Welcome and Introduction Programme 10.15: Coffee and Registration - - PDF document

Welcome and Introduction

10.15: Coffee and Registration 10:30 Understanding Strategic Partnerships 10:50 Needs Analysis/Proportionality/Priorities 12.00 Understanding Impact 12:30 LUNCH 13.30 Writing Comments 14:00 Budget Assessment 14:45 Consolidation process 15:15 Questions and Close

Programme

Key Action 2 and Strategic Partnerships

Key Action 2

• Cooperation for

Innovation and the Exchange of Good Practices

• Targets the

development, transfer and/or implementation

• f innovative

practices

• Targets positive

and long‐lasting change on the participating

• rganisations

Centralised

• Knowledge

Alliances

• Capacity‐building

for Higher Education

• Capacity‐building

for Youth

• Sector Skills

Alliances

(separate Call)

Decentralised

• Strategic

Partnerships supporting Innovation

• Strategic

Partnerships supporting Exchange of Good Practices

• School Exchange

Partnerships

Understanding Strategic Partnerships

• 1. GO
• 1. GOAL

ALS AND AMBITIONS S AND AMBITIONS

Understanding Strategic Partnerships

 Strategic Partnerships aim to support the development, transfer and/or implementation of innovative practices as well as the implementation of joint initiatives promoting cooperation, peer learning and exchanges of experience at European level.

 Strategic Partnerships supporting Innovation: to develop innovative outputs and engage in intensive dissemination and exploitation actions associated with new/existing products and innovative ideas.  Strategic Partnerships supporting Exchange of Good Practices: to develop or reinforce networks, to increase capacity to

• perate at transnational level, and

to share and discuss ideas, practices and methods.  In 2018, two new formats have been introduced for Strategic Partnerships supporting Exchange of Good Practices, namely: School Exchange Partnerships and Transnational Youth Initiatives.

• 2. FIELDS and FORMA
• 2. FIELDS and FORMATS

Understanding Strategic Partnerships

FIELD Strategic Partnerships: Types and Formats Adult Education SP supporting Innovation SP supporting Exchange of Good Practices Higher Education SP supporting Innovation School Education SP supporting Innovation SP supporting Exchange of Good Practices School Exchange Partnerships (new for 2018) Vocational Education and Training SP supporting Innovation SP supporting Exchange of Good Practices Youth SP supporting Innovation SP supporting Exchange of Good Practices Transnational Youth Initiatives (new for 2018)

• 2. FIELDS and FORMA
• 2. FIELDS and FORMATS

Understanding Strategic Partnerships

Cross‐Sectoral Partnerships

 Projects can also choose to run cross‐sectoral Strategic Partnerships  There is no separate application form for a cross‐sectoral Strategic Partnership, applicants must still choose the main field under which the application is to be presented  There is no specific location in the application form for the project to identify themselves as a cross‐sectoral partnership. They may specifically state this in the narrative or it may be clear from the chosen priority.

• 3. NEW FORMA
• 3. NEW FORMAT FOR SE

FOR SE

Understanding Strategic Partnerships

School Exchange Partnerships

 aims to provide mobility opportunities for pupils and staff in the school sector to help the participating schools to develop as organisations, to increase their ability to work internationally and to strengthen their European dimension.  only schools from Programme countries can participate: minimum of 2 and maximum of 6 schools from at least 2 different Programme countries.  supports mobility activities (LTTs) of staff, pupils and accompanying staff, as well as PMI, exceptional and special needs costs (according to standard rules for KA2‐SPs); no funding available transnational partner meetings, IOs or MEs.  funding limited to €16,500 per school per year (special needs funding is extra).

Understanding Strategic Partnerships

Strategic Partnership for Innovation [all fields]

Manage ment Project Meetings IOs MEs LTTs Exceptio nal Special Needs

targeting the development of innovative outputs alongside intensive dissemination and exploitation actions associated with new or existing products and innovative ideas

• 7a. KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE

Understanding Strategic Partnerships

Strategic Partnership for Exchange

• f Good Practices (not HE)

Manage ment Project Meetings LTTs Exceptio nal Special Needs

targeting those wishing to develop or reinforce networks, to increase their capacity to operate at transnational level, and to share and discuss ideas, practices and methods (such partnerships might also produce tangible outputs and are expected to disseminate the results of their activities albeit in a manner proportional to the aim and scope of the project)

• 7b. KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE

Understanding Strategic Partnerships

School Exchange Partnerships (SE only)

Manage ment LTTs Exceptio nal Special Needs

targeting mobility opportunities for pupils and staff in the school sector, to help the participating schools to develop as

• rganisations, to increase their ability to work internationally and

to strengthen their European dimension; important for quality assessment to be proportional aligning actions and activities with the type and format of this funding action

• 7c. KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE

• 4. P
• 4. PARTNERS AND A

NERS AND ACTORS RS

Understanding Strategic Partnerships

 Most Strategic Partnerships are required to involve at least 3 partners from 3 programme countries (Youth SPs and SEPs reduce this to 2 partners from 2 programme countries)  No upper limit to the number of partners yet management (PMI) contributions are paid for a maximum of 10 organisations.  Strategic Partnerships are open to organisations active in any field

• f education, training and youth, or other socio‐economic

sectors, including those with a transversal remit (e.g. local and regional authorities, recognition bodies, trade organisations, chambers of commerce, guidance centres, cultural bodies).  Strategic Partnerships should involve an appropriate range of partners bringing forth complementary experience and expertise that will enable goals and objectives to be delivered, with participation having confirmed strategic value in all cases (SEPs are an exception for which schools only participation is targeted).

• 4. P
• 4. PARTNERS AND A

NERS AND ACTORS RS

Understanding Strategic Partnerships

Pr Prog

• gramme Countries

mme Countries

A PARTNER COUNTRY (from anywhere in the world) can participate where there is genuine added value with specific skills, experience or expertise brought forth that is essential for successful project achievement (and which is not able to be found in Erasmus+ programme countries). Receives funding but cannot host LTTAs (apart from Short‐term Staff Training)

• UK participation continues as previously
• Associated partners can participate (no funding can be

accessed, but roles must be described)

Assessment and Scoring

Assessment and Scoring: Criteria and Ceilings

ASSESSMENT CRITERION MAXIMUM SCORE Relevance 30 Quality of Project Design 20 Quality of Project Team 20 Impact and Dissemination 30 Note 1: scores apply to all KA2 Strategic Partnerships (including SEPs) Note 2: to be considered for financing, projects must achieve at least 50% under each criterion plus at least 60 points in total.

Assessment and Scoring: Use of Scoring Bands

Scoring Ceiling 

VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR WEAK

…application addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question convincingly and successfully; the answer provides all the information and evidence needed and there are no concerns or areas of weakness. …application addresses the criterion well, although some small improvements could be made; the answer gives clear information on all, or nearly all, of the evidence needed. …application broadly addresses the criterion, but there are some weaknesses; the answer gives some relevant information, but there are several areas where detail is lacking or the information is unclear. …application fails to address the criterion

• r cannot be judged

due to missing or incomplete information; the answer does not address the question asked, or gives very little relevant information.

30 POINTS

26 ‐ 30 21 ‐ 25 15 ‐ 20 0 ‐14

[fails threshold]

20 POINTS

17 ‐ 20 14 ‐ 16 10 ‐ 13 0 ‐ 9

[fails threshold]

Note: additional scoring bands exist in other funding actions

Thinking about Priorities

The application form asks…

• Please select the most relevant horizontal or sectoral

priority according to the objectives of the project.

• Please comment on your choice of priorities.

Thinking about Priorities

• The evaluator must evaluate if the project addresses at least one of the

priorities ( either horizontal OR field specific) as specified in the Programme Guide.

• If the project addresses a Horizontal Priority, it must clearly prove the impact

in the field under which it is applying.

• If a project addresses the horizontal priority ‘inclusive education, training and

youth’ it will be considered highly relevant.

• The Irish National Agency is not prioritising a European priority in a national

context.

• If a proposal does not provide convincing evidence that is relevant to at least
• ne priority the proposal must be scored as ‘weak’ for the award criterion

‘Relevance of the Project’ as a whole, and rejected as a consequence.

Thinking about Priorities

Where are the priorities coming from?

Thinking about Priorities

Europe 2020

20 million fewer people at risk of poverty 40% completion of tertiary education Employment rate 75% among 20‐64 year olds Early school leaving at < 10% Lifelong learning & mobility Quality of Education & Training Equity, social cohesion, active citizenship Creativity, innovation, entrepreneurship

Rethinking Education 2012

• Development of transversal skills – problem solving, creative thinking,

communication etc.

• Foundation or basic skills are achieved by all….
• Language learning
• Potential of ICT in learning and teaching ( and OER)
• Supporting Europe’s teachers to upskill

New Skills Agenda -2016 Paris Declaration - Promoting Citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non discrimination through education- 2015 Upskilling Pathways -2016 School Development and Excellent Teaching for a Great Start in Life (2017)

4 million mobilities 2 million HE students 650,000 VET students 800,000 Staff from AE, HE, School, VET 25,000 partnerships

2014-2020

Strategic Partnerships must address either at least one horizontal priority or at least

• ne specific priority

relevant to the field that is mostly impacted

Strategic Partnerships

Horizontal Priorities 2018 ACHIEVEMENT OF RELEVANT AND HIGH

QUALITY SKILLS AND COMPETENCES

SOCIAL INCLUSION OPEN EDUCATION AND INNOVATIVE

PRACTICES IN A DIGITAL ERA

EDUCATORS (INITIAL TRAINING,

RECRUITMENT, INDUCTION, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ETC.)

TRANSPARENCY AND RECOGNITION OF

SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS

SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENT,

PERFORMANCE AND EFFICIENCY IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING

SOCIAL & EDUCATIONAL VALUE OF EUROPEAN CULTURAL HERITAGE

Strategic Partnerships

School Priorities 2018 STRENGTHENING THE PROFILE OF THE

TEACHING PROFESSIONS

PROMOTING THE ACQUISITION OF SKILLS

AND COMPETENCES

SUPPORTING SCHOOLS TO TACKLE EARLY

SCHOOL LEAVING

SUPPORTING EFFORTS TO INCREASE

ACCESS TO EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE

Strategic Partnerships

VET Priorities 2018

Strategic Partnerships

Adult Ed Priorities 2018 IMPROVING AND EXTENDING THE OFFER

OF HIGH QUALITY LEARNING TO ENHANCE LITERACY, NUMERACY AND DIGITAL COMPETENCES

FACILITATING ACCESS THROUGH SKILLS

IDENTIFICATION, TAILORED LEARNING & VALIDATION OF NON/ INFORMAL LEARNING

GUIDANCE TO ENCOURAGE ADULTS TO

UPGRADE THEIR LITERACY, NUMERACY AND DIGITAL SKILLS

EXTENDING AND DEVELOPING ADULT

EDUCATORS COMPETENCES INCLUDING

ICT PROMOTING WORK‐BASED LEARNING INCREASING THE QUALITY OF VET

PROVISION IN LINE WITH EQAVET RECOMMENDATIONS

FURTHER STRENGTHENING VET

COMPETENCES IN VET CURRICULA

ENHANCING ACCESS TO TRAINING AND

QUALIFICATIONS FOR ALL THROUGH CONTINUING‐VET

Strategic Partnerships

VET Priorities 2018 CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT OF VET TEACHERS, TRAINERS AND MENTORS

DEVELOPING INSTITUTIONAL

PARTNERSHIPS SUPPORTING INTERNATIONALISATION STRATEGY OF VET LEARNERS

Group exercise

10 mins Read the project description on your table Assign a horizontal and/OR field specific priority to it

Evaluating Needs

Section E in the application form: Description of the Project

• Please explain the context and the objectives of your

project as well as the needs and target groups to be addressed?

Evaluating Needs

Relevance Criteria The evaluator must evaluate the extent to which…

• The proposal proves that a solid analysis, drawing on existing

knowledge, know‐how, and practice, has been carried out to identify needs of the target group(s), and organisations.

• The needs identified are relevant for the field under which the

proposal was submitted and are clearly linked to the priorities that the project intends to meet.

Evaluating Needs

• Macro ‐ Secondary research, Policy

documents

• Micro – primary research, examples

from partners, testimonials

• Transnational v National approach

Evidencing Needs

Evaluating Needs

Proportionality Principle: in order to ensure a fair assessment of all applications, experts shall take due account of the size of the project and the experience of the participating

• rganisations; the quality of each application

shall thus be assessed for all award criteria considering this proportionality principle. Evaluating Needs

Impact Criteria The evaluator must evaluate the potential impact of the project;

• On participants and participating organisations, during and

after the project lifetime

• Outside the organisations and individuals directly

participating in the project, at local regional, national and/or European levels

Evaluating Needs

DESIRED RESULTS CURRENT SITUATION

Group Exercise

• Read the short project description
• What do you think about how they have evidenced the

gap/need for this project?

• Does it convince you that the project idea will address

the gap? Yes or no – Explain why

• What evidence or explanation is missing? How could

they improve this?

20 Mins

Creating Comments

Assessment Overview: Writing Comments

Assessment Overview: Writing Comments

Individual Assessment: OEET Assessment Form

Add comments for each assessment criterion Add overall comments (highlighting strengths and weaknesses) Add comments specifically for use by the NA Add scores for each assessment criterion (refer to scoring bands and remember thresholds!) Total automatically calculated by OEET. Remember different maximum scores exist for different assessment criteria Confirm whether reductions are proposed to the

• riginal grant

Additional boxes are provided.

Assessment Overview: Comments

• Each award criterion comprises several elements (see briefing sheets) which must be

considered and commented on;

• Experts should make a judgement on the extent to which the application meets defined

criteria with judgements based solely on the information provided in the application and ensuring that applicants are not penalised more than once for the same issue;

• Experts should keep in mind the project type, the scale of planned activity and the amount
• f funding requested and should integrate the proportionality principle into their assessment;
• Comments should be provided in text format (not bullet points) and should respect the 5 Cs
• The NA staff are responsible for ensuring that all assessments meet the minimum standards

Coherent: easy to understand even for a reader that has not read the application Comprehensive: covering each of the award criteria and incorporating all,

• f the composite

elements Consistent: easily aligned with the scores that have been awarded for each criterion and within the predefined scoring bands Courteous: polite and respectful (note that comments are used to provide feedback to applicants) Concise: whilst there will always be exceptions, comments should be of a standard size i.e no more than

• ne page of the

assessment form

Individual Assessment: Scoring Bands

Scoring Ceiling  SCORING BANDS

VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR WEAK

…application addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question convincingly and successfully; the answer provides all the information and evidence needed and there are no concerns or areas of weakness. …application addresses the criterion well, although some small improvements could be made; the answer gives clear information on all,

• r nearly all, of the

evidence needed. …application broadly addresses the criterion, but there are some weaknesses; the answer gives some relevant information, but there are several areas where detail is lacking or the information is unclear. …application fails to address the criterion or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information; the answer does not address the question asked, or gives very little relevant information.

40 POINTS 34 ‐ 40 28 ‐ 33 20 – 27 0 – 19

[fails threshold]

30 POINTS 26 ‐ 30 21 ‐ 25 15 ‐ 20 0 ‐14

[fails threshold]

20 POINTS 17 – 20 14 ‐ 16 10 ‐ 13 0 – 9

[fails threshold]

Briefing Sheet: KA2 Assessment Comments

Some Tips!

Don’t copy or even refer to entire sections

• f the application form

Don’t take statements at face value – look for evidence! Try to come to a conclusion Summarise in the General Comments Section! Back up negative comments with recommendations

Some Tips! ‐ Examples

Don’t copy entire sections

• f the application form

As the project outlines, EU data shows 30%

• f all non‐EU nationals work in the

agriculture sector. In Ireland 36% of staff employed in the agriculture sector come from outside of Ireland, and 77% of staff from outside Italy are employed in the

• sector. With rising immigration the number
• f people from minority ethnic backgrounds

working in the sector will rise and the need for training will be even more relevant. The project has demonstrated the need for the training by referencing relevant European and National studies.

Some Tips! ‐ Examples

Don’t take statements at face value – look for evidence!

The application states that there are no similar programmes in this area. The application demonstrates that while there are other programmes in this area they do not provide training interventions that promote intercultural understanding.

Some Tips! ‐ Examples

Project objectives are clearly stated but it is difficult to judge the extent to which these can be successfully achieved from the application. Project objectives are clearly stated but there is insufficient detail in the activities

• utlined in the application to

demonstrate that these can be successfully achieved.

Try to come to a conclusion

Some Tips! ‐ Examples

The initial Multiplier Event is not appropriate. The initial Multiplier Event takes place too early in the project for any intellectual outputs to be disseminated.

Back up negative comments with recommendations

Some Tips! ‐ Examples

The project “Online Mentoring and Guidance” is aimed at developing a model social network environment, profiling past pupils of selected schools and engaging them as mentors to provide links with the worlds of 3rd level education and work, identifying career guidance and career information needs of students and establishing viable and sustainable on‐line learning partnership and mentoring arrangements. The project involves a diverse mix of partners from 7 countries with extensive experience in European projects and a relevant list of associated partners is included. The project duration is 24 months. There are 5 TPMs focused on assessment of project development and

• implementation. Multiplier events in the form of dissemination workshops will be organized in

all 7 countries combined with a final project conference in Ireland. No TTLs have been foreseen in this project. The expected outcomes of the project include: a new career guidance model, establishment of school‐centric social networks to link pupils with past pupils in on‐going mentorship, a new in‐ service training course for teacher and guidance experts and a new induction training program to support past pupils as students.

Example of a Project Summary for the National Agency

Individual Assessment: Scoring Bands

Scoring Ceiling  SCORING BANDS

VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR WEAK

…application addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question convincingly and successfully; the answer provides all the information and evidence needed and there are no concerns or areas of weakness. …application addresses the criterion well, although some small improvements could be made; the answer gives clear information on all,

• r nearly all, of the

evidence needed. …application broadly addresses the criterion, but there are some weaknesses; the answer gives some relevant information, but there are several areas where detail is lacking or the information is unclear. …application fails to address the criterion or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information; the answer does not address the question asked, or gives very little relevant information.

40 POINTS 34 ‐ 40 28 ‐ 33 20 – 27 0 – 19

[fails threshold]

30 POINTS 26 ‐ 30 21 ‐ 25 15 ‐ 20 0 ‐14

[fails threshold]

20 POINTS 17 – 20 14 ‐ 16 10 ‐ 13 0 – 9

[fails threshold]

Budget Assessment

Overview of KA2‐SP Budget Assessment

• Budgets are reviewed under the Quality Criteria Quality of Project Design.
• Experts are expected to confirm that the proposal “provides value for money comparing

results planned to the grant requested” and that the “grant request is realistic to support high quality implementation of the project and its activities”.

• KA2‐SP budgets are largely based on unit costs with amounts calculated per day / per

category / per meeting / per month although there are some exceptions (e.g. special needs; third‐party provision of goods and services where clearly justified);

• National agencies rely on experts to judge and comment on the type and number of units

being proposed ensuring that they are relevant, appropriate and realistic (i.e. not

• verestimated or underestimated);
• Even in projects that are scored highly, experts might judge that units are excessive or

unjustified and might propose reductions in the proposed numbers of units : these recommendations can be used, by the NA, to determine a reduction on the proposed (or awarded) grant where a project is selected for funding;

• For projects not passing one or more thresholds (consolidation stage), it is not necessary

to point out all areas of the budget where there are inaccuracies or excesses, focusing instead on constructive feedback and areas for change.

Budget Assessment – Tips Sheet

Activity: Interpreting the Financial Rules

Reduce? Recommend?

• r

The project wishes to hold a Transnational Project Meeting in Spain even though there is no Spanish partner in the project.

Reduce? Recommend?

• r

Activity: Interpreting the Financial Rules

The project has requested the following staff time for IO2. The Italian partner is the lead partner and according to the IO description all other partners will carry out the same tasks:

Reduce? Recommend?

• r

Activity: Interpreting the Financial Rules

Organisation Output Identific ation Category Country

• No. of

Working Days Grant per day Grant Requested TCD 02 Researcher Ireland 25 241 6,025 KUNGLIGA 02 Researcher Sweden 20 241 4,820 JOSIPA JURJA 02 Researcher Slovenia 40 137 5,480 SOSPIRE 02 Researcher Italy 35 214 7,490 ASPIRE LTD. 02 Researcher UK 20 214 4,280

The project has requested the following staff time for IO1. The Irish partner is the Coordinator and lead partner.

Reduce? Recommend?

• r

Activity: Interpreting the Financial Rules

Organisation Output Identific ation Category Country

• No. of

Working Days Grant per day Grant Requested TCD 01 Researcher Ireland 210 241 50,610 AKADEMIA 01 Researcher Norway 50 241 12,050 TRABAJO 01 Researcher Spain 55 137 7,535 INSPIRE 01 Researcher Iceland 60 214 12,840 SOLUTIONS 01 Researcher UK 60 214 12,840

Reduce? Recommend?

• r

Activity: Interpreting the Financial Rules

Event Identification E1 Event Title Workshop for the Start‐up manager competence profile Country of Venue Ireland Event Description This workshop will be an event in which a group of experts are asked about their perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes towards a product or service, in this present case, the start‐up managers associated

• competences. Questions are asked in an interactive way

and participants are free to talk with other group

• members. This workshop will be the central activity of a

dedicated event on the project, focusing on the specific training needs of managers for start‐ups.

Reduce? Recommend?

• r

Activity: Interpreting the Financial Rules

Event Identification C1 Event Title SP‐VET‐SHORT ‐ Short‐term joint staff training events Country of Venue Ireland Event Description This short term staff training event will essentially take the format of a capacity building session for educators on the main project outputs, the best practice guide (O2), online platform (O4) and toolkit (O3). The local “train the trainers” event will be hosted by CIT through CIT’s live e‐learning platform, Adobe Connect. This

• nline aspect allows partners to provide training opportunities

for a larger audience, those who cannot attend in person, while also facilitating a small number (10) of local participants with a face‐to‐face training session. The online training sessions allow partners to heavily disseminated the event and the project itself via social media, networks like CEEN, etc.

Participating Organisations CIT

Reduce? Recommend?

• r

Activity: Interpreting the Financial Rules

Event Identification C1 Event Title SP‐VET‐SHORT ‐ Short‐term joint staff training events Country of Venue Ireland Event Description This short term staff training event will essentially take the format of a capacity building session for educators on the main project outputs, the best practice guide (O2), online platform (O4) and toolkit (O3). The local “train the trainers” event will be hosted by CIT through CIT’s live e‐learning platform, Adobe Connect. This

• nline aspect allows partners to provide training opportunities

for a larger audience, those who cannot attend in person, while also facilitating a small number (10) of local participants with a face‐to‐face training session. The online training sessions allow partners to heavily disseminated the event and the project itself via social media, networks like CEEN, etc.

Participating Organisations CIT

Overview of KA2‐SP Budget Assessment

Organisation Description of Item Amount 945628266: H2 LEARNING LTD External Evaluator €5,000 949221825: South Eastern Regional College Printing of project brochures €2,500 945628266: H2 LEARNING LTD Design and printing of Teacher’s manual €3,500 941475502: Istituto Statale Design of project website €2,000 Review the following Exceptional Costs

Reduce? Recommend?

• r

Briefing Sheet: KA2 Budget Assessment

Assessment Processes and People

Overview of Core Assessment and Selection Steps

Advance Circulation of Briefing Materials Expert Briefing (joint or field‐specific) Conflict of Interest Check Quality Assessment of “Eligible” Applications by Experts Quality Assurance by NA Staff Consolidation of Quality Assessments (where needed) by Lead Experts Scores and Comments uploaded to OEET Ranking List Agreed by Evaluation Committee Contracts Issued to Successful Applicants

Recruit, Select and Contract Experts Provide Expert Briefings and Briefing Materials Confirm “Eligible Applications” that require assessment Ensure no “Conflict of Interest” among selected Experts Manage and Support Experts during Assessment Quality Assure Expert Assessments (5Cs, 6Cs) Create Ranking List Host Evaluation Committee Contract Successful Applicants

Overview of NA Activities in Assessment and Selection

Expert Assessment 1 (internal or external) Assessment Scores and Comments Ranked List of Assessments Expert Assessment 1 (internal or external) Expert Assessment 2 (internal or external: action dependant) Difference of 30 or more points and thresholds passed by both experts?

Expert Assessment 3 (internal or external) Consolidation (where 3 experts this involves only 2 experts with closest scores) Consolidated Assessment Scores and Comments Ranked List of Assessments QUALITY ASSESSMENT INVOLVING A SINGLE EXPERT QUALITY ASSESSMENT INVOLVING MORE THAN ONE EXPERT

There may be

• ccasions where

you have to work with others.

QUALITY ASSESSMENT INVOLVING A SINGLE EXPERT

• KA1 Mobility Projects where the grant request is ≤ €60,000
• KA2 School Exchange Partnerships (SEPs) where the grant request is ≤ €60,000

QUALITY ASSESSMENT INVOLVING MORE THAN ONE EXPERT

• KA1 Mobility Projects where the grant request is > €60,000
• (does not apply to holders of a VMC or ECHE)
• KA2 School Exchange Partnerships (SEPs) where the grant request is > €60,000
• KA2 Strategic Partnership applications (other than SEPs)
• HE Mobility Consortia and VMC Applications for Accreditation

Overview of Expert Assessment Activities

Consolidation Overview

• Consolidation is normally undertaken for ALL Strategic Partnership applications (grant

requests normally > €60,000 under this funding action);

• Consolidation will only ever involve 2 experts (if a third expert is involved, the 2 experts with

the closest scores will be asked to consolidate);

• Comments and scores are combined in a single consolidated assessment (half‐scores can be

used during Consolidation only; averages are not automatically used – scores should be in line with the consolidated comments);

• When the draft consolidation is complete the lead expert should forward a copy of the Word

Consolidation Form to the second expert for approval.

• After the lead evaluator has received the approval from the second evaluator they should

forward the completed Word Consolidation Form to the National Agency for sign‐off.

• Only during Consolidation can you discuss a project with another assessor (initial

assessments remain independent and do not change);

• Comments are provided in text format and should respect the 6 Cs:

Coherent, Comprehensive, Consistent, Courteous, Concise and… Consolidated: comments should read as single texts (sentences or paragraphs) and should be harmonised, not contradictory.

Briefing Sheet: Expert Assessment and Consolidation