NEW CHALLENGES FOR CHERNE

1. NEW CHALLENGES FOR CHERNE Can we survive in « Erasmus for all? » François Tondeur(1) (1)CHERNE

2. What did CHERNE achieve in 8 years? • Erasmus student and staff exchanges bilateral agreements between partners (made possible but not managed by the network) • Erasmus Intensive Programmes (IP’s) with a strong experimental aspect SPERANSA-ICARO-SARA-JUNCS not accepted: NECTAR – MARC/RAMON • Other Intensive Courses (IC’s) / visits XIMER – PRA Chernobyl - Zwetendorf • Annual workshop

3. Meeting is essential • Bilateral relations are discussed and established during the workshops (and during IP’s too). • (Too many) partners not attending the workshop are not involved in the other actions

4. Finances • (Too) strong dependence on Erasmus • Lack of self-sustainability of IP’s but: three times an IP was organised without EU grant which demonstrates that it is possible • (Too) few other activities (IC’s, visits, workshop) partner’s own budget + few sponsors

5. New « Erasmus for all » program • E4A will apply, starting in 2014 • Still a lot of uncertainties, waiting for the end of the EU budget discussion • Probably: significant increase of the Erasmus budget  • Bilateral student and staff exchanges maintained  • IP’s disappear, might reappear in another form 

6. End of former IP’s  • = end of CHERNE’s main activity • = an important meeting point disappears  impact on other projects

7. Survival 1 • More effort on other CHERNE activities • More IC’s / visits • More bilateral exchanges • More participants in the workshop

8. More Intensive Courses / visits • Establish an objective: 1 partner = 1 IC / v ? (but collaborations encouraged) round table 2 • 1 week easier than 2 weeks • Erasmus grant if possible, organised even without it • Budget : • Cheap accomodation for students • Sponsors round table 2 • « XIMER formula »: include the IC in the local study programme • Innovative formulas : with other actors (research, industry, …): round table 1 • Needs and proposals : round table 1 • Related questions: recognition, ECTS: RT1

9. More bilateral exchanges • Student mobility should receive more budget • Staff exchange is the best way to establish strong links between the partners • More positive action from the network • CHERNE database for master theses • CHERNE database for staff exchange • inclusion of new partners in staff exchanges • … can be discussed in round table 2

10. More participants in the workshop • Attractive programme: invited talks? • More involvement of young colleagues list of e-addresses … dissemination of CHERNE information including young colleagues in staff exhanges, IP’s, … • (Budget) • … all of this for round table 2

11. SURVIVAL 2 • Adaptation to the new E4A framework:strategic partnerships (SP) • New kinds of action • New types of partnership

12. Partnerships in E4A • May include universities but also « other actors » • « Knowledge alliances » and « sector skill alliances » = big projects (200-400 k€), total funding ~ 400 alliances • « Strategic partnerships » = small projects, total funding ~23000 partnerships

13. Knowledge and sector skill alliances • Too big for CHERNE ?? • Knowledge Alliances between higher education establishments and businesses, promoting innovation. Develop innovative ways of producing and sharing knowledge, foster creativity and entrepreneurship and design and deliver new curricula and qualifications • Sector skillsalliances between education/training institutions and businesses promoting employability. Develop new sector-specific curricula, innovative ways of vocational teaching and training. Put the EU wide recognition tools into practice.

14. Strategic partnerships 1 • will encompass a variety of cooperation agreements aiming to strengthen transnational cooperation between education institutions (+training+youth)and/or other actors. • will link mobility and cooperation activities and enhance systemic impact (e.g. cooperation projects between schools could cover both curriculum development and staff exchanges (and IP’s)). • partnerships involving regional and local authorities and linking actors from different sectors (i.e. education, industry, research , authorities, ...)will be encouraged to foster innovative, more integrated lifelong learning approaches, more efficient use of resources and higher quality mobility schemes.

15. SP objectives • SP’s are NOT a system for organising activities for the students • SP’s general objective is the improvement of the educational system by implementing innovative practices • 2 among 11 objectives: • Enhance the quality and relevance of the learning offer by developing new and innovative approaches and supporting the dissemination of best practices • Increase labour market relevance of learning provision and qualification and reinforce links between education and the world of work

16. Examples of SP projects in HE • Development and delivery of joint programmes and curricula, intensive programmes, common modules, … • Development of project-based cooperation between enterprises and student/staff of HEI’s to study real-life cases • Development of pedagogical approaches • Integration of a greater variety of study modes

17. Eligible mobility in SP’s • Blended mobility of students combining short-term physical mobility with virtual mobility • Short-term joint staff training events • Long-term (2-12 months) teaching • Must be necessary to the realisation of the objectives

18. SP Partners • SP’s should involve the most appropriate and diverse range of partners in order to benefit from their experiences, profiles and expertise • At least 3 from 3 countries • HEI’s (coordination) • Enterprise, public body, research institute, non-profit organisation, ……

19. Varia • Duration of the project: 2 or 3 years • Duration of actions: no constraint except for mobility (students < 2 months) • Managed by the National Erasmus Agency of the coordinator

20. Criteria • Relevance of the project (objectives, need analysis, synergies with other sectors, innovation, added value of partnership) • Quality of the project design and team • Impact, dissemination, sustainability

21. Comments 1 • Former IP’s do not fit into E4A (seemingly no short-term staff mobility for that) • IP’s organised by a local staff are possible, if they include virtual mobilityof students • 1-week IP possible: easier conversion IP/IC • Project-based activities(cf CHERNE 2008) must involve industry • Staff training is possible • Linking education and training is possible (e.g. RPE,RPO, medical physics,…)

22. Comments 2 • No obligation, but clear invitation to involve « other actors » (industry, research,…) • « Innovative practice » is the keyword of the objectives • Sustainability is requested

23. Challenges of E4A for CHERNE 1 • The practice of CHERNE is not contradictory with the requirements of E4A: • Research centres involved in our IP’s • Most partners have collaborations with industry • Access to high-level experimental facilities = improving labour market relevance.

24. Challenges of E4A for CHERNE 2 • Redefine the IP formula to include virtual mobility and ensure sustainability: RT1 (…. budget after EU funding?) RT2 • Partnership extended to other actors: RT1 (…  also as CHERNE members?) RT2 • Project-based activities with industry : RT1

25. Conclusion 1 • E4A is still not official , but the probability of big changes seems very low • Funding rules are not yet clear. • Also not yet clear that CHERNE will find its way in the E4A system • CHERNE must enhance its “non-IP” actions: • More bilateral staff exchange • More participants in the workshop • More IC’s and visits, new resources for them

26. Conclusion 2 • CHERNE must be ready to submit E4A projects early in 2014: - Partnerships with other actors • Redefine the IP’s • Project based activities • Sustainability