1. Partnership evaluation
Strategic Partnership ERASMUS
“Skills for life: Literacy” (SLL)
Partnership evaluation

2. A.The extent to which the project was implemented in accordance with the approved application.
The activities proposed in the application form have been mostly achieved.
In October 2014, the coordinator sent the document "SLL Project Management Plan" synthesizing the application form, so as to facilitate its implementation. "SLL Project Management" contains information about the work plan for the two years, list of tangible results, information about the six packages of activities set out in the partnership (Management and Coordination, Transnational Meetings, Intellectual products, Dissemination and Exploitation, Monitorization and Evaluation), annexes (a model of meetings’ minutes, and a model of the assessment questionnaire for project meetings).
Generally speaking, the project activities have met the requirements mentioned in the application form. The discussions pointed the main elements of the project (results, evaluation, and dissemination). The work activities were combined with social and cultural activities, leading to a intercultural gain of the participants. Some partners had organized activities with students and these may be considered examples of good practice.

3. A.The extent to which the project was implemented in accordance with the approved application.
Delays in the implementation of the activities proposed in the application plan. Some of these delays had outside causes (for example, the results were announced after one month). Other delays were caused by the fact that some partners did not meet the deadlines (despite the fact that they were agreed upon and announced during and after project meetings).
The partners come from countries with different cultures, work in different institutional contexts, have different working styles, speak different languages​​, have different views and experiences on the implementation of European projects, have different needs and expectations. Sometimes these issues can not only promote intercultural tolerance and the exchange of ideas, experiences and methods, but also they can generate some difficulties in understanding some work tasks.

4. A. The extent to which the project was implemented in accordance with the approved application.
Some partners have come unprepared to project meetings. Although the agenda and assignments had been announced in advance, some partners said they had not known or understood. The truth is that they did not inform the Coordinating team and thus, we could not possibly know all the dilemmas and difficulties some of our partners were facing with. When being asked, the coordinating team strove to provide explanations and viewpoints in a short time. Perhaps some explanation did not help; perhaps some viewpoints were not adequate. Still, the Coordinating team does not have all the answers; they tried to ensure a good implementation of the partnership, according to experience in this area (European projects) and the available time. Big delays in writing post-meeting documents by host partners’: the report on the evaluation questionnaires applied during project meetings.

5. A. The extent to which the project was implemented in accordance with the approved application.
Disagreements among partners, at the project meeting held in Italy, on the translation of the intellectual products in national languages. All partners have agreed that there is too much material to be translated (taking into account the human and financial resources at disposal). For this reason, a compromise has been come with. Each partner is responsible for the national version of the final products which have to contain an overview of the activities proposed by each partner and a presentation of reading and comprehension strategies and a summary of the proposed activities. Unfortunately, we are very late with the national version of the first intellectual product due to the irresponsibility of some partners that have not submitted their contribution to the overall presentation of the first intellectual product. Just a 2-4-page presentation!!!!!!

6. B.The quality of the activities carried out.
Strenghts:
On the local level, the Romanian team is satisfied with the quality of activities carried out. Numerous activities have been implemented to test the exercises proposed for the two intellectual products.
The project meetings and the newsletters achieved within the partnership have represented an opportunity for each partner to present the activities carried out locally.
Weaknesses:
During the project meetings there was little communication among partners regarding the activities undergone at the local level. Some partners have presented these activities in local newsletters. At present, the coordinating team does not have all the information for the final report and we are not convinced that all the partners are going to send it.

7. C.Product quality and results achieved.
Strenghts:
The main tangible results of the partnership are: 2 intellectual products, 6 newsletters, the project website, and dissemination tools (logo, poster, and flyer). With few exceptions, these products have been fulfilled. Some of them have been made ​​in a responsible manner (the website, the logo, and the poster). From our point of view, the two intellectual products contain useful resources for the development of literacy skills (reading, writing, communication).

8. C.Product quality and results achieved.
Weaknesses:
There was no active involvement of all partners regarding the regular updating of the project website.
According to the application form, each host partner had the responsibility to write a newsletter having the following structure: Part A: Information about the project meeting, Part B: presentation of local activities undergone by partners (each partner had to provide information about the local activities. Some partners didn’t write the newsletters on time, despite the fact that much of the information was given by the other partners and that the task had been set in advance. Moreover, some partners chose to ignore the deadlines.

9. C.Product quality and results achieved.
Weaknesses:
Indeed, there is a disproportion in terms of quantity of partners' contribution to the intellectual products. At the meeting in Italy, some partners have criticized the fact that the Romanian team proposed too much material for the intellectual products. One explanation for this might be the fact that some partners are long behind the schedule with their contributions for the first intellectual product. In September 2016 there were partners who didn’t send any material for the first intellectual product (although the contribution for the first module had to be accomplished until the meeting in Turkey). Thus, the Romanian team wanted to compensate for this, so as to meet at least the evaluation criteria of the intellectual products in terms of quantity. Moreover, since the Romanian National Agency has insisted on these intellectual products, the Romanian team tried to meet as much as the assessing criteria for the intellectual products.

10. D.Learning outcomes and impact on participants.
Strenghts:
This criterion was included in the interim evaluation questionnaire filled in by each partner. Therefore, there is useful information so as to shape a point of view regarding the impact on the partnership. As regarding the impact on students and teachers from the project team, this differs from one partner to another, according to the local activities implemented by each partner. As for the Romanian team, we appreciate that the many activities carried out have had a great impact on students. The Romanian students mentioned this during the interim evaluations (June 2015, January 2016) pointing to their development in terms of literacy skills (reading, writing, speaking and listening) and transversal key competences (creative thinking, ability to apply the newly acquired knowledge to new situations, learning to learn, socializing and communication).

11. D.Learning outcomes and impact on participants.
Strenghts:
The Romanian students have particularly appreciated the activities based on short stories (the activities proposed by the Romanian team for the first Module "Reading Strategies"). The Romanian students felt that literary texts helped them explore and understand the human nature and life indirectly, develop their imagination and critical thinking, all these being educational tools that provide behavioral models and solutions to life problems. The students appreciated the fact they were encouraged to make connections between the story and their personal experience, to work as a team and develop the skills needed to interpret situations and actions, to express points of view regarding the lessons taught by means of these short stories. Interesting topics have been discussed, such as human values ​​and virtues, generosity, self-motivation, problem solving, decision making, human beauty, prejudices and stereotypes etc.

12. D.Learning outcomes and impact on participants.
Strenghts:
As for the teachers involved in this project, they have improved their knowledge and skills needed to plan and organize activities and lessons aimed to develop students’ literacy skills and key transversal skills; they have also developed the skills needed to plan, organize and hold trainings for pupils, and ERASMUS + project management skills. The Romanian team is made of 22 teachers. For four teachers, this project was their first contact with a European project; of course, in their case the impact has been higher.
The transnational meetings have created favorable contexts for intercultural experiences that have helped strengthen the attitude of tolerance towards people with different views, belonging to different cultures and civilizations.

13. D.Learning outcomes and impact on participants.
Strenghts:
According to the application form, during the two years of project work, a minimum of 80 students and 15 participants had to be involved in project activities. Given the data received from the partners in the mid-term evaluation questionnaire we can say that the project activities involved at least 300 students and 60 teachers. Regarding our high school, the target group was made up of 70 students to take part in the project activities. Yet, the teachers from the project team applied some activities in different classes so that about 250 students took part in the project activities. (About 15 % of our high school students).

14. D.Learning outcomes and impact on participants.
Weaknesses:
Lack of information regarding the impact on the participants (students and teachers). Of course, we take into consideration the fact that this gap can be covered during this session.
Certainly, the project's impact on students would have been higher if we had organized learning - teaching activities.

15. E.Impact on participating organizations.
Strenghts:
This criterion was included in the interim evaluation questionnaire filled in by each partner. This criterion has received positive feedback from partners (in the final questionnaire).
Of course, within each school, there is a group of teachers that has improved their skills in planning and implementing activities in the field of literacy, and in Erasmus +projects (and their experience can be an asset for the school, since their experience may be useful for future projects).
Weaknesses:
At present, there is no specific information regarding the impact of the partnership on the participating schools during the second project year. Of course, we take into consideration the fact that this gap can be covered during this session.

16. F.The quality and extent of dissemination activities.
Strenghts:
At the partnership level, a project website and dissemination tools (logo, poster, flyer, newsletters) have been made.
At the local level, the Romanian team underwent different dissemination activities (20 newsletters, a website in Romanian language, seven articles in the local press, 5 articles in journals, leaflets and posters, presentations of the project in different school activities).
At the end of the first project year, a report on the dissemination activities was written. A similar one will also be written for the second year.
The Romanian team used the project logo on all documents within this partnership.

17. F.The quality and extent of dissemination activities.
Weaknesses:
There was no active involvement of all partners in the regular updating of the project website.
All partners wrote the disseminating reports for the first project year, but they failed to make a clear distinction between dissemination activities and project activities. Delays from some partners regarding their contributions (materials about local activities) needed for newsletter writing.
Delays from some partners regarding the newsletters to be written within the partnership.

18. G.The potential impact of the project on individuals and organizations other than those directly involved into the project.
Strenghts:
The Romanian team presented the project in the educational community through different activities: the first intellectual product was presented at the county and national contest entitled "Made for Europe" (contest that aims to make use of the gains from the European projects, and articles were written for journals and symposia etc.)
The Romanian team has implemented local projects in cooperation with various institutions in the local community: Vaslui County School Inspectorate, Vaslui "Support“ Penitentiary Association,Vaslui Kiwanis Club.
The Romanian team intends to print the intellectual products (national version) and to distribute them in the local community (schools, youth organizations, libraries, etc.).

19. G.The potential impact of the project on individuals and organizations other than those directly involved into the project.
Weaknesses:
At present, at partnership level, we do not have information on this criterion. Since it is a final evaluation criterion, the final evaluation report is to be filled in with it. We hope to receive information from all partners!!!