was honoured to receive the 2025 EAIE Doctoral Research Grant. In this blog post, I share early insights from that project, focusing on how parenting students are perceived and supported in Nordic higher education and what this might mean for Erasmus+ practitioners across Europe.

Why focus on parenting students in the Nordic context?

The Nordic context – which in my project encompasses Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway and Sweden – offers a particularly relevant perspective because these countries have some of the highest proportions of students with children in Europe. 36% of all higher education students in Iceland have at least on child and more than 21% in Norway and Finland, compared with a European average of around 12% according to data. For Erasmus+ mobility to be truly inclusive in the Nordic context, it is therefore essential that the needs of student parents are properly considered.

As part of my doctoral research, I explore how parenting students are understood and accounted for in mobility strategies and everyday practice. This includes semi‑structured interviews that I conducted with 20 international relations officers across the five Nordic countries, coming from a balanced mix of institutions in terms of type (universities and universities of applied sciences), size and location (capital and regional). Using thematic analysis, I examined how interviewees talked about parenting students, mobility opportunities, selection practices and support structures.

Positive attitudes but limited data

One clear finding is that parenting students are generally viewed positively. This was especially true in universities of applied sciences, where student parents are more common. Across countries, interviewees described parenting students as motivated, well‑prepared and highly committed. Several coordinators commented that parenting students often "want it more than the regular student" and tend to be particularly organised when they do apply for mobility. This positive stance is reflected in the fact that all Nordic countries have decided that parenting students should be eligible for higher Erasmus+ grants, recognising parenting as a factor that can increase the cost and complexity of mobility.

At the same time, there is a striking lack of reliable data and most of our interviewees struggled to say how many students with children actually participate in Erasmus+ mobility. Many coordinators could recall only one or two cases from memory, if any at all. Despite this uncertainty, there was broad agreement that parenting students are underrepresented in mobility, and that this was seen as regrettable.

Who decides what is best for parents and children?

Alongside these positive views, the interviews also revealed more ambivalent attitudes. Some coordinators raised concerns about children’s wellbeing or whether students with children fully understood the implications of going abroad. Parenting students were often assumed to prefer shorter stays or blended mobility formats. Interestingly, coordinators who expressed more mixed or cautious attitudes also tended to report low participation of parenting students at their institutions. This might suggest that perceptions and expectations may shape participation more than we realise – something that gives reason to further empirical work.

Selection practices: merit, lotteries and exceptions

Selection procedures emerged as another important factor. Some institutions reported a shift from strict grade‑based ranking towards lottery systems. A few allocate places on a first‑come, first‑served basis. However, in most cases, selection still relied primarily on academic merit and study progress. This approach sparked mixed reflections among coordinators, including on how grades do not reveal why a student performs well or what it may have taken to achieve those results alongside work or family responsibilities. Some institutions address the issue by allowing exceptions to study‑progress requirements, for example where students have fallen behind due to parental leave.

Balancing inclusive ambitions with institutional capacity

Supporting parenting students often requires additional time and individualised support. Some coordinators were deeply committed to this task and emphasised the value of having trusted contacts at host institutions to help navigate childcare, housing or local services. Others, however, highlighted the limits of what international offices can realistically deliver. With staff resources already stretched, investing extra time in complex cases raised concerns about fairness and workload. This tension between commitment to inclusion and everyday operational constraints ran through many interviews.

Many felt that the complexity of mobility procedures limits the time available to support students who need it most. Reducing administrative demands and ensuring adequate funding for international offices would directly give them more resources to provide support to those that need it. Several also called for stronger guidance from the European Commission on how to support students with children, for example through the Erasmus Charter for Higher Education, as well as more opportunities for institutions to share their own practices across countries.

These insights indicate that parenting students are viewed positively in Erasmus+ policy and practice but remain largely absent from data and strategic attention. Creating more inclusive mobility opportunities therefore calls for stronger alignment between policy ambitions and institutional realities, including shared reflection on who mobility is designed for, how selection practices operate and what support structures are feasible and effective for today’s diverse student lives, parents included.