Welcome and Introduction
Transnational Cooperation Activity o Training session based on Model for Expert Training, the result of a Transnational Cooperation Activity (TCA) led by Erasmus+ National Agencies in Iceland, Norway and Sweden. o TCA activity - in 2014 and 2015 - centred on development of a common expert training model to allow joint training of Erasmus+ experts, instilling common understanding across different Erasmus+ Programme countries. o Training model updated to reflect programme goals and priorities for 2016 and adapted to reflect the time available for this training session.
Before we begin!
Meet the Room
Who are You? Who are We?
1. Name? 2. Company or Institution? 3. Job - Role - Position? 4. Strangest food ever eaten?
Active Participation is Required and Rewarded
The Erasmus+ Programme
Quiz Time
Which of these is closest to the Programme Budget for Erasmus+? 5 Billion 15 Billion 50 Billion 1
The answer is 15 Billion Erasmus+ budget: 14.774 billion 1
What are the names of the 7 funding programmes that were brought together under Erasmus+? Name as many as you can! 2
brings together 7 existing programmes in the fields of education, training and youth under a single heading 2
How many Key Actions are there in the Erasmus+ Programme? What is your best guess? Do you know which action is which? 3
KEY ACTION 1: Learning Mobility of Individuals KEY ACTION 2: Cooperation for Innovation and the Exchange of Good Practices KEY ACTION 3: Support for Policy Reform 3
What are the 4 fields of education and training covered by the Erasmus+ Programme? Old names and new names are accepted? 4
4 Focus on FIELDS (previously sectors) namely: - ADULT EDUCATION (AE) a.k.a. Grundtvig - HIGHER EDUCATION (HE) a.k.a. Erasmus - SCHOOL EDUCATION (SE) a.k.a. Comenius - VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING (VET) a.k.a. Leonardo in addition to YOUTH and SPORT
What is ECTS? Short description, or explanation of the acronym? 5
5 E C T S European Credit Transfer System The European Credit Transfer (and accumulation) System, or ECTS, is a tool that helps to design, describe and deliver study programmes and to award higher education qualifications. Learning is expressed in terms of credits, with a student workload ranging from 1500 to 1800 hours for one academic year, and one credit generally corresponding to 25-30 hours of work.
What is ECVET? Short description, or explanation of the acronym? 6
ECVET is a system for the transfer, recognition and accumulation of the learning outcomes achieved by an individual with a view to achieving a qualification. 6
What is etwinning? Short description or explanation? 7
etwinning operates in 26 languages and promotes school collaboration through the use of ICT. 7 etwinning offers a platform for staff in schools to communicate, collaborate, share and develop (including project development).
What is EPALE? Short description, or explanation of the acronym? 8
EPALE is a multilingual community, and platform, for teachers, trainers, researchers, policy makers and others with a professional role in adult learning. 8 EPALE targets improved quality in adult learning provision in Europe.
9 Which of the fields of education and training finances more than one type of Strategic Partnership? [think back to the fields of education and training that were mentioned earlier]
Everything has changed in 2016 Education, Training and Youth (almost all fields) School Education: SP for Innovation School Education: SP for Exchange of Good Practices Strategic Partnership for Innovation School Education Partnership (including multi-actor with schools, multi-actor with regional authorities and schools-only partnerships) School Education Partnership (all actors, including schools) Strategic Partnership for Exchange of Good Practices (not HE) Minimum Participation in all cases = THREE PARTNERS Regional Partnership (regional / local education authorities) 9 School Only Partnership (different contracting model: involving only schools) Minimum Participation in all cases = TWO PARTNERS
Which field invites Strategic Partnership applications to be submitted more than 10 once a year?
Strategic Partnerships in the 10 field of YOUTH can be submitted 3 times a year. Deadlines 2 February 2016 26 April 2016 4 October 2016
What are the 4 Award Criteria that are used to assess Strategic Partnership applications under Erasmus+? [name as many as you can] 11
Key Action 2: Assessment Criteria Relevance of the Project Quality of Project Design Quality of Project Team Impact and Dissemination 11
Which is the minimum score that must be achieved for an application to be considered for Erasmus+ funding under Key Action 2? [we need the total score] 12
Multiple Thresholds Exist [e.g. KA and SSA have higher thresholds] but the one you need to know is: 60 points for KA2 Strategic Partnerships 12 plus at least half of the points available under each assessment criteria
Policy Insight
Policies, Frameworks and Erasmus+ Europe 2020 a strategy for smarter, more sustainable and more inclusive growth 2020 TARGET 3% investment in Research and Development 2020 TARGET 75% Employment among 20-64 year olds 2020 TARGET Reduction of Early School Leaving to < 10% 2020 TARGET 40% completion of Tertiary Education (30-34 yr olds) 2020 TARGET 20 million fewer people at risk of Poverty ET 2020 a new strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE Making Lifelong Learning and Mobility a Reality STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE Improving Quality and Efficiency in Education and Training STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE Promoting Equity, Social Cohesion and Active Citizenship STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE Enhancing Creativity and Innovation (including Entrepreneurship) at all levels of Education and Training Erasmus+ a single programme for education, training, youth and sport that aims to contribute to the achievement of: EUROPE 2020 AND ET2020 OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS FIELD-SPECIFIC GOALS AND TARGETS (E.G. HE MODERNISATION; RIGA 2015) SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN PARTNER (NON-PROGRAMME) COUNTRIES OBJECTIVES OF RENEWED FRAMEWORK FOR YOUTH OBJECTIVES FOR DEVELOPING A EUROPEAN DIMENSION IN SPORT PROMOTION OF EUROPEAN VALUES (ARTICLE 2 OF TREATY ON EU)
Policies, Frameworks and Priorities EU Youth Strategy OBJECTIVE: more and equal opportunities for young people in education and the job market OBJECTIVE: active participation of young people in society YOUTH INITIATIVES: education and training; employment and entrepreneurship; health and wellbeing; participation; volunteering; social inclusion; creativity and culture; youth and the world CROSS SECTOR INITIATIVES: where wider policies and actions impact on young people
Briefing Sheet: Policy Documents and Frameworks
Key Action 2 and Strategic Partnerships
Key Action 2 Cooperation for Innovation and the Exchange of Good Practices Targets the development, transfer and/or implementation of innovative practices Targets positive and long-lasting change on the participating organisations Centralised Knowledge Alliances Sector Skills Alliances Capacity-building for Higher Education Capacity-building for Youth Decentralised Strategic Partnerships supporting Innovation Strategic Partnerships supporting Exchange of Good Practices
Understanding Strategic Partnerships
Understanding Strategic Partnerships 1. GOALS AND AMBITIONS Strategic Partnerships aim to support the development, transfer and/or implementation of innovative practices as well as the implementation of joint initiatives that centre on cooperation, peer learning and exchanges of experience at European level. Strategic Partnerships supporting Innovation: to develop innovative outputs and put in place intensive dissemination and exploitation actions associated with new/existing products and innovative ideas. Strategic Partnerships supporting Exchange of Good Practices: to develop or reinforce networks, to increase their capacity to operate at transnational level, and to share and discuss ideas, practices and methods.
Understanding Strategic Partnerships 2. FUNDING AND FIELDS FIELD Higher Education School Education (Schools Only) School Education (Regional Cooperation) Adult Education School Education Vocational Education and Training Youth FUNDING Innovation only Exchange of Good Practices only Exchange of Good Practices only Both types Both types Both types Both types
Understanding Strategic Partnerships 3. PARTNERS AND ACTORS Strategic Partnerships must normally involve at least 3 partners from 3 programme countries (for Youth and some of the SE subactions this is reduced to 2 partners from 2 programme countries) with no maximum set, yet with Project Management contributions paid for a maximum of 10 partners. Strategic Partnerships are open to organisations active in any field of education, training and youth, or other socio-economic sectors, including those with a transversal remit (e.g. local and regional authorities, recognition bodies, trade organisations, chambers of commerce, guidance centres, cultural bodies). Strategic Partnerships should involve an appropriate range of partners bringing forth complementary experience and expertise that will enable goals and objectives to be delivered, with participation having confirmed strategic value in all cases.
Understanding Strategic Partnerships 4. TARGETED PRIORITIES Strategic Partnerships must address at least one HORIZONTAL or FIELD-SPECIFIC priority, to be eligible to be funded: this is now embedded in the application form, with at least one priority now required to be selected. For 2016, there are 6 Horizontal Priorities Horizontal Priorities aligned with revised list of priorities confirmed in the ET2020 mid-term stocktaking report (August 2015) For 2016, there are confirmed priorities for each of the different fields of education, training and youth, each reflecting the different (yet often complementary) development ambitions
Understanding Strategic Partnerships 5. HORIZONTAL PRIORITIES developing basic and transversal skills; inclusive education, training and youth; open and innovative pedagogies; developing educators and youth workers; transparency and recognition investment, performance and efficiency.
Understanding Strategic Partnerships 6. FIELD-SPECIFIC PRIORITIES 1 Volunteer 16 Priorities 5 Fields Align Fields and Priorities 10 HINT: HE has 2 Priorities, AE and Youth have 3, and VET and SE each have 4
Understanding Strategic Partnerships 7. KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE Strategic Partnership for Innovation [all fields] Manage ment Meetings IOs MEs TTLs Exceptio nal Special Needs targeting the development of innovative outputs alongside intensive dissemination and exploitation actions associated with new or existing products and innovative ideas
Understanding Strategic Partnerships 7. KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE Strategic Partnership for Exchange of Good Practices [not HE not all SE sub-actions] Manage ment Meetings TTLs (some) Exceptio nal Special Needs targeting those wishing to develop or reinforce networks, to increase their capacity to operate at transnational level, and to share and discuss ideas, practices and methods (such partnerships might also produce tangible outputs and are expected to disseminate the results of their activities albeit in a manner proportional to the aim and scope of the project)
Briefing Sheet: KA2 Strategic Partnerships
Assessment Processes and People
Overview of Core Assessment and Selection Steps Advance Circulation of Briefing Materials Assessor Training Session Field-specific Communication (where needed) Scores and Comments uploaded to OEET Consolidated Assessment Produced by Lead Expert Assessment of Eligible Applications by Experts Quality Assurance by NA Staff Ranking List Produced Decision by Selection Committee
Overview of Assessment and Consolidation Steps Ranking List National Agency Third Assessment needed only in case of significant difference Consolidation and Upload to OEET Lead Expert Quality Checks National Agency Assessment and Upload to OEET Expert 3 Quality Checks National Agency Assessment and Upload to OEET Expert 1 Assessment and Upload to OEET Expert 2 Quality Checks National Agency
Assessment and Scoring
Assessment and Scoring: Criteria and Ceilings Assessment Criterion Maximum Score Relevance 30 Quality of Project Design 20 Quality of Project Team 20 Impact and Dissemination 30 Note 1: these scores apply only to KA2 Strategic Partnerships Note 2: to be considered for financing, projects must achieve at least 50% under each criterion plus at least 60 points in total.
Assessment and Scoring: Use of Scoring Bands VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR WEAK Scoring Ceiling application addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question convincingly and successfully; the answer provides all the information and evidence needed and there are no concerns or areas of weakness. application addresses the criterion well, although some small improvements could be made; the answer gives clear information on all, or nearly all, of the evidence needed. application broadly addresses the criterion, but there are some weaknesses; the answer gives some relevant information, but there are several areas where detail is lacking or the information is unclear. application fails to address the criterion or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information; the answer does not address the question asked, or gives very little relevant information. 30 POINTS 26-30 21-25 15-20 0-14 [fails threshold] 20 POINTS 17-20 14-16 10-13 0-9 [fails threshold] Note: additional scoring bands exist in other sub-actions
Practice makes Perfect
Some Interaction Required! AGREE DISAGREE
Some Interaction Required! AGREE DISAGREE Brussels is the Capital of Belgium?
Some Interaction Required! AGREE DISAGREE Toronto is the Capital of Canada?
Mock Assessment Results Relevance: Average 20 (out of 30): 67% 33 (out of 30) 29 5
Mock Assessment Results Project Design: Average 13 (out of 20): 65% 25 4 5 5 5
Mock Assessment Results Project Team: Average 14 (out of 20): 70% 20 20 8 7 8 7
Mock Assessment Results Impact-Dissemination: Average 19 (out of 30): 63% 27 8
Mock Assessment Results Total Score: Average 66 (out of 100): 66% 85 85 90 87 88 34 38 37
The Panel
More Practice makes Perfect
More Practice Makes Perfect: Group Activity Group(s): Relevance Group(s): Project Design Group(s): Project Team Group(s): Impact and Dissemination Read the Relevant Sections Individually 30 mins. Discuss In Groups (A, B, C) 25 mins. Comment and Score Rapporteur & Flipchart 5 mins. 60
More Practice Makes Perfect: Group Reporting Groups: Relevance Groups: Project Design Groups: Project Team Groups: Impact and Dissemination 10 10 10 10 Consistent scores and comments? Consistent scores and comments? Consistent scores and comments? Consistent scores and comments?
More Practice Makes Perfect: Open Feedback OPEN FEEDBACK 1. What worked well in the groups? 2. What were the challenges? 3. Were there any surprises?
The Assessment Form
Individual Assessment: OEET Assessment Form Add comments for each assessment criterion Add comments for the Applicant (highlighting strengths and weaknesses) Add comments specifically for use by the NA Confirm whether reductions are proposed to the original grant Additional boxes are provided. Add scores for each assessment criterion (refer to scoring bands and remember thresholds!) Total automatically calculated by OEET. Remember different maximum scores exist for different assessment criteria Remember to SAVE YOUR WORK (and keep a back up)
Creating Comments
Assessment Overview: Comments Each award criterion comprises several elements (see briefing sheets) which must be considered and commented on; Experts should make a judgement on the extent to which the application meets defined criteria with judgements based solely on the information provided in the application and ensuring that applicants are not penalised more than once for the same issue; Experts should keep in mind the project type, the scale of planned activity and the amount of funding requested and should integrate the proportionality principle into their assessment; Comments should be provided in text format (not bullet points) and should respect the 5 Cs: Coherent: easy to understand even for a reader that has not read the application Comprehensive: covering each of the award criteria and incorporating most, if not all, of the composite elements Consistent: easily aligned with the scores that have been awarded for each criterion and within the predefined scoring bands Courteous: polite and respectful (note that comments are used to provide feedback to applicants) Concise: whilst there will always be exceptions, comments should be of a standard size, as determined by NA staff
Activity: Rate These Comments VERY BAD ROOM TO IMPROVE FAIRLY GOOD EXCELLENT The project has definite merit, in terms of adapting curricula to incorporate a reflection on traditional industries, yet greater argument is needed in a number of areas of the application [A] Whilst there are arguments given as regards the benefits of understanding apple harvesting and crop rotation among the targeted agriculture students, there is insufficient data provided in terms of the level and extent of learning that will be targeted for delivery [C] The project aims to promote traditional approaches to apple harvesting and crop rotation. It is difficult to see how such basic skills are relevant to the Erasmus+ programme and/or the targeted sector, for me the project should not be funded [B] Apple Harvesting! Crop Rotation! This project is a joke: it cannot be serious that somebody would ask for money for such activities [D]
Activity: Accept or Reject These Comments Personal Experience is Not Good First Person is Not Good Constructive is Good Positive is Good Arguments for the use of Facebook, and other social media platforms, needed to be more fully described, confirming distinct goals for use alongside specific target audiences. The use of Facebook, and other social media platforms, is relevant to the broader promotional strategy of the project; the rationale for its use is both clear and convincing. I do not see the value of using Facebook in the project, for me the rationale is not clear. In my experience, Facebook can be a positive addition when targeting promotional activity towards younger learners.
Activity: Create Comments Positive Left Side of Page Less Positive Right Side of Page POSITIVE COMMENTS Consider definitions of good and very good Use positive terms Be judgemental (not purely descriptive) and justify your positive position Target 3-4 Comments LESS POSITIVE COMMENTS Consider definition of weak Use less positive terms (constructive terms) Be judgemental (not purely descriptive) and justify your less positive position Target 3-4 Comments 15
2
A high quality FRUIT BASKET should: contain a balanced mix of fruits and berries; be presentable, portable and able to be used at a variety of events and occasions; include a good variety of colours and shapes.
2
A high quality BIRD HOUSE should: provide sufficient space for the inhabitants be furnished with materials from the original bird habitats; include a good variety of sizes, breeds and colours; be self-sustainable.
Briefing Sheet: KA2 Assessment Comments
Budget Assessment
Budget Assessment for Strategic Partnerships o o o o o For KA2 strategic partnership applications, budgets are largely based on unit costs with amounts calculated per day / per category / per meeting / per month, etc. (with only a few exceptions); National agencies rely on experts to judge and comment on the type and number of units being proposed ensuring that they are relevant, appropriate and realistic (i.e. not overestimated or underestimated); Even in projects that are scored highly, experts might judge that units are excessive or unjustified and might consequently propose reductions in the numbers of units being proposed: these recommendations can be used, by the National Agency, to determine a reduction on the proposed (or awarded) grant where a project is selected for funding; Management and implementation costs are automatically calculated according to the number of participants and the project duration (up to a maximum ceiling) and are not subject to reduction by experts; For projects not passing one or more thresholds (consolidation stage), it is not necessary to point out all areas of the budget where there are inaccuracies or excesses, focusing instead on constructive feedback and areas for change.
Activity: Interpreting the Financial Rules Review Guidance Interpret Rules Share Knowledge and Thoughts Prepare to Report Different Budget Questions and Scenarios Return to small working groups Appoint notetaker Consult guides, briefing sheets and group facilitators (NA staff) 30 minutes allowed 30
Onsite Assessment: Group Reporting Group Scenario 1 Group Scenario 2 Group Scenario 3 5 5 5 Core Messages Only Core Messages Only Core Messages Only
Briefing Sheet: Budget Assessment for Strategic Partnerships
Consolidation
Consolidation Overview Consolidation is normally undertaken for ALL Strategic Partnership applications (grant requests normally > 60,000 under this funding action); Consolidation will only ever involve 2 experts (if a third expert is involved, the 2 experts with the closest scores will be asked to consolidate); Comments and scores are combined in a single consolidated assessment (half-scores can be used during Consolidation only; averages are not automatically used); Only during Consolidation can you discuss a project with another assessor (initial assessments remain independent and do not change); Lead assessors are appointed by the National Agency prior to consolidation being launched; Comments should be provided in text format, not bullet points, and should respect the 6 Cs: Coherent, Comprehensive, Consistent, Courteous, Concise and Consolidated: comments should read as single texts (sentences or paragraphs) and should be harmonised, not contradictory.
Activity: Consolidating Scores Individually Own Score Pairs Consolidated Score and Comments Ultimate Goal: Agree on Common Scores and Comments 1. Read comments and award individual score: 5 minutes 2. Identify partner: somebody with a different set of comments (i.e. if you are A, then look for B or C) 3. Discuss and agree on a consolidated score: 5 minutes 4. Highlight the assessment comments you would use to justify this score in your feedback to the applicant: 5 minutes 15
Consolidation Activity: Open Feedback OPEN FEEDBACK 1. Did you arrive at a common score and, if so, how (discussion, average, other)? 2. Did you review the scoring bands during your consolidation? 3. Did you easily identify a single set of comments that could be used?
Briefing Sheet: Expert Assessment and Consolidation
Online Expert Evaluation Tool (OEET)
Questions and Close