ERASMUS INFORMAL MEETINGERASMUS INFORMAL MEETING

INTENSIVE PROGRAMMESINTENSIVE PROGRAMMES

22-23 September 201122-23 September 2011

Athens-GreeceAthens-Greece

SUMMARYSUMMARY

Elina Mavrogiorgou, IKY-Hellenic National Elina Mavrogiorgou, IKY-Hellenic National L.L.P. Agency /L.L.P. Agency /ErasmusErasmus

PREPARATION OF THE MEETING

A questionnaire for IP was created by the Greek NA with the collaboration of DE, AU, FI NA.

FR, TR NA and the Commission also sent their comments concerning the questionnaire.

The FI NA prepared an electronic tool for answering the questionnaire.

18 NA have participated in the survey. A complementary questionnaire was also created

for IP coordinators. 178 coordinators from19 countries have answered this questionnaire.

MAIN THEMES

-ADMINISTRATIVE & MANAGEMENT ISSUES

-IMPACT OF THE IP

-IP QUALITY CRITERIA

-THE POST-2013 PROGRAMME

-GENERAL IP QUESTIONS

First part: IP ADMINISTRATIVE/MANAGEMENT ISSUES

LLP link : should be more user-friendly

TR NA: developed an e-form from which data is directly transferred to LLP link. Offered for free to all NAs.

Some NA have already developed their own software.

Commission :e-forms form for IP postponed to the next Programme

Low subsistence costsSubsistence costs reduced, because IP considered as a mobility action

Commission: flexibility authorized within the budget heading “subsistence costs” (option, not the rule)

NAs’ suggestion: have this rule written on official documents

NAs’ arguments for raising students’ subsistence costs:

-finding accommodation for two weeks:more expensive

-students can’t get a part time job

-good level of accommodation organization : needs funding

Travel costs: lump sum doesn’t always lead to cheaper costs

Co-funding:

Reporting of co-funding is not a Commission requirement (needs clarification)

NAs may gather this information at national level.

Having a real picture of the IP is essential

Fees:only cost covering fee

Ex. for partially paying students’ accommodation/ subsistence costs: transparency- a prerequisite

Monitoring visits:

Different approaches:

Not all NA go for a monitoring visit

Special monitoring visits for IP/during systems’ Audit

More interesting during the IP.

Attention: aim of the monitoring visit is to observe, not to check. Audit visits should be separate from monitoring visits.

Annual project management meetings

Guidelines for IP monitoring visits would be useful

Evaluation of the final reportSome NAs use external experts

Some NAs use the final report template used by EACEA.

DE NA suggested to upload existing final report forms in CIRCA.

A folder has been created in CIRCA.http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/eac/llp-decentralised-actions/library?l=/subprogramme_erasmus/erasmus_decentralised/intensive_programmes/report_evaluation&vm=detailed&sb=Title

Additional information is required in case of low quality final report

Renewals: may be rejected on the basis of final reports

Develop a common evaluation form at European level

-Useful for measuring the impact/innovative character of IP

-Would allow to organize thematic conferences

Danger: complicate the evaluation of the final report, add more administrative work for NA

Refunding

Reimbursement asked in case eligibility criteria are not respected:

Minimum number of students /Conference

Other management issues

Percentage of the grant used: 80 %

Participation of the same students for 3 consecutive years:only as an exception, for justified cases

SE NA proposed to introduce an IP centralized action rule: either different participants/either different programme

Travel costs: some NA prefer reimbursement of real costs, some other prefer the use of lump sums, regarding the new Programme.

Commission: attention! Only the number of participants may be reduced

2nd part : impact of the IPStudents’ evaluation sheets:a good toolOnline version suggested : not all agreed

Anonymity of answers should be preserved

Platform for IP coordinators:

Main purpose: help finding new partners, exchanging ideas

Different opinions.

Should be user friendly

Social and professional networks were suggested (informal)

ADAM/EST (as a dissemination, not a communication tool)

National meetings essential

NAs: list of contact details/project information on the NAs website

Suggestions :

Contact seminars: good results but for limited range of subject areas

Help bringing potential applicants together, building new partnerships, creating networks

The SE NA will organize the next contact seminar in 2012, open only for future applicants

Learning outcomes: very important, allow awarding ECTS, checking results

But:lack of information-mistakes

The Role of Bologna experts

DAAD: IP Evaluation conference “Mobility and Innovation in the European Context”, 22-23 Nov. 2011

How innovative are IP

Need of a clear definition

Students/teachers learn something new/see a topic from different scientific angles.

Innovative element:topic/combination of subject areas/partnership

Long term strategy: an IP topic could lose its actuality within 3 years

Many IP coordinators do not wish/cannot afford to create something bigger than IP

Costly :Eligibility period ends shortly

IP Quality issues: academic & management criteria

Quality criteria: difficult for NAs, needs experience

Useful to have evaluators / external experts with the same academic background as the IP

NA try to identify good examples : trigger more interest in IP during events/for publications

Publications announced:

DE : Generation Erasmus

FI: Best practice IPs

GR: Greek IP compendium

NL: best practice ex. uploaded on their website

Polish NA website: special dissemination section

Project management criteria

Minimum requirements for the IP website

-daily work programme

-Practical information

-Courses offered

Logo of the NA/ DG EAC/funding resources (EU/sponsors)

-Free access

-Not only on FB

-At least in English

-Visibility: front page of the university/department

Relevant information is given to the IP coordinators during the Project Management meeting (GR)

Project management criteria

Financial management:

Collaboration of coordinators with financial officers

NA invite both in project management meetings

Some NA have created a handbook for coordinators

Coordinators are encouraged to share best practices

IP beyond 2013

NEW PROGRAMME 2014-2020

Communication +legal basis:23/11/2011

Starting points:

LLP : solid basis

added European value

Quality, Innovation, Internationalization

Simplification of procedures-rationalisation

Sustained impact at different levels

Integration of existing programmes

New Programme 2014-2020

Erasmus:

Emphasis to quality :

of mobility-recognition-language preparation-host enterprises

Flexibility-multiple mobility periods

Possible actions:

European and Global credit mobility (ERASMUS MUNDUS)

Full cycle mobility within joint degrees (Loan Guarantee facility)

“

Projects /cooperation-Intensive partnerships”Different actions are envisaged under 1 application

-Intensive Programmes

-Long term staff mobility on a reciprocal basis

-Virtual mobility

-Staff training coursesIntegration between neighboring countries (TEMPUS)-Cooperation with Businesses-Policy support

IP management beyond 2013

More lump sums, including travel and subsistence costs

Average length and average student-teacher ratio taken in account

Renewal applications: new budgetary rules will apply

Innovation criterion: valid

Funding for 3 years (interim report)

Or keep renewal applications?

General questions

Can we prove that IP are innovative?

-Development of new curricula approaches

-Enhancement of cooperation between HEIs-economy sectors-transfer of know-how

Development and improvement of the use of ICT tools

-Involvement of local communities

-Dissemination of best practices in a specific study field between HEI in different countries

Do IP enhance mobility?

IP stimulate the increase of teaching staff and student mobility

Initiate/strengthen partnerships between HEIs

What is the IP impact on beneficiaries?

Students: soft, intercultural skills

First contact with the job market

Teaching staff: improve professional teaching experience, exchange teaching ideas, different curricula approaches

HEIs offer: internationalization at home”, enrich their curricula

IP influence:

Recognition procedures

HEIs acquire international experience in management

Administrative procedures-quality of work