U4energy

www.europeanschoolnet.org - www.eun.org

U4energy competition

14/07/2011


Contents

• The big picture

• Linking to existing initiatives

• Outreach

• Improving competition design

• Quality of entries

• Overall appraisal

14/07/2011

2


The big picture (1/4)

Where does U4energy want to position?

•Clear need for repositioning

•Current specifications and operations are hybrid between:– Promotion of existing initiatives– Campaign directly to schools on energy issues

•Perceived competition between U4energy and existing IEE activities and national activities

•Schools over-supplied in some countries (i.e. lots of energy education initiatives already particularly in NW Europe)

14/07/2011

3




•Two extreme positions:– 1) Promotion of existing initiatives only

i.e. existing competitions at national level nominate top 5 entries and prizes given accordingly, no direct participation by teachers/studentsOR interoperability solution so submissions on national/existing competitions submit to U4energy

Challenges: interoperability very expensive and difficult; nominations only limits PR impact and doesn’t reach out directly to schools, only intermediaries, major changesrequired in ToR/contract…

– 2) Campaign directly to schools only

i.e. continue with current model with some revisions

Challenges: cannot guarantee schools participate, perceived competition with existing IEE initiatives not addressed…

14/07/2011

4




•Recommended position:Campaign targeting existing initiatives, schools and individual students

Revision of categories to include: –Category where initiatives nominate their best participants, with prize/recognition going both to the initiative and the school–Category for individual pupils, which is very simple, to engage those who are less committed to energy issues–Simplified category for teachers and schools including energy saving and awareness raising–Use past winners as role models–Each national initiative also becomes U4energy friend

Challenges: model tested only once, change in categories may be disruptive to existing participants, how to integrate national vs European initiatives

14/07/2011

5



Other ideas

•Two student categories:– Primary students (artistic expression around energy issues)– Secondary students (personal energy saving plan/materials)

•Categories targeted more at specific subject areas: e.g. energy in sustainability; energy from scientific perspective, etc.

14/07/2011

6


Linking to existing initiatives (1/3)

Which initiatives?

•Existing initiatives identified via assessment report (year 1) + additional outreach via U4energy friends

•Schoolnet cannot provide commitments from most of these initiatives until year 2 activities are confirmed

•Regional initiatives to be identified by national level

•Key organisations/initiatives agreed to cooperate so far include (but not limited to):

14/07/2011

7



New initiatives/organisations to invite for cooperation

•Focus on:– International networks to support through national members– Key national competitions that are well recognised (national coordinators will

help to identify per country)– Particular attention to countries which participated at low level in year 1– Some examples:

14/07/2011

8



How to resource this strategy

•EU coordination through existing U4energy team– Kick off meeting/confcall for EU level initiatives in Brussels (Sept)– Confcalls for those not able to join in Brussels– Regular contact via mailing list and confcalls – Follow up face to face meeting

•National initiatives coordinated through national organisation– Identification of key players by national level– Local kick off meeting in early autumn– Attendees sent to EU team in advance for approval– Regular contact via national mailing list and confcalls – Follow up via face to face meetings ideally– Above task to be integrated into national contract

14/07/2011

9


Outreach (1/3)

Three scenarios:

1.Continue under current system– Ambassador (institutional side)– Advisor (teacher with pedagogical advice role for peers engaging in U4energy)

Strengths: existing staff fully informed on campaign and project

Risks: didn’t function efficiently in first year

2.Switch to media outreach only– Spend national budget (i.e. total paid to A&A per country) on media outreach– Cover traditional and digital media

Strengths: Media visibility guaranteed

Risks: total budget per country too low to effectively outreach, no support for teachers in national languages, no pedagogical contact person

14/07/2011

10


Outreach (2/3)

Three scenarios:

3.Hybrid approach– Centralise national budget in one contract with relevant agency (i.e. MoE, energy

agency, Eco schools national infrastructure or similar)– Remove national level of competitions and increase number of EU winners,

remove national / regional ceremonies– Invest more at national level in media outreach (chiefly digital as more cost

effective), with additional media budget devolved to national level

Strengths: Support provided in national language to teachers, outreach via trusted organisations at national level

Risks: May imply change in staff at national level thus less continuity

14/07/2011

11


Outreach (3/3)

Need for realistic expectations

•Pan EU competition assessment usually based on:– Total number of submissions not schools– Generic pan EU target, not targets per country nigh impossible for any

contractor to guarantee

•Schools are overwhelmed with competition requests

•Outreach does not convert into entries if:– Competition design is complex / challenging– Language used to describe categories is too bureaucratic– Submission tools don’t allow entries to be saved and revisited later for

completion

14/07/2011

12


Competition design (1/3)

Need for simplification and community-building

Some challenges…

•Teachers required a lot of support to complete entries

•Entries had to be completed in one sitting (i.e. not possible to save and update later)

•Teachers were not given a feeling of participating in a network with supportive colleagues

•Use of external templates (Word, Excel, etc.) made submission more complex than if a web form only

•Energy savings tool generated a lot of difficulties and huge number of questions from teachers

14/07/2011

13




Some ideas:

•Have EU level winners only (national level adds bureaucracy and confusion)

– top 50 rewarded with certificate and digital badge to ensure widespread rewards– Winners and runners up brought together for pan EU event.

•Improve the text descriptions of the categories to make it more simple

•Activate a login and save function

•Have a shared community space where registered teachers can swap ideas

•Revise the competition categories

14/07/2011

14




New category ideas:

•Keep total of 3 categories

•Merge A, B and C into one category:– Prize for teacher/class, avoid the mandatory use of energy

savings tool (recommended but not mandatory)

•Provide one easy category for individual pupils (e.g. poster on energy efficiency)

•OR remove teacher/school category and provide two for pupils (secondary and primary separated)

•Provide one category for existing campaigns to submit their top 5 laureates

14/07/2011

15


Quality of entries (1/2)

• Quality of entries is generally high– Evidence of in-depth work– Large variety of approaches, skills, target ages and topics

involved– More innovation than expected

• Category A: highest number of rejected entries– Difficult to meet criteria– 44 out 108 entries were not valid according to criteria– Most questions asked by teachers related to filling in energy

savings tool

14/07/2011

16


Quality of entries (2/2)

• Categories B and C: highest number of acceptable entries

• Category C: highest number of copyright infringements– Any entries with copyright infringement were rejected

14/07/2011

17


Overall appraisal

As remarked in evaluation report:

•Project making progress and on the way to meeting objectives

•Most objectives achieved except for the key number of schools per country

– Austerity measures and conflict in MoE/schools sector (pensions, strikes, etc.)– Difficulty in forcing schools to join in

•Contractor keen to take on board criticism and develop new solutions with EACI

•Additional steps taken (beyond contract) to address problems

14/07/2011

18

U4energy

Technology

Transcript of U4energy