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 skills alliances 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 mobility of 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