|Partner Meeting Oldenburg 2008|
LearningMigration Comenius 3 Network
Oldenburg, 22-23 November 2008
Dan Daatland (Norway)
Salim Murad (Tschechien)
Camilla Hodel (Schweden)
Ruzika Cicak-Chand (Kroatien)
Catalin Soare (Rumänien)
Jernej Mlekuz (Slovenien)
Isabel Rasoilo (Portugal)
Bernhard Stolz (Germany)
Linus Erikson (Schweden)
Murry Print (Autralia)
1. Annual Report (overall coordinator leading discussion)
• Annual report 2008 is needed. Deadline 14th of December 2008
• Croatia and Portugal: annual report 2007 is missing
• No formal external evaluators → partners should therefore be very critical on evaluating (1) the own group, (2) the whole network and (3) overall coordinator
• Reminder: Annual reports are part of outcomes and are archived on the web site as well as printed.
2. Financial Report Report (overall coordinator leading discussion)
• All coordinators are supposed to use the same form in words or excel for the whole period (including the period aleady coveed by the progress report). The form sheets are the same distributed at the partner meeting in Valcea (summer 2008).
• Comments and reminders given concerning the various installments sent from overall coordinator to the national coordinators. Partners should add their part of general costs. Their own contribution (25%) as well.
• Travel to conferences and seminars organised or co-organised by the network. Also: travelling to meetings/events in national groups, or their partners disseminating LM network results at int. conferences or seminars.
• More on travelling: need of air tickets means cost of the travelling, list of persons at the conferences is available – invoice and name is enough.
• Technology: if something costs more than 1000 € you have to split it into several years, means e.g. one third each year. If you bought it in the last year you can only declare one third of the value! (This point has been discussed several times before).
• Staff: Ilka Ficken (German financial expert on EU projects) has informed Julia that the time sheets are not binding; but you have to list the persons worked for LM, the working hours spent for LM and the content of the work. The signature for all can be given by the national coordinators of each country→ Ilka
• Some discussion on translation costs, use of assistants, and challenge of distinction between administration, management, etc (staff)
• Exchange rates
→ Ilka Ficken: either you calculate the exchange rate of each invoice for the day of expenditure and the same for each working day or month. Or you calculate with an average of the differening exchange rates you had. There is no clear rule for dealing with that problem given from the EU.
• Slovenia has a already delievered their reporting. Copies of this to be distributed to other national coordinators.
• If you have no invoices, put it into general expenses!
• Salim: end of November deadline, but the staff salary is given the money just the 12th of December → official paper from university that this or that person is paid…
3. Paper on changes in the partnership
• Withdrawal of some partner institutions as well as adding of new partners
• Do not declare for partners that have left → take a look at the paper
• If there is spent money on institutions that are not on the list do not write it down in the report, only if they are on the original list and not withdrawedas partner.
4. Other Reporting connected to Outcomes
• Thematic reports of best practice: one or two pages of best practice, maybe just a pick on the most interesting e.g. Croatia: using the network as an example, as well as a school in a multicultural environment, video as a story teller (Spain), welcome DVD in Northern Ireland; some which are already on the website should be changed a little, to make it more uniform;
• Website: challenge: some partners could not upload the programs on the website; there is help to put on the events if the national coordinators have problems → sent to the overall coordinator; important to record the things that happened!
• Also copies to Brussels of prospects, videos, DVDs (from Spain, Portugal, Germany), it is enough if the network was involved, it is not necessary that projects are only run by the network!
• If the material is not produced in English? → A short introduction in English would be advisable.
5. Discussing a new project initiative (Ruzica Cicak-Chand, Croatia)
• Ruzica presented the network for Croatian schools her group has been running successfully throughout the LM network period. Maybe it can be implemented in in other partner countries. Has already been discussions with Romania and Slovenia.
➢ Structure of the seminars: First lectures on multiculturalism, interculturalism and human rights; second workshops and presentations of the school partners (taking part in the LearningMigration network) and their expererience. Then discussions with other schools in the national network. Collaboration with Ministerial body for in-service training of teachers.
➢ 2008 seminar: migration trend and politics in Croatia: how to deal with a bigger number of migrants coming to Croatia and how to integrate children with migrant background into the schools; idea of a teacher: check up the school books especially history books, sociology books and geography books etc. how is the topic of migration included? Different books especially on history and geography books, teacher choose different books with different content, especially the 20th century history is discussable, a lot depends on the teachers: how interested are they? What is their knowledge on migration and integration? → Something new!
➢ Primary school made a presentation on how pupils investigated their origins by asking their forefathers → outcome: quite a number has their origin outside of Zagreb; from the gymnasium; project on integration of Roma and Albanian families; due to the war many population changes → pupils quite mixed origins; last presentation gymnasium from a small town: dance as a way how to maintain an identity, e.g. folkdance from that area, visiting Croatian communities in Europe and overseas;
➢ Teachers were interested on how to remain in contact, how to continue as the project ends – interest in making connections to schools from other countries; as Ruzika is coming back they expect to have some ideas how to further the collaboration; there is already a major link all over the country
➢ Bulgaria is interested, as well as Romania, maybe one could also come up with a network of schools in Slovenia → maybe prepare a new application so the system can be copied by others, so Croatia could be coordinator for the first time
6. From network to association – discussing the future (Julia Rehbein, Germany)
• Refering to discussion during conference in Valcea conference (May 2008) and agreement to continue the prepraration of starting up an association to continue the work of the LearningMigration network.
• Website: need of a professional, because the site is very complex – transfer to Germany from Norway (complex technical system!!!), also concerning the finances, as it was financed by the EU – But! The commission has no rights on the website!
• Contradictory models on membership fees:
(1) minimum administrative effort, means small fee, or none at all
(2) justice and equality gdp- and/or income model
(3) self assessment: minimum fee 20 € a year
• Ruzika: interest has to be created first, so lower fees for everyone, income level to complicated
• Salim: maybe all lower fee, but dependent on the expectations of the members
• Julia: still some people who are interested do not even have the lowest fee, at least need for a regulation
• Salim: lots of organisations from the Czech Republic only want to be passive members, maybe not interested if to pay any fee → they are more honorary members then
• Julia: successful only if you have motivated members…partners should think about the different models
• All agree: not too much controlling, more self assessment model!
• Jerney: only fees for institutions
• Schools are not legally independent, as well as administrations → can not be institutional members! Means representation can only be through an individual membership, the same with the European School Association, only individual members! Fees should thus not be too high
• Executive committee combined of 4 members, first or second board member should be Prof. Dirk Lange, if the association is located in Oldenburg, other positions are free for all partners, and the treasurer could also be located in Oldenburg, as it would be more practical…
• Decision-taking is relatively easy, so there is not too much administrative efforts…