NEW CHALLENGES FOR CHERNE

Can we survive in « Erasmus for all? »

François Tondeur(1)

(1)CHERNE

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

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

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

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

End of former IP’s

• = end of CHERNE’s main activity• = an important meeting point disappears

impact on other projects

Survival 1

• More effort on other CHERNE activities

– More IC’s / visits – More bilateral exchanges– More participants in the workshop

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

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

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

SURVIVAL 2

• Adaptation to the new E4A framework: strategic partnerships (SP)

• New kinds of action

• New types of partnership

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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, ……

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

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

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,…)

Comments 2

• No obligation, but clear invitation to involve « other actors »

(industry, research,…)

• « Innovative practice »

is the keyword of the objectives

• Sustainability is requested

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.

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

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

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