|5th Coordinator Meeting/4rd Partnership Meeting, Girona, Catalonia (Spain), April 21 and 23, 2004.|
|Girona, Catalonia (Spain)|
COORDINATOR MEETING NO 5, GIRONA APRIL 21 AND 23, 2004
-  Status of network
-  Evaluation and monitoring questions
-  Budget
- [4 ] Partnership (changes)
-  Activities according to Application and Contract – archived on the MIR WWW-site
-  The question of sustainability
-  Evaluation of the Firona events
-  Coming events
Isabel Rasoilo, Universidade Aberta/CEMRi, Lisbon, Portugal
Lena Björk, Lindängskolan, Malmö, Sweden
Camilla Hodel-Fryzell, Lindängskolan, Malmö, Sweden
Evelyn Cardwell, Ulster American Folk Park/Centre for Migration Studies, Omagh, Northern Ireland
(Island of Ireland group)
Jernej Mlekuz, Institute of Slovenian Emigration Studies, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Dirk Lange, Carl von Ossietzky Universität, Oldenburg, Germany
Bernhard Stolz, Humanistische Verband, Berlin, Germany
Anna Farjas, IES La Garrotxa, Olot, Spain (Catalonia)
Eva Kordova, Anglo-Czech High School, Czech Republic
Robert Dulfer, Rozmberk Society,Trebon, Czech Republic
Bodhild Baasland, Directorate for Primary and Secondary Education, Oslo, Norway
Martha Lea, University of Stavanger, Norway
Synnøva Drange, University of Stavanger, Norway
Idar Ree, University of Stavanger, Norway
Dan D. Daatland, University of Stavanger, Norway
Rebeca Mesaric Zabcic, Institute for Migration and Ethnic Relations, Croatia
Ruzica Cicak-Chand, Institute for Migration and Ethnic Relations, Croatia
-  Status of network
- [1.1] Status (overall coordinator) - see documet "Interim Report"
Interim Report has been approved by the EU (attached document).
Short but good evaluation (see below).
Network seems to be on track as regards workplan and products. Turkey – new country. Proved to be difficult to find the right composition of partners in Turkish group.
Amendment of contract: Spain has been accepted (formal letter received). The larger amendment involving several of the partner groups – still no formal answer from our letter of January 2004.
WWW-database: seems to be running OK. Needs to be more used by partners.
- [1.2] Status in working groups (nat. coordinators) - comment on your "Annual Reports"!
Because of the great number of documents to be discussed this point was done rather quickly. Main developments in each of the partner countries were briefly mentioned by coordinators. Other business regarding work in partner groups to be dealt with in connection with items below (particularly #5: Activities according to Application and Contract).
-  Evaluation and monitoring questions
- [2.1] External evaluation (Italian company; questionaire; interview)
Evaluation of work in Comenius 3 networks done by Italian consultancy Ecosfera S.p.A. Questionaire has been followed up by telephone interview with overall coordinator (Daatland). Also a meeting in Brussels (part of meetings of coordinators). Conclusions so far: need to work particular with sustainability and structure of larger networks to make certain results will be lasting.
- [2.2] Interim report - evaluation by Commission
As quoted from the letter from the EU Commission:
-good outcomes; well managed and structures; work distribution well balanced within the partnership
- current results of evaluation should be stated explicitly
Conclusive overal comment:
- It is a good project and well managed. All partners are involved and the work load distribution well balanced. There is room for improvement regarding the evaluation.”
- [2.3] Evaluation within MIR network
- [2.3.1] Croatian external evaluator
Reading through questionaires from main events + giving feedback on following coordinator meeting. Might do a larger formal written evaluation on a later main event (preferably annual conference). Not much funding to do this.
- [2.3.2] Internal evaluation (overall coordinator)
Seem to work OK to have overall coordinator make use of coordinator meetings twice a year to evaluate progress of work compared to wokplan and aims/objectives stated in the application. Will also benefit by stronger intervention from other partners in the discussion at these meetings (coordinator meetings) + in annual reports from partner countries.
- [2.3.3] Internal evaluation (national coordinator)
Most important tool is the mentioned annual report from partner countries with critical assessment of own work + view on overall coordinator’s work.
-  Budget
- [3.1] Installments
Nest installment to be sent before summer holiday depending of national coordinators sending outline of proposed activities in the next period + suggested spending of their part of the budget. Second 40% has been received by overall coordinator. First half of this will be sent now; the second half to be dealt with at the next coordinator meeting (October) and delivery of final version of annual report from partner groups. Thus: following the same procedure as for the first 40%: to be distributed in two rounds based on received draft working plan/budget from national coordinators.
- [3.2] Consequence of Turkey as a new partner group
Turkey – new country. Proved to be difficult to find the right composition of partners in Turkish group. Overall coordinator has made several approaches + had some help from German partner. Also discussed the matter with TAO. If (seems very probable) there will not be a Turkish group and thereby be a receiver of money for ”a new country” the following will be done: most of the money will be distributed evenly among partners (support their general work) + some money will go to partners doing special work + the rest act as a reserve overseen by the overall coordinator.
The budget has had to be amended (TAO) as a result of this.
- [4 ] Partnership (changes – amendments of contract)
- [4.1] Spanish group
Spain has been accepted (formal letter received). MIR asked for a permission to include a Spanish group by letter of April 6, 2003. Answer received a year later (April 5, 2004): positive response to include a group of five spanish partners coordinated by Anna Farjas.
- [4.2] Changes in existing groups
The larger amendment involving several of the partner groups – still no formal answer from our letter of January 2004. Expected to be accepted, though. Partners should involve suggested new partners based on this assumption, otherwise work will stop up.
- [4.3] Turkish group
Will not go any further with this work – funding set aside for this group to be distributed as mentioned above.
-  Activities according to Application and Contract – as archived on the MIR WWW-site
Each of the items below (menu options from the MIR WWW-database) were discussed with reference to distributed handouts,
- [5.1] Events
- [5.1.1] 2004 Course for teachers (Czech Republic)
- [5.1.2] 2005 Annual Conference (Ljubljana)
- [5.1.3] 2005 Course for teachers (Germany)
- [5.1.4] 2006, 2007 (see "Sustainability")
- [5.2] Reports
- [5.2.1] Annual reports
- [5.2.2] Main reports (Interim Report; Final Report)
- [5.2.3] Other reports according to Application and Contract
- [5.3] Research and Resources
- [5.3.1] Directory of Research
- [5.3.2] Catalogue of Digital Educational Resources
- [5.4] Projects (transnational)
- [5.4.1] Project ideas, smaller projects
- [5.4.2] Independent Socrates financed projects (Com 1, Com 2,1, Erasmus etc.)
- [5.4.3] Other
- [5.5] Information Letters
- [5.5.1] Global; Information Letters to All
- [5.5.2] National
- [5.6] Partner Activities (national)
The quality of this work is varying. Both in general, and between the various partner groups. Some partners are good in publishing on 5.3 (e.g. Slovenia). Some partner are good informing about own acitivities in item 5.6 (e.g. Island of Ireland group). Overall coordinator has overall responsibility, and has particularly responsibility for 5.1 and 5.2. Information Letters (5.5) is much used by overall coordinator as general tool of information (important: this is also open for the general public – sensitive information (?) should be handled by e-mails as now.
-  The question of sustainability
Points for discussion with reference to how best to monitor and evaluate progress of work, how to ascertain sustainability and good dissemination.
- [6.1] Minimum activity to continue after end of EU financial support
Main conclusion: to continue collaboration in one form or other whether the network will be financially supported as a whole in the future or not – what kind of activities to continue and not to continue were also discussed.
- [6.1.1] MIR WWW-site
Agreed that this site is suited for informing both within and outside network
- [6.1.2] Events
- [18.104.22.168] Type?
Courses for teachers easier to continue than annual conferences. Also possible to go on with contact seminars since they (and courses for teachers) can find other financial means both within and outside framework of Socrates
- [22.214.171.124] Frequency?
Probably not possible to do main events yearly. May also be co-organized with other groups, e.g. new Com 3 networks, with Com 2.1 projects etc.
- [6.2] Collaboration with "Stavanger 2008"?
Very useful to find strong partners like this.
- [6.2.1] Events 2007, 2009
First co-organised events with the European Culture Capital "Stavanger 2008" could start in 2007 or even before that! Sustainable strategy: co-working also in 2008 and 2009.
- [6.3] Collaboration with AEMI?
This and other networks/projects connected to the field of migration are more and more important.
- [6.4] Collaboration with other players in the field?
- [6.5] Project groups - independent financial basis
Should be even more encouraged – make use of contact seminars and also more informal ways of supporting new project ideas: e.g. the menu option in the MIR WWW-site. Several project ideas are close to being finalised as separate applications in Com 1, Com 2.1. Also Minerva initiative has been discussed.
- [6.6] New application?
It is a hard job to do a new application for Com 3. The success rate for an existing group doing a NEW application is not very great. However, it was agreed that the group should try, and that the overall coordinator (Daatland) supported by the German partner (Lange) should lead the work.
7. Evaluation of the Girona events
The external evaluator presented some initial responses. The coordinators agreed that accommodation and arriving in Girona was not successful in the beginning. Similarly, that interpretation could be improved, and that the organising of workshops were someshat lacking in the beginning. Content of workshop was very good, as were the quality of lectures and panel discussions in the plenary. Good work by the Spanish organisers in recruting local participants – total number of participants much higher than in Lisbon (2003).
8. Coming events
The autumn course for teachers has been moved from Germany to the Czech Republic. Eva Kordova’s group has been understanding and has taken the responsibility for this on a short notice. Weight on migration aspects in Eastern Europe in addition to the regular basis of lecturing on migration issues in Europe. Several school visits will be organised.
The German partner will instead organise the teacher course the year after (Ocotber 2005) and also be host for the last meeting of coordinators.