How does the Commission reason about the fact that this is a pilot that has not yet been tested but has nonetheless been included in the proposal for a regulation (in the same way as they have done with some other initiatives), and whether there already are thoughts on its scope in upcoming programmes?

Is it reasonable in future programmes to retain both cooperation partnerships, small-scale partnerships, and school alliances with a limited amount of funding?

When can we expect a final proposal that we can share with the accredited organisations? And start reviewing and adapting our routines?

NA Teams implementing actions dedicated to school education use various forms of collaboration and information exchange:

E+ / ETwinning synergy

1) NA NL Annual events – merging separate SE/Etw meetings has increased interest of potential Ben;

2) NA NL – tailored workshop for Ben: „How to go from ETw to E+ projects”

3) NA FI / NA PL – one information meeting for all programs (Info Days)

4) NA NL twice a year meeting of all teams dedicated to school education (40 people) – exchange of experiences, ideas, motivations;

2) NA PL – weekly meetings of all unit coordinators of SE, ADU, EPALE, ETw also invited

3) At all E+ information meetings, information about ETw is shared  and vice versa

E+/EPALE synergy

Good cooperation between EPALE and ADU teams, there is rather no cooperation between EPALE and the SE sector, although sometimes teachers perform the tasks of adult educators in their communities and can use the EPALE platform.

EPALE is used to search for project partners.

ETw and EPALE Ambassadors who disseminate information about the program are an important group in the process of building synergy between E+ / ETw / EPALE.

When building synergy, it is worth remembering that there are European networks dedicated to teachers, e.g., European Teachers Network, International Forum for Inclusion Practitioners, etc. These networks are often the result of central E+ projects.

E+ / ESF+ synergy

NA PL has been cooperating with the ESF since 2012, obtaining ESF funds to co-finance the KA121 reserve list. Good quality projects that have not been co-financed by E+ due to a lack of funds may be co-financed by ESF+ if schools meet the criteria for support (areas with high unemployment, social exclusion, low income in the region, poor exam results (mathematics, foreign languages).

Monitoring visits – the best tool for checking project quality, but the NAs do not have enough time to examine a large group of projects (only 15 – 10per year), the NA SI uses a monitoring visit conducted by an external expert acompanied by wo NA employees as observers.

Monitoring meetings: can be held online, with 5-6 beneficiaries participating, opportunity to discuss problems and common topics

Monitoring conferences – NA DE organizes a large conference once a year for 200 beneficiaries (KA1 + KA2)

Erasmus plans should be less general, currently they are not SMART.  Beneficiaries should be trained in long-term planning and constructing Erasmus plans that can be verified (indicators).

It is worth considering creatin of an evaluation tools (supported by AI) that would analyze data entered into PM for correctness and eligibility.

Simplification of assessment of 121 reports: we should determine what must be checked (the absolute minimum) and what should/ can be checked.

NA should analyze how much time each activity currently takes and design how much time they would like to spend on them in the future. Look for efficiencies.

It is necessary to work with beneficiaries on the quality of projects, so that checking takes less time.

It is necessary to work with external experts to ensure that their assessments take into account the quality expectations of the EC and NA.

It is worth considering creating a new sub-action dedicated only to newcomers (Erasmus-Incubator).

A Light procedure for accredited organizations is a good idea. The commission ask the national Agencies to define criteria to determine which organizations could continue. How many organizations could be accepted in the light procedure: it’s a question of national strategy

Criteria have to be known before the accreditation application lunch.

Examples for criteria:

-            the organizations hase to have finalized 2  KA 121 projects.

-            Accreditation which have good performed and ended projets could have a light procedure.

What about the last accredited organizations (accredited in 2025 or 2026) and how let a chance to new comers. Will be the competition for new commers and experimenced organizations in KA122 project be fair?

2026 will be the last application: they wouldn’t have time to perform – they have to prove their performance

For the future maintain the limitation of number of new accredited

Opportunities for newcomers: short project (new commers projects) are a path to accreditation:

 - it allows the beneficiaries to gain experience before apply for an accreditation

- Newcomers need experience before to be accredited

– it’s not required to apply for accreditation after finalizing their project.

What happens to organizations who only want to do shot project? Thei final report has to be closed before apply to a new project?

What happens for a organization who doesn’t perform in this project and ask an accreditation in their final report?

12 months – final reports

KA 121 projects in the new program :

-            Should we directly propose durations of 24 months, with the possibility of submitting the final report before, after 12 months? = The majority of participants in the working group seem to be in favour of keeping the durations of 12 months and 24 months

-            Should we allow more flexibility for organizations to choose the start date of their project? => The majority of participants prefer to keep a common start date for all projects to better organize the teams' schedules.

-            On the other hand, can the start date of activities be defined by national agencies according to their own school calendar?

Simplification :

-            Maintain the lump sums  for KA1 school projects  - we have to consider that coordinator in school are Teachers and not manager - packages like for KA2 projects are to difficult

-            Think about the possibility of reducing the number of categories for staff mobilities: for example  Organisational support 350€ / Per participant for jobshadowing

100€ for courses and training + Course fees  = why not cancel the courses fees and have a unique organizational support for the staff mobility?

-             in ESEP reviews of qualities courses – needs a validation before publishing  (signing of a charter, a commitment from course providers before publishing on ESEP )

-            Encourage experts mobilities

 Slovenia :  courses are good for newcomers because predefined programs make it easier to enter the program. Participants can meets other colleagues from other countries and develop partnership.

·       LTA Impact: to find ways to increase impact of KA1 and KA2

Transnational studies how to reach impact -> various impact tools, Impact handbook and broschures in various languages with contents from impact handbook.

Webinars on impact – creating a structure for such webinars

Sharing the materials of the Dutch agency and LTA Impact to applicants and beneficiaries

Impact handbook handled among the NA Staff.

Impact handled with new colleagues as part of induction. Impact session obligatory

·       European School Alliances application form draft -considered good that impact rated high in evaluation criteria of applications. Could this be applied in other actions, too – more emphasis on impact?

·       proposal: should beneficiaries have the responsibility to report on impact for a certain period of time after the project end like in Horizon?

·       or could the phase of introducing the results be during the project period? It may be easier to evaluate impact at this stage.

·       in KA240, good intentionl to introduce the impact, empasis on this in evaluation (proposed). However, what happens when project period over, three years is short time to evaluate long-term impact

Future of the programme: if there was a call to continue the existing work of an earlier project? And could then more partners be involved?

·       beneficiaries have difficulty in making a difference between promotion and impact

Would clarification of impact in programme guide be helpful?

·       how can you measure impact in a project – e.g.

·       Adult education: LTA-RIA network studying impact of Erasmus+ projects: a systemic approach in collecting feedback from the beneficiaries. Would be good to have similar approach in SCH as well.

·       Greece has a bot on the website, the contents for the answers comes from the agency website

è a nice initiative but they also consider if beneficiaries will still make phone calls