Welcome and

Introduction

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.

Transnational Cooperation Activity

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 tothe 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 the7 funding programmes that

were brought togetherunder 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 arethere in the Erasmus+

Programme?

What is your best guess?

Do you know which actionis which?

3

KEY ACTION 1: Learning Mobility of Individuals

KEY ACTION 2: Cooperationfor Innovation and the

Exchange of Good Practices

KEY ACTION 3: Support for Policy Reform

3

What are the 4 fields ofeducation and training

covered by theErasmus+ Programme?

Old names and new namesare accepted?

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

4

What is ECTS?

Short description, orexplanation of the acronym?

5

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.

5

E C T SEuropean Credit Transfer System

What is ECVET?

Short description, orexplanation 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 descriptionor explanation?

7

eTwinning operates in 26 languages andpromotes school collaboration through the use of ICT.

eTwinning offers a platform for staff in schools to communicate, collaborate, share and develop (including project development).

7

What is EPALE?

Short description, orexplanation 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.

EPALE targets improvedquality in adult learningprovision in Europe.

8

Which of the fieldsof education and training

finances more than one typeof Strategic Partnership?

[think back to the fields ofeducation and training that

were mentioned earlier]9

Education, Training and Youth(almost all fields)

Strategic Partnership for Innovation

Strategic Partnership for Exchange of Good Practices (not HE)

School Education:SP for Innovation

School Education Partnership(including multi-actor with schools, multi-actor with regional authorities and schools-only partnerships)

Minimum Participation in all cases = THREE PARTNERS

School Education:SP for Exchange of Good Practices

School Education Partnership(all actors, including schools)

Regional Partnership (regional / local education authorities)

School Only Partnership (different contracting model: involving only schools)

Minimum Participation in all cases = TWO PARTNERS

9

Everything has changed in 2016

10

Which field invites Strategic Partnership applications to be

submitted more thanonce a year?

Strategic Partnerships in thefield of YOUTH can be

submitted 3 times a year.10

Deadlines

2 February 201626 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

11

Key Action 2: Assessment Criteria

Relevance of the Project

Quality of Project Design

Quality of Project Team

Impact and Dissemination

Which is the minimum scorethat 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 pointsfor KA2 Strategic Partnerships

plus at least half of the points availableunder each assessment criteria

12

Policy

Insight

EUROPE 2020 AND ET2020OBJECTIVES 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)

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

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

Europe 2020…a strategy for smarter, more

sustainable and more

inclusive growth

Erasmus+…a single programme for

education, training, youth and sport that aims to contribute

to the achievement of:

Policies, Frameworks and Erasmus+

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

Po

licie

s, F

ram

ewo

rks

and

Pri

ori

ties

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

1. GOALS AND AMBITIONS

Un

de

rsta

nd

ing

Stra

tegi

c P

artn

ers

hip

s

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.

2. FUNDING AND FIELDS

Un

de

rsta

nd

ing

Stra

tegi

c P

artn

ers

hip

s

FIELD FUNDING

Higher Education Innovation only

School Education (Schools Only) Exchange of Good Practices only

School Education (Regional Cooperation) Exchange of Good Practices only

Adult Education Both types

School Education Both types

Vocational Education and Training Both types

Youth Both types

3. PARTNERS AND ACTORS

Un

de

rsta

nd

ing

Stra

tegi

c P

artn

ers

hip

s

Strategic Partnerships must normally involve at least 3 partners from 3 programme countries (for Youth and some of the SE sub-actions 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 expertisethat will enable goals and objectives to be delivered, with participation having confirmed strategic value in all cases.

4. TARGETED PRIORITIES

Un

de

rsta

nd

ing

Stra

tegi

c P

artn

ers

hip

s

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

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.

Un

de

rsta

nd

ing

Stra

tegi

c P

artn

ers

hip

s

Understanding Strategic Partnerships

1Volunteer

16Priorities

5Fields

Align Fields and Priorities

10

HINT:

HE has 2 Priorities,

AE and Youth have 3,

and VET and SE

each have 4

6. FIELD-SPECIFIC PRIORITIES

Un

de

rsta

nd

ing

Stra

tegi

c P

artn

ers

hip

s

Strategic Partnership for Innovation

[all fields]

Management

Meetings IOs MEs TTLsExceptio

nalSpecial Needs

targeting the development of innovative outputsalongside intensive dissemination and exploitation

actions associated with new or existing productsand innovative ideas

7. KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE

Un

de

rsta

nd

ing

Stra

tegi

c P

artn

ers

hip

s

Strategic Partnership for Exchange of Good Practices

[not HE… not all SE sub-actions]

Management

MeetingsTTLs

(some)Exceptio

nalSpecial 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 theiractivities albeit in a manner proportional to the aim

and scope of the project)

7. KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE

Briefing Sheet: KA2 Strategic Partnerships

Assessment Processesand People

Overview of Core Assessment and Selection Steps

Advance Circulation of Briefing Materials

AssessorTraining Session

Field-specific Communication(where needed)

Assessment of “Eligible” Applications

by Experts

Consolidated Assessment Produced

by Lead Expert

Scores and Comments uploaded to OEET

Quality Assuranceby NA Staff

Ranking ListProduced

Decision by Selection Committee

Overview of Assessment and Consolidation Steps

Ranking List

National Agency

Assessment and Upload to OEET

Expert 1

Assessment and Upload to OEET

Expert 2

Quality Checks

National Agency

Consolidation and Upload to OEET

Lead Expert

Quality Checks

National Agency

Assessment and Upload to OEET

Expert 3

Quality Checks

National Agency

Third Assessment needed only in case of significant difference

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 atleast 50% under each criterion plus at least 60 points in total.

Assessment and Scoring: Use of Scoring Bands

Scoring Ceiling

VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR WEAK

…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 - 200 -14

[fails threshold]

20 POINTS17 - 20 14 - 16 10 - 13

0 - 9[fails threshold]

Note: additional scoring bands exist in other sub-actions

Practice

makes Perfect

Some Interaction Required!

DISAGREE

AGREE

Some Interaction Required!

DISAGREE

AGREE

Brussels is the Capitalof Belgium?

Some Interaction Required!

DISAGREE

AGREE

Toronto is the Capitalof Canada?

Mock Assessment Results

29

5

33 (out of 30)

Relevance: Average 20 (out of 30): 67%

Mock Assessment Results

45 5

25

5

Project Design: Average 13 (out of 20): 65%

Mock Assessment Results

87

87

20 20

Project Team: Average 14 (out of 20): 70%

Mock Assessment Results

27

8

Impact-Dissemination: Average 19 (out of 30): 63%

Mock Assessment Results

34

85 85

9087

38 37

88

Total Score: Average 66 (out of 100): 66%

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

60

Read the Relevant Sections

• Individually

• 30 mins.

Discuss

• In Groups (A, B, C)

• 25 mins.

Comment and Score

• Rapporteur & Flipchart

• 5 mins.

More Practice Makes Perfect: Group Reporting

Groups: Relevance

Groups: Project Design

Groups: Project Team

Groups: Impact and

Dissemination

10 10 10

Consistent scores and comments?

Consistent scores and comments?

Consistent scores and comments?

Consistent scores and comments?

10

More Practice Makes Perfect: Open Feedback

OPEN FEEDBACK1. 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

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

Confirm whether reductions are

proposed to the original grant

Additional boxes are provided. 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

VERYBAD

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]

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]

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]

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

PositiveLeft Side of Page

Less Positive

Right Side of Page

15

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

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 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);

o 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);

o 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;

o 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;

o 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

InterpretRules

Share Knowledge

and Thoughts

Prepare to Report

30

Different Budget Questions and Scenarios

• Return to small working groups• Appoint notetaker• Consult guides, briefing sheets and group

facilitators (NA staff)• 30 minutes allowed

Onsite Assessment: Group Reporting

Group Scenario 1

Group Scenario 2

Group Scenario 3

Core Messages Only

Core Messages Only

Core Messages Only

5 5 5

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, Conciseand…

Consolidated: comments should read as single texts (sentences or paragraphs) and should be harmonised, not contradictory.

Activity: Consolidating Scores

IndividuallyOwnScore

PairsConsolidated

Score and Comments

15

Ultimate Goal: Agree on Common Scores and Comments

1. Read comments and award individual score: 5 minutes2. 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 minutes4. Highlight the assessment comments you would use to justify

this score in your feedback to the applicant: 5 minutes

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