Confidential 1 Final Report for External Evaluation Comprehensive external evaluation of the SEECEL activities under Grant Contracts 2013/316- 501 and 2013/334-013 conducted at the SEE level (in SEECEL member states). 25 May, 2016 prepared by CARDET www.cardet.org Dr. Charalambos Vrasidas, Demetris Hadjisofoclis, Višnja Novosel & Sotiris Themistokleous July 2016 This project is funded by the European Union and co-funded by the Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Crafts of the Republic of Croatia This publication has been funded with support from the European Commission and he Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Crafts of the Republic of Croatia (MINPO). The content of this publication reflect the views only of the author, and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Commission and MINPO.
84
Embed
2nd External Evaluation Report of SEECEL activities
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Confidential 1
Final Report for External Evaluation Comprehensive external evaluation of the SEECEL activities under Grant Contracts 2013/316-
501 and 2013/334-013 conducted at the SEE level (in SEECEL member states).
25 May, 2016
prepared by CARDET
www.cardet.org
Dr. Charalambos Vrasidas, Demetris Hadjisofoclis,
Višnja Novosel & Sotiris Themistokleous
July 2016
This project is funded by the European Union and co-funded by the Ministry of Entrepreneurship and
Crafts of the Republic of Croatia
This publication has been funded with support from the European Commission and he Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Crafts of the Republic of Croatia (MINPO). The content of this publication reflect the views only of the author, and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Commission and MINPO.
Figure 3 Frequency and purpose of CoP platform use.
The respondents who did not use the CoP platform were asked to specify reasons for not using it.
Their answers included reasons like the use of other means of communication (emails, social
networks, and phone conversations), lack of understanding on how to use platform and what to
talk about under the CoP discussion forums, lack of computers and internet at school, the setup of
the CoP platform which is not aligned to teachers’ needs. As one respondent wrote: ‘The CoP
might have been more and better utilized if there had been spaces for subject teachers (not just the
PI's managers and coordinators) to collaborate, revise Lesson Plans and other activities, and
exchange best practices’.
The main advantage of the available document submission structure are straightforward guidelines
on type of required documents and clear deadlines for document submission. Also, it seems like
the project participants appreciate the possibility to communicate with the SEECEL’s experts
under the different sections of the site (which are directly linked to the particular type of
document). The document templates are clearly visible. Also, after receiving feedback on the
initial submission from the SEECL’s expert team, the participants have the opportunity to resubmit
the documentation. One of the challenges, based on the reviewed documents, is the fact that all
participating educational institutions did not have sufficient human resources to deal with the
preparation and write-up of project documentation in English language. Hence, some of the
documents that required more complex descriptions and reflections on project implementation,
were written in poor English and/or did not include well elaborated answers. While the deadlines
for document submission are clearly stated, the participants frequently commented that the
document exchange should occur more frequently. This comment could be linked with the
participants’ need for more frequent feedback on the project materials and implementation. The
1,5
4,6
7,7
3,1
9,2
3,1
24,6
23,1
18,5
21,5
12,3
9,2
41,5
46,2
40,0
23,1
26,2
21,5
26,2
21,5
26,2
44,6
33,8
47,7
6,2
4,6
7,7
7,7
18,5
18,5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. Sharing resources and ideas
2. Learning
3. Downloading resources
4. Viewing other school’s lesson plans
5. Discussions with other teachers
6. Discussion with other stakeholders
Daily 1-2 times a week 1-2 times per month 1-2 times per semester Never
Confidential 27
main challenge with the TTA section of the task box are poor responses from at least two national
teacher training authorities. While the cooperation with TTA’s is crucial for the project success, in
order to have insight into the work of national TTA’s, the alternative ways of document collection
and communication should be considered.
According to the lesson plan evaluation data, it is possible to conclude that the reviewed lesson
plans focus on EL objectives in the large number of different subject areas. Another positive
element, linked to the lesson plans is that once lesson plans are approved by the SEECEL editorial
board, they are published under the Teacher knowledge base (TKB) and can be freely reached by
interested parties. The final report structure is clear and the project teams attempted to answer all
the required sections of the report. Nevertheless, the analysis of the final reports indicate large
variations in the challenges or problems which project teams were facing during the project
implementation. In conclusion, the final reports differ by the quality which commonly resembles
the quality of the project implementation.
The respondents were asked to evaluate the CoP’s ease of use through 6 statements, on the five
point Likert scale (1- strongly disagree – 5 strongly agree). The Cronbach's alpha for the 6-item
Level of the respondents’ agreement with the statements on CoP’s ease of use scale was 0.892,
indicating the good scale reliability. According to the findings presented in Figure 4, the
respondents appreciate the User friendly features (49.92% strongly agree; 43.1% agree) and Ease
of use (43.1% strongly agree; 49.2% agree).
Figure 4 Level of the respondents’ agreement with the statements on CoP’s ease of use.
SEECEL Website
The survey respondents evaluated the frequency and purpose of the SEECEL Website use through
3 statements, on the five point Likert scale (1-never, 2- 1 to 2 times per semester, 3- 1 to 2 times
43,1
40,0
41,5
49,2
40,0
35,4
49,2
50,8
46,2
43,1
50,8
41,5
3,1
3,1
6,2
3,1
4,6
9,2
3,1
4,6
4,6
1,5
3,1
10,
8
1,5
1,5
1,5
3,1
1,5
3,1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. It is easy to use
2. It is easy to understand
3. It is fast
4. It is user friendly
5. It is flexible
6. I can use it without instructions
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Confidential 28
per month, 4- 1 to 2 times a week, 5 – daily). The Cronbach's alpha for the 3-item scale was 0.884,
indicating the good scale reliability. The findings are presented in Table 2 and Figure 5, were it is
visible that the respondents on average, used the SEECEL Website up to 2 times per month, and
primarily recognized SEECEL Website as a tool for Learning. In addition, the respondents
emphasized that they would benefit from the website in their native language, because ‘many
teachers do not have sufficient English language skills’.
Table 2 Frequency and purpose of SEECEL Website use.
Daily
1-2 times a
week
1-2 times per
month
1-2 times per
semester Never
1. Sharing resources and ideas 1 9 22 27 1
2. Learning 2 12 26 20 0
3. Downloading resources 2 7 25 24 2
Figure 5 Frequency and purpose of SEECEL Website use.
Respondents were asked to evaluate the SEECEL website ease of use through 6 statements, on the
five point Likert scale (1- strongly disagree – 5 strongly agree). The Cronbach's alpha for the 6-
item scale was 0.903, indicating the excellent scale reliability. According to the findings presented
in Figure 6, the respondents appreciate the User friendly features (50% strongly agree; 42.2%
agree) and Flexibility (42.2% strongly agree; 50% agree) of the SEECEL website.
1,6
3,1
3,1
14,1
18,8
12,5
34,4
40,6
39,1
43,8
34,4
39,1
6,3
3,1
6,3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. Sharing resources and ideas
2. Learning
3. Downloading resources
Daily 1-2 times a week 1-2 times per month 1-2 times per semester Never
Confidential 29
Figure 6 Level of the respondents’ agreement with the statements on SEECEL website ease of
use.
Organization, Collaboration and Support
On the five point Likert scale (1- very dissatisfied – 5 very satisfied), the respondents were asked
to indicate their level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the program related communication and
collaboration through 4 statements. The Cronbach's alpha for the 6-item Level of the respondents’
satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the program related collaboration scale was 0.727, indicating the
acceptable scale reliability. According to the findings presented in Figure 7, the respondents were
very satisfied with collaboration with SEECEL staff (71.4% very satisfied; 19% satisfied).
Figure 7 Level of the respondents’ satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the program related
collaboration.
43,8
43,8
45,3
50,0
42,2
34,4
45,3
46,9
40,6
42,2
50,0
50,0
4,7
3,1
6,3
1,6
3,1
6,3
3,1
4,7
6,3
3,1
3,1
4,7
3,1
1,6
1,6
3,1
1,6
4,7
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. It is easy to use
2. It is easy to understand
3. It is fast
4. It is user friendly
5. It is flexible
6. I can use it without instructions
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
71,4
36,5
44,4
19,0
39,7
36,5
3,2
12
,71
2,7
0,0
3,2
1,6
6,3
7,9
4,8
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. Collaboration with SEECEL staff
2. Collaboration with the teacher training agency
3. Collaboration with other schools involved in theproject
Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied
Confidential 30
On the five point Likert scale (1 - never, 5-very often), the respondents were asked to indicate the
extent to which they received support from different stakeholders through 3 statements. The
Cronbach's alpha for the 3 item scale was 0.578, indicating the questionable scale reliability.
Nevertheless, the measures of correlation indicate high correlation among the scale items (the
correlation is significant on the 0.01 level). According to the findings presented in Table 3 and
Figure 8, the respondents were most frequently supported by SEECEL staff. It is surprising that
they received least support from the Teacher training agency in their country. As reported by the
respondents, the schools received support from: governmental and local educational institutions,
entrepreneurship associations, mentor schools, non-profit organisations, local authorities and
parents.
Table 3 Extent to which the respondents received support from different stakeholders.
Very Often Often Sometimes Rarely Never
1. SEECEL staff 26 30 3 0 0
2. Teacher training agency in your country 11 16 17 9 6
3. Other schools involved in the project 12 21 19 3 4
Figure 8 Extent to which the respondents received support from different stakeholders.
When asked about mentoring approach which is an important feature of the project, as shown in
Figure 9, almost 30% of respondents answered that they did not use mentoring approach as a part
of this programme, while the respondents who used the mentoring approach were satisfied
(39.7%) or very satisfied (28.6%) with it.
41,3
17,5
19,0
47,6
25,4
33,3
6,3
28,6
31,7
3,2
17,5
7,9
1,6
11,1
7,9
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. SEECEL staff
2. Teacher training agency in your country
3. Other schools involved in the project
Very Often Often Sometimes Rarely Never
Confidential 31
Figure 9 Respondents satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the mentoring approach.
On the five point Likert scale (1-never, 2- 1 to 2 times per semester, 3- 1 to 2 times per month, 4-
1 to 2 times a week, 5 – daily), the survey respondents evaluated the frequency of different types
of support they received from SEECEL staff, teacher training agency, and other schools. Three
scales with total of 10 items dealing with the different types of support received through the project
have Cronbach's alpha 0.897, indicating a good reliability of the scales. The findings for each of
the three scales are expected as they are aligned with the incidence of actual administrative
deadlines. The findings for support received from SEECEL staff are presented in Table 4 and
Figure 10, were it is visible that the largest percentage of respondents received a support from the
SEECEL staff up to 2 times per month and that they most commonly received Guidance about
administrative issues.
Table 4 Frequency of different types of support from SEECEL staff.
Daily
1-2 times
a week
1-2 times
per month
1-2 times
per
semester
Never
1. Guidance about administrative issues 3 7 28 20 0
2. Guidance about the education aspect of the
program
2 6 25 22 3
3. Workshops on how to integrate
entrepreneurship in the classroom
1 5 14 26 12
4. Additional resources 2 9 17 20 10
28,6
39,7
28,6
1,6 1,6
Very Satisfied Satisfied I have not used this approach Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied
Confidential 32
Figure 10 Frequency of different types of support from SEECEL staff.
Furthermore, the survey respondents evaluated the frequency of different types of support from
teacher training agencies. The findings are presented in Table 5 and Figure 11, were it is visible
that the largest percentage of respondents (approximately 50% in each category) received support
from the teacher training agency up to 2 times per semester. In additional comments, one of the
respondents mentioned that teacher training agency in one of the participating countries organized
only one workshop during the year.
Table 5 Frequency of different types of support from teacher training agency.
Daily 1-2 times
a week 1-2 times
per month
1-2 times per
semester
Never
1. Guidance about the education aspect of program 1 2 11 34 11
2. Workshops on how to integrate entrepreneurship in the
classroom
1 1 11 34 12
3. Additional resources 0 2 10 31 16
Figure 11 Frequency of different types of support from teacher training agency.
4,9
3,3
1,6
3,3
11,5
9,8
8,2
14,8
45,9
41,0
23,0
27,9
32,8
36,1
42,6
32,8
3,3
8,2
23,0
19,7
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. Guidance about administrative issues
2. Guidance about the education aspect of theprogram
3. Workshops on how to integrate entrepreneurshipin the classroom
4. Additional resources
Daily 1-3 Times a Week 1-2 times per Month 1-2 times per Semester Never
1,6
1,6
0,0
3,3
1,6
3,3
18,0
18,0
16,4
55,7
55,7
50,8
21,3
23,0
29,5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. Guidance about the education aspect of program
2. Workshops on how to integrate entrepreneurshipin the classroom
3. Additional resources
Daily 1-3 Times a Week 1-2 times per Month 1-2 times per Semester Never
Confidential 33
Also, the survey respondents evaluated the frequency of different types of support from other
schools. The findings are presented in Table 6 and Figure 12, were it is visible that the largest
percentage of respondents (approximately 50% in each category) received support from other
schools up to 2 times per semester. The respondents’ additionally commented on help and benefits
gained through cooperation with mentor schools.
Table 6 Frequency of different types of support from other schools.
Daily 1-2 times a week
1-2 times per
month
1-2 times per
semester
Never
1. Guidance about the education aspect of program 0 5 12 30 11
2. Workshops on how to integrate entrepreneurship in the
classroom
0 3 13 32 11
3. Additional resources 0 3 11 31 14
Figure 12 Frequency of different types of support from other schools.
The respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement/disagreement with the 6
statements describing different types of additional support for project participation. The
Cronbach's alpha for the 6-item Level of respondents’ agreement/disagreement on need for
different types of support in this project scale was 0.700, indicating the acceptable scale reliability.
According to the findings presented in Figure 13, the respondents recognized need for support in
a variety of areas. In addition, these findings are showing a need for future work of SEECEL. The
most commonly recognized areas that require support are: Peer learning (50% strongly agree;
38.3% agree) and Training (48.4% strongly agree; 40.3% agree). Educational institutions received
additional support for the project participation through teacher training, exchange of good practices
face-to-face and through social networks, teachers' manuals for lesson plans delivered by school
subject counsellors. Furthermore, the respondents commented that they would benefit from the
online EL teacher training course under the CoP platform.
1,6
1,6
1,6
8,1
4,8
4,8
19,4
20,6
17,5
48,4
50,8
49,2
22,6
22,2
27,0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. Guidance about the education aspect of program
2. Workshops on how to integrate entrepreneurshipin the classroom
3. Additional resources
Daily 1-3 Times a Week 1-2 times per Month 1-2 times per Semester Never
Confidential 34
Figure 13 Level of respondents’ agreement/disagreement on need for different types of support
in this project.
Finally, the respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement/disagreement with the 5
statements dealing with project challenges. The Cronbach's alpha for the 5-item Level of the
respondents’ agreement with the listed project challenges scale was 0.817, indicating the good
scale reliability. According to the findings presented in Figure 16, most of the respondents did not
perceive listed challenges as problematic. Still, the respondents believed that Lack of funding for
project activities (12.9% strongly disagree; 41.9% disagree); Lack of funding for student and
teacher participation in peer learning activities (12.9% strongly disagree; 30.6% disagree) and
Lack of time for teachers to integrate entrepreneurship learning in the classroom (16.4% strongly
disagree; 31.1% disagree) may be somewhat more problematic than other listed challenges. Also,
the respondents mentioned that participation was difficult due to everyday obligations which they
have in the classroom and some other administrative issues which they are facing in their schools.
One of the complaints focused on the amount of administrative work involved with the project
participation.
31,1
48,4
33,9
53,2
45,9
50,0
59,0
40,3
46,8
30,6
36,1
38,3
4,9
3,2
1,6
6,5
6,6
5,0
3,3
4,8
12,9
4,8
9,8
5,0
1,6
3,2
4,8
4,8
1,6
1,7
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. Resources
2. Training
3. Support
4. Funding
5. Time
6. Peer learning
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Confidential 35
Figure 14 Level of the respondents’ agreement with the listed project challenges.
When asked to provide concrete recommendations for improving the implementation of SEECEL
activities, in an open ended question, the majority of the respondents mentioned the following:
more teacher training/workshops and assistance for teachers through the year;
more peer visits and sharing of experiences with other schools (school partnerships);
additional funding for peer visits;
transparent calendar with task deadlines and peer visits;
detailed and timely instructions on the materials that need to be submitted;
certificates and prizes for teachers and students involved with the project; and
Improved cooperation and collaboration with teacher training institutions, local
government and business sector.
Finally, the project participants from the educational institutions were asked to name additional
roles/services which SEECEL should be offering. The respondents suggested the following:
educational services
o provision of online training/workshops;
o facilitation of peer visits for the teachers in European schools and organizations;
o better cooperation with educational bodies (agencies, ministries);
o more involvement in coordinators’, advisors’, teacher trainers’ training and work.
organizational services
o organization of annual conferences and competitions among schools;
o organisation of students' international training in entrepreneurship;
o provision of larger school network;
o provision of funds and funding opportunities for a variety of projects.
14,5
29
,0
12
,9
12,9
16,4
43,5
48,4
41,9
30,6
31,1
8,1
6,5
6,5
12,9
4,9
24,2
14,5
37,1
37,1
37,7
9,7
1,6
1,6
6,5
9,8
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. The project is not aligned with the schoolcurriculum
2. We did not receive adequate support
3. Lack of funding for project activities
4. Lack of funding for student and teacherparticipation in peer learning activities
5. Lack of time for teachers to integrateentrepreneurship learning in the classroom
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Confidential 36
Findings from the Steering Committee and Stakeholders Survey A total of 21 respondents from the key stakeholders and steering committee answered the survey.
There were 15 survey respondents that are steering committee members: Albania (Institute for
Education Development; Ministry of Economic Development, Tourism, Trade and
Entrepreneurship); Bosnia and Herzegovina (Ministry of Civil Affairs; Ministry of Foreign Trade
and Economic Relation; Regional Cooperation Council - RCC); Croatia (Ministry of
Entrepreneurship and Crafts); the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Bureau for
Development of the Education); Montenegro (Directorate for SMEs Development); Serbia
(Ministry of Education; Ministry of Economy); and Turkey (Board of Education). Finally, two
respondents were from EU agencies (OECD and ETF). The stakeholders (6 survey respondents)
were mainly from education related institutions: Croatia (Education and Teacher Training
Agency); the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Foundation for Management and Industrial
Research; Ministry of Economy Ministry of Education and Science); and Montenegro (Bureau for
Education Services).
The survey respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with the 7
statements related to SEECEL, on the five point Likert scale (1- strongly disagree – 5 strongly
agree). The Cronbach's alpha for the 7-item Level of the steering committee members’ agreement
with the statements related to SEECEL scale was 0.890, indicating the good scale reliability.
According to the findings presented in Figure 15 and Figure 16, the respondents in average agreed
or strongly agreed with all of the statements. They most strongly agreed with the statements that
SEECEL’s activities are contributing to the development of entrepreneurship culture in the region
and that SEECEL supports the alignment of national policies with EU recommendations and
policies related to entrepreneurial learning.
Figure 15 Level of the Steering Committee members’ agreement with the statements related to
SEECEL.
70
80
80
60
60
40
40
30
20
20
40
40
60
50 10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. The results which have been achieved by SEECELin the period 2013-2016 are satisfactory
2. SEECEL’s activities are contributing to the development of entrepreneurship culture in the region
3. SEECEL supports the alignment of national policieswith EU recommendations and policies related to…
4. The strategic goals and approaches in SEECEL’s 2013-2016 strategic plan and key policies are relevant …
5. The SEECEL activities are relevant to its goals
6. The approaches identified in SEECEL’s 2013-2016 strategic plan, addressed the conditions, needs and …
7. The approaches identified in SEECEL’s rolling/ongoing work plan addressed the conditions, …
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Confidential 37
Figure 16 Level of the stakeholders’ agreement with the statements related to SEECEL.
Furthermore, on the five point Likert scale (1- strongly disagree – 5 strongly agree) the respondents
were asked to indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with the 20 statements about
appropriateness, effectiveness, and relevance of SEECEL. The Cronbach's alpha for the 20-item
Level of the steering committee members’ and stakeholders’ agreement with the statements about
appropriateness, effectiveness, and relevance of SEECEL scale was 0.934, indicating the excellent
scale reliability. According to the findings presented in Figure 17 and Figure 18, the respondents
in average agreed or strongly agreed with all of the statements. They most strongly agreed with
the statements that SEECEL’s work supports structured regional cooperation and that SEECEL’s
work is in line with EU policies. Although the participation in SEECEL activities was high, the
respondents indicate that in the future they would benefits from more participation in SEECEL
activities.
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
40
40
40
20
20
40
40
20
20
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. The results which have been achieved by SEECELin the period 2013-2016 are satisfactory
2. SEECEL’s activities are contributing to the development of entrepreneurship culture in the region
3. SEECEL supports the alignment of national policieswith EU recommendations and policies related to
entrepreneurial learning
4. The strategic goals and approaches in SEECEL’s 2013-2016 strategic plan and key policies are relevant to
the mission of SEECEL
5. The SEECEL activities are relevant to its goals
6. The approaches identified in SEECEL’s 2013-2016 strategic plan, addressed the conditions, needs and
interests of key stakeholders
7. The approaches identified in SEECEL’s rolling/ongoing work plan addressed the conditions,
needs and interests of key stakeholders
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Confidential 38
Figure 17 Level of the Steering Committee members’ agreement with the statements about
appropriateness, effectiveness, and relevance of SEECEL.
60
60
60
60
70
60
40
20
30
90
60
30
50
80
80
70
80
50
40
50
40
40
40
30
20
10
60
70
70
10
40
60
50
20
20
30
20
30
20
10
10
20
30
30
10
10
20
10
10
10
10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. The SEECEL activities in the 2013-2016 strategicplan were effective in pursuing its mission.
2. SEECEL’s rolling work plan was effective in pursuing its mission.
3. The peer-learning activities were implemented ata satisfactory level.
4. The peer-learning activities contributed to thedevelopment of a culture of entrepreneurship
5. SEECEL activities facilitated the exchange of goodpractice among stakeholders
6. SEECEL had the necessary resources and capacityto undertake the activities required to achieve its…
7. SEECEL’s key stakeholders were satisfied with the approaches and activities used to achieve its mission.
8. There was a fair participation among stakeholdersin SEECEL activities
9. The targets and measures of success set out in thestrategic plan were realistic.
10. SEECEL’s work is in line with EU policies.
11. SEECEL’s work is of benefit to my country’s national development.
12. SEECEL’s work is of benefit to my organization’s development.
13. SEECEL’s work is of benefit to regional development.
14. SEECEL’s work supports structured regional cooperation.
15. The structured regional cooperation run by SEECELpromotes exchange of knowledge and good practices…
16. SEECEL’s work contributes substantially to the development of Human Capital in the region (SBA)
17. SEECEL supports the institutionalization of regionaldialogue and cooperation in the area of lifelong…
18. The Training Needs Analysis (TNA) is an importanttool for understanding the needs of SMEs in the region
19. The Training Needs Analysis (TNA) supportsnational developments in the area of entrepreneurship
20. The Training Needs Analysis (TNA) contributes tothe development of entrepreneurship in the region
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Confidential 39
Figure 18 Level of the stakeholders’ agreement with the statements about appropriateness,
effectiveness, and relevance of SEECEL.
80
80
60
60
40
40
40
40
20
60
60
40
60
80
60
60
60
20
40
40
20
20
40
40
60
40
60
20
80
40
40
40
40
20
40
40
40
80
60
40
20
20
20
20
20
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. The SEECEL activities in the 2013-2016 strategicplan were effective in pursuing its mission.
2. SEECEL’s rolling work plan was effective in pursuing its mission.
3. The peer-learning activities were implemented ata satisfactory level.
4. The peer-learning activities contributed to thedevelopment of a culture of entrepreneurship
5. SEECEL activities facilitated the exchange of goodpractice among stakeholders
6. SEECEL had the necessary resources and capacityto undertake the activities required to achieve its…
7. SEECEL’s key stakeholders were satisfied with the approaches and activities used to achieve its mission.
8. There was a fair participation among stakeholdersin SEECEL activities
9. The targets and measures of success set out in thestrategic plan were realistic.
10. SEECEL’s work is in line with EU policies.
11. SEECEL’s work is of benefit to my country’s national development.
12. SEECEL’s work is of benefit to my organization’s development.
13. SEECEL’s work is of benefit to regional development.
14. SEECEL’s work supports structured regional cooperation.
15. The structured regional cooperation run by SEECELpromotes exchange of knowledge and good practices…
16. SEECEL’s work contributes substantially to the development of Human Capital in the region (SBA)
17. SEECEL supports the institutionalization of regionaldialogue and cooperation in the area of lifelong…
18. The Training Needs Analysis (TNA) is an importanttool for understanding the needs of SMEs in the region
19. The Training Needs Analysis (TNA) supportsnational developments in the area of entrepreneurship
20. The Training Needs Analysis (TNA) contributes tothe development of entrepreneurship in the region
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Confidential 40
The respondents were asked to indicate level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the 6 distinct
features related to SEECEL work, on the five point Likert scale (1- very dissatisfied – 5 very
satisfied). The Cronbach's alpha for the 6-item Level of the steering committee members’ and
stakeholders’ satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the listed features scale was 0.754, indicating the
acceptable scale reliability. According to the findings presented in Figure 19 and Figure 20, the
respondents in average were satisfied or very satisfied with all of the statements. The respondents
were the most satisfied with the Collaboration with SEECEL management team and Collaboration
with SEECEL staff.
Figure 19 Level of the Steering Committee members’ satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the listed
features.
70
70
60
40
50
50
30
30
40
40
40
40
20
10
10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. Collaboration with SEECEL management team
2. Collaboration with SEECEL staff
3. Collaboration with SEECEL Steering CommitteeMembers
4. Collaboration with other stakeholders in thecountry and region within the framework of SEECEL
activities
5. SEECEL adopted feedback from SteeringCommittee members and integrated it in its activities
6. The Steering Committee meetings were engagingand productive
Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied
Confidential 41
Figure 20 Level of the stakeholders’ satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the listed features.
The respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with the 5 statements
related to challenges that SEECEL faces, on the five point Likert scale (1- strongly disagree – 5
strongly agree). The Cronbach's alpha for the 5-item Level of the steering committee members’
and stakeholders’ agreement with the statements about challenges that SEECEL faces scale was
0.704, indicating the acceptable scale reliability. According to the findings presented in Figure 21
and Figure 22, the respondents on average were neutral or agreed that SEECEL lacks sufficient
funding and disagreed that the project is not aligned with the national life-long learning strategy
of their country. In addition, the respondents listed some additional challenges that SEECEL is
facing. The listed challenges are: need for increase of the pilot institutions network, need for more
concrete results (e.g. SEECEL should develop model of entrepreneurial education), more
promotion activities in partner countries.
80
60
40
20
20
20
20
40
20
80
40
20
40
40
60
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. Collaboration with SEECEL management team
2. Collaboration with SEECEL staff
3. Collaboration with SEECEL Steering CommitteeMembers
4. Collaboration with other stakeholders in thecountry and region within the framework of SEECEL
activities
5. SEECEL adopted feedback from SteeringCommittee members and integrated it in its activities
6. The Steering Committee meetings were engagingand productive
Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied
Confidential 42
Figure 21 Level of the steering committee members’ agreement with the statements about
challenges that SEECEL faces.
10
10
20
40
50
40
20
30
10
30
20
50
50
70
30
10
10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. Lack of sufficient funding
2. The project is not aligned with the nationalentrepreneurial learning strategy in my country
3. The project is not aligned with the national life-long learning strategy of my country
4. Lack of sufficient communication amongstakeholders
5. Lack of adequate support
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Confidential 43
Figure 22 Level of the stakeholders’ agreement with the statements about challenges that
SEECEL faces.
The survey respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with the 7
statements related to changes that are needed in order to achieve better results, on the five point
Likert scale (1- strongly disagree – 5 strongly agree). According to the findings presented in
Figures 23 and Figure 24, the respondents recognized that following changes are needed: Training
for all stakeholders and need for Additional resources for SEECEL activities. The respondents
disagreed that there is a need for Changes in organization and functionality of SEECEL’S
management and governance. In addition, the respondents commented that it would be necessary
to establish coordination body in each partner country and assure that steering committee activities
are more transparent to all stakeholders.
20
40
20
60
40
40 20
80
40
20
20
20
40
20
20
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. Lack of sufficient funding
2. The project is not aligned with the nationalentrepreneurial learning strategy in my country
3. The project is not aligned with the national life-long learning strategy of my country
4. Lack of sufficient communication amongstakeholders
5. Lack of adequate support
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Confidential 44
Figure 23 Level of the steering committee members’ agreement with the statements about
changes that are needed in order to achieve better results.
Figure 24 Level of the stakeholders’ agreement with the statements about changes that are
needed in order to achieve better results.
10
10
50
50
30
20
20
30
40
50
50
50
30
10
10
10
10
20
50
40
10
30
30
20
10
10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. Changes in organization and functionality of SEECEL’S management and governance
2. Change in the role of the Steering committee
3. Additional resources for SEECEL activities
4. Training for all stakeholders
5. Additional funding
6. Better communication
7. More time for implementing activities
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
20
40
60
60
20
40
20
20
40
40
40
40
40
60
40
20
20
20
20
20
20
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. Changes in organization and functionality of SEECEL’S management and governance
2. Change in the role of the Steering committee
3. Additional resources for SEECEL activities
4. Training for all stakeholders
5. Additional funding
6. Better communication
7. More time for implementing activities
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Confidential 45
Respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with the 3 statements
related to SEECEL’s future, on the five point Likert scale (1- strongly disagree – 5 strongly agree).
According to the findings presented in Figure 25 and Figure 26, the respondents on average
strongly agree that SEECEL should become the European centre and/or agency for
entrepreneurial learning.
Figure 25 Level of the steering committee members’ agreement with the statements about
SEECEL’s future.
Figure 26 Level of the stakeholders’ agreement with the statements about SEECEL’s future.
50
30
40
40
40
40
10
30
10 10
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. SEECEL should become the European centreand/or agency for entrepreneurial learning
2. SEECEL should focus more on the strategic level ofentrepreneurial learning
3. SEECEL should work closely with training institutesfor implementing the program in schools and the
education system in general
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
40
40
20
20
20
40
20
20
20
20
20
20
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1. SEECEL should become the European centreand/or agency for entrepreneurial learning
2. SEECEL should focus more on the strategic level ofentrepreneurial learning
3. SEECEL should work closely with training institutesfor implementing the program in schools and the
education system in general
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Confidential 46
The survey respondents were asked to provide 3 concrete recommendations for improving
SEECEL and its impact. It is possible to group the responses in the following general
recommendations:
increase funding (both to SEECEL and pilot institutions);
extend network of schools and higher education institutions to build their capacities for
entrepreneurial learning as a key competence;
improve stakeholder mapping and interaction;
more peer learning activities between countries;
on-line course/training for youth.
Finally, respondents were asked to name 3 roles or services SEECEL should be performing in the
future. According to the survey responses SEECEL should
become central point for entrepreneurial learning activities for neighbouring regions in
Europe and beyond. In particular, in the future SEECEL should focus on: EL curriculum
model development;
assure better coordination for pilot institutions on the country level;
advocate EL on the policy level;
support linkages between business and higher education institutions;
organize regional trainings for SBA experts;
assure provision of more interactive activities between countries of the region.
Confidential 47
Findings from Study Visits, Interviews, and Focus groups After detailed data collection and analysis, it became apparent that overall SEECEL has achieved
its objectives and that its strategic goals were met. In some occasions success exceeded the
expectations. Below we present the main findings from the qualitative data divided in two main
categories: Successes of the program and the challenges faced by SEECEL and its stakeholders.
In some of the occasions, we integrate some of the findings from the quantitative section to
highlight the strong success of the program. Building on the successes, and in an effort to address
the challenges, we present recommendations in the last section of this report.
Successes
Recognition
The European Commission has recognized SEECEL as a good practice in strategic regional
cooperation, good practice for conceptual solutions in the field of entrepreneurial learning as a
key competence and good practice in line with the first principle of the Small Business Act for
Europe. SEECEL has become a reference point both for EU Member States and the pre-
accession countries and was awarded with the following awards:
- "Creators for Centuries" reward and recognition for the year 2014 for contribution to the
development of entrepreneurship in South East Europe, awarded to SEECEL by an
independent international committee during the Regional summit of entrepreneurs of the
South East Europe the best 300;
- European Enterprise Promotion Award (EEPA) as National Winners in 2014 for
Promoting the Entrepreneurial Spirit, awarded to SEECEL by the European Commission;
- The Champion of Regional Cooperation of 2013, awarded to SEECEL by the Regional
Cooperation Council for its active and dynamic approach to regional cooperation and
contribution to the SEE 2020 preparation process;
- The European Projects Awards IPA 2013 - for the project entitled ''Developing the
Entrepreneurial Society in Western Balkans and Turkey'', in the category “ongoing”
projects and best actors in Regional and Local Development (2013);
- The Knowledge Economy Network (KEN), an international Best Practice Award for
"original and successful practice in any domain of knowledge society and economy
development" and especially for "good practice in successful regional cooperation in
training and education”.
The enthusiasm, efforts and dedication of all SEECEL member states and in conjunction with EU
support have resulted in a robust exchange of experience and knowledge, bearing fruit to a tested
model for implementation of entrepreneurial learning as a key competence in various levels of
education and society. These achievements represent, not only the vision of individual countries,
but also a regional vision to fully engage resources and efforts in the promotion of knowledge-
based economies that will fully support entrepreneurship and innovation. This regional
Confidential 48
cooperation and consensus is an achievement, given not only the complexity of the subject matter,
but also the great variety of perspectives from the region as a whole. SEECEL also offers a very
unique solution to structured strategic cooperation between education and the business world
across local, national, regional and international levels.
SEECEL has a strong potential to continue with these developments, to spread the acceptance and
acquisition of developed tools on national levels and to continue to build momentum across all
levels of society and governments. As one of the key stakeholders stated: “The region as a whole
has a wealth of untapped human capital potential that can serve as a competitive advantage in
promoting the sustainable, smart, inclusive and integrated growth and development”.
Meeting its Objectives and Strategic Goals
From all the data collected, it was evident that SEECEL is successful in creating the foundation
for a developed entrepreneurship culture across the region with a spillover effect beyond the
SEE. Already there is expression of interest from countries beyond the region and the EU.
Furthermore, because of its inclusive approach, SEECEL fosters alignment with the EU in
the field of entrepreneurial learning.
Visiting schools, discussing with teachers, and reviewing lesson plans and reports, it is evident
that SEECEL contributes, through a systematic approach, to the development of
entrepreneurially literate societies across the region and it supports alignment of national
policies with EU recommendations and policy essentials related to lifelong entrepreneurial
learning. However, as stated by one of the key stakeholders, “Cultural change is something
that takes a long time.” SEECEL is only one part of a chain support instrument. SEECEL
cannot change all education systems in the pre-accessing region. As one key stakeholder
indicated during the interview, “SEECEL can provide the social infrastructure to facilitate
people’s thinking and mindset towards entrepreneurship learning in the region and Europe”.
The SEECEL model has proven successful so far and it is one of its most important strengths.
This double dimension, implementing the policies and providing the field training, is what
makes SEECEL different from other similar and like-minded projects. Most of the countries
interviewed reported that SEECEL provided a framework and a model for them to work on
integrating EL. Stakeholders understand that the impact will be visible within the next 5 to 10.
SEECEL has demonstrated that when practitioners work together, and policy makers are
setting the agenda in the region, it makes things move forward.
For the majority of the stakeholders, funds allocated to SEECEL, are European money well
spent. SEECEL is doing something meaningful that makes a significant difference in the
countries where they are involved. SEECEL goals and objectives are aligned with the
European Commission objectives. Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurship in
general are EU’s political priorities. The premise is that focusing on entrepreneurship
education will help improve competitiveness and long-term employment for young people.
Confidential 49
Policy and Regional Cooperation
One of the core strengths of SEECEL is the support for networking and regional cooperation.
SEECEL made a big difference in member countries at the policy level. Without SEECEL
some of the member countries could not be at the same level when it comes to Entrepreneurship
Learning. There is a general trend in all the SEECEL Member countries to develop faster in
entrepreneurship education/learning. Through the combined efforts of SEECEL and the
European Training foundation the region is developing faster than the rest of Europe in the
area of Entrepreneurial Learning.
One of the biggest success stories is that countries come together as a club, understanding that
the future development of economy of this region has to be with the rest of the Europe, and
that they need to become more competitive in this region. They begin to understand how
education can build up a more entrepreneurial generation. Different countries work together,
and in terms of the policy linkages which happen in the Small Business Act, policy tracking,
and policy assessments, SEECEL provides the link with the policy and implementation.
The success of SEECEL in the region, led some stakeholders to advocate that SEECEL can
play a role in the broader region not excluding Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
Compatibility between the national members is not an issue because everyone agrees that
entrepreneurial education/learning is important and there is a comprehensive agreement on the
overall SEECEL policies that promote this issue. The National Policies can be and are
independent but they include the core competencies promoted through SEECEL’s work. To
emphasize the importance of this, in Bosnia, that is considered to be the most challenging area
due to their overall administrative structure that makes it difficult to have national cohesion on
decision making and policy setting, Entrepreneurial Learning policy is one of the few common
strategies that they have for the whole country.
The SEECEL’s Steering Committee comprises of representatives from the Ministries of
Economy, the Ministries of Education and other relevant organizations. As a result of the
structure of SEECEL activities, there is evidence that various member state ministries (e.g.
Ministry of Education, Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Entrepreneurship, etc.) begin to
cooperate and collaborate, not just about EL and SEECEL activities, but also about other issues
facing their countries. The fact that these stakeholders align their actions with a common
vision, it is a success of its own. In Serbia they are including EL in their strategic documents
and there is a coalition between the Ministries.
Last year during the Turkish presidency of G20, as a result of SEECEL activities, supporting
women entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial education were recognized as essential for
sustainable development.
One of the major roles and impact of SEECEL, as indicated by one stakeholder is “re-
connecting this region. SEECEL’s approach is about connecting people, and that’s very
important.” As another stakeholder stated: “What do we do to ensure a brighter future for our
children in the region? It doesn’t matter which country’s model was, they brought all people
together for entrepreneurial learning. This is a good example of SEECEL’s success.”
Confidential 50
Because of the in-depth knowledge and core expertise developed in the area of
entrepreneurship learning, SEECEL is member and participates in many expert groups at the
European Commission level working in the area of entrepreneurial learning.
Governance
Several stakeholders believe that all members get the same value out of SEECEL activities.
National members attach a lot of importance on what SEECEL is doing. The interactions
among the members are professional and there were no identifiable controversial issues.
Regarding the governance, some stakeholders suggested that it might be useful to have a
rotating chair of the board. However, this issue has been addressed in SEECEL’s statues
through the Management Support Team (MST). The MST is chartered to provide advice and
support to the SEECEL Director on management and technical issues. The MST is composed
of 3 national coordinators of the Small Business Act for Europe (the Croatian coordinator as
permanent MST member and two other on a six-month rotation applying the "EU troika"
rotation principle).
The majority of stakeholders are very satisfied with the management team and the staff of
SEECEL. They demonstrated exceptional commitment and showed support and great team
work to create the environment and to facilitate countries to meet their objectives and
implement the SEECEL programs.
Schools
The most important SEECEL differentiator is their mission/objective/goal to implement their
policies and programs on the ground through the school programs, and the teacher training.
There are a lot of policy development Think Tanks but almost all of them stay at the policy
development level. SEECEL implements on the ground and that is unique.
As a result of the success of the program, some countries like Albania, have a priority to
expand the SEECEL program to as many schools as possible. Albania changed their formal
curriculum to include the SEECEL program. The SEECEL experience and learning process
will be included in the education system as a whole and that includes subjects other than
entrepreneurship education and learning.
SEECEL is a great organization, program and process that can be applied in areas beyond
entrepreneurship education/learning. This program benefited tremendously the schools that
participated. In addition to EL, as a byproduct, the program taught the schools some basic
financial management skills through the small budget management they have to cater to.
School leaders and teacher interviewed, seemed to be very satisfied with the program, and the
idea of entrepreneurial learning as a whole and they stressed that teachers are willing to
participate because they see the impact on children. One of the teachers said that pupils engage
more in school and that these project activities brought together whole schools and
municipalities to work together. In Herzegovina schools managed to involve many local
entrepreneurs not just for financial support but also for welcoming pupils in their firms to learn
Confidential 51
more about the real world business sector, which is an indication of the impact of SEECEL
activities on the whole entrepreneurship ecosystem.
SEECEL activities led to broader impact on the level of national development. For example, a
school from Montenegro became the best EU practice example. Montenegro started to have
the SEECEL programme as a nationally accredited official programme in their teacher training
curriculum.
SEECEL serves as a platform for the dissemination of different kind of best practices for
entrepreneurial learning and all other education fields which is necessary for the business
communities and schools.
SEECEL served as a spark for countries in the region to consider integrating entrepreneurial
learning in cross-curricular subjects and the program is compulsory at elementary level in
Montenegro. All ISCED 1, 2 and 3 teachers in Montenegro were involved in entrepreneurial
learning education (more than 50% directly) cooperation of external experts (from different
countries and from different stakeholders)
In Montenegro they succeeded to develop special learning model for teachers and almost every
teacher in Montenegro embraced this model. As indicated by a key stakeholder, at least 50%
of teachers in Montenegro participated directly, and they had the obligation to become
ambassadors and present what they have learned to their schools, so we can say that every
teacher in one way or another had some exposure in entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurial
learning is a cross-curricular subject, so they have to implement it in their primary subjects.
Before SEECEL, the majority of schools in the region, had no experience with international
cooperation and no experience working with projects. As part of SEECEL activities, more and
more schools are involved in other projects and making significant connections with schools
from the region and the EU. Team work in schools also improved since the teachers embraced
collaboration and this had a positive impact on teachers and schools (collective mind-set is
changing). An added value for schools is that they learned how to manage projects from the
beginning to the end including financial management.
Another success has to do with the connection of EL and employment. As an example, in a
SEECEL member state one school established a career center in an effort to gather alumni
students to work on projects and collaborate and network with the business sector in
conjunction with the students and the school. Teachers felt that this kind of community
collaboration and projects can help shift mindsets.
ISCED 3
The majority of the successes that apply to schools and discussed in the previous section, also
apply to ISCED 3 schools. In addition, a few that stick out for ISCED 3 are discussed below.
As a result of SEECEL activities, local companies opened their doors to students from ISCED
3 schools and students, having a positive impact on the entrepreneurship ecosystem: the school,
the community and SMEs. Students’ visits and interaction with local companies, facilitated
their decision making with regards to future employment, professions to choose, and studies
to follow.
Confidential 52
When SEECEL activities started, several schools decided to have their own fundraising
activities and that was very well received in their local communities. SEECEL funds were just
partly enough for some of the activities. Organizing fundraising, bazaars selling crafts and food
to parents and to the broader community (neighborhood) was very successful and brought the
community together. At the beginning, teachers from other schools were skeptical and they did
not like to talk about entrepreneurship as they were connecting it strictly to businesses, but
progressively more teachers expressed interest to be involved in this type of projects.
Teachers reported that, as a result of participation in SEECEL activities, and developing and
implementing EL lesson plans, students were more engaged with the subject matter, and their
innovative thinking and creativity have improved. The principle of thinking out of the box,
creativity, and risk taking, are important characteristics of a mindset that EL supports,
encourages and develops through their programs. As identified by the European key
competencies framework entrepreneurship and initiative taking are critical in creating an
entrepreneurial culture.
SBA and TNA
One of the key successes of SEECEL is the progress towards the SBA which SEECEL member
states demonstrate. Particularly, with the human capital dimensions (1&8) which are the focus
of SEECEL.
The OECD report “SE Policy Index: Western Balkans and Turkey 2016” clearly indicates that
SEECEL member states have made substantial progress towards the implementation of the
SBA, which is a good indication of the hard and dedicated work that SEECEL is doing in the
region. More specifically, the report indicates: “overall the 2016 report finds that the SEE
region is indeed making further progress towards EU SME policy standards and EU good
practices as defined in the SBA” (p. 17).
The peer reviews, through the SBA policy assessment work, is an activity that is valuable and
contributes to the building of the EL culture in the region. The model works and has added
value to the partner countries because, when engaging an expert from the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia to do a peer review in Montenegro, this encourages critical appraisal,
and changing of the mind-set of people, organizations and communities; changing mindsets,
is what EL is about. Being constructively critical to other people’s work is easy, but being
constructively critical about one’s work and self-reflect on what you can improve is not easy.
The competency of sharing their work with other people is important. Engaging people into
multi-country peer reviews boosts confidence, and entrepreneurial confidence is one of the
ingredients missing from the region, according to an EU policy officer.
Conducting systematically Training Needs Analysis (TNA), is one of the key activities of
SEECEL within the framework of SBA. The TNA is a strong tool that links the SMEs with the
world of education. Without the TNA it is difficult to build curricula and competence
frameworks to integrate entrepreneurship learning across all levels of education.
Confidential 53
The TNA contributes substantially towards the evidence-based policy making and to facilitate
SEECEL member states in developing the training and support mechanisms SMEs need in
order to succeed and grow.
SEECEL had significant impact in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in supporting
and networking in order to develop entrepreneurial learning. Macedonians had access to
experts in the region and collaborated with them to develop strategies and policies. The TNA
and SBA implementation via the support of SEECEL, is a way to bring all the relevant
stakeholders together to address the national and regional needs collectively.
Montenegro is recognized as regional leader in developing entrepreneurial learning (according
also to SBA results) so this is good direction where they have to systematically work further
to improve on their successes and enjoy long term results. The Directorate for development of
SMEs developed special EL programs based on TNA findings which is obligatory for start-
ups, newcomers, and the business sector.
SEECEL ensures education for people involved not just in project implementation, but also by
involving experts with the SBA assessment. By engaging the whole entrepreneurship
ecosystem of a country the benefits are many and long term. SMEs, Chambers of Commerce,
Ministries and government agencies, schools, and universities, all can benefit from
participating in such initiatives.
Challenges
Funding
Given the fact that SEECEL has already made substantial contribution in the region and
beyond, the European Commission should provide SEECEL with the support needed to
continue its very important work.
Financing SEECEL is a challenge that needs to be addressed. States should be contributing
more and make a financial commitment. Since every SEECEL member state is satisfied and
enjoys benefits from the SEECEL program, each country should be contributing to the budget
according to its size and resources available.
Members of the SC and some of the stakeholders, although they feel that the SEECEL
operating budget is balanced and sufficient, for the sustainability of its activities and impact,
and to increase the potential for future successes even more, there is a need to increase the
resources available. It will foster further development for SEECEL and it is also necessary for
scaling up the success of SEECEL.
Schools reported that they could use additional funding if they were to implement the actions
they undertook better, broadly, more effective and more comfortable. They would also like to
be able to take some of their students to peer learning activities and visits and exchanges, since
peer learning was rated as a valuable activity by most of the schools and stakeholders
participating in the program.
All SEECEL member states are treated the same way. However, some of them pay full their
fee and some not. This, in conjunction with the fact that countries have their own regulations
Confidential 54
and processes for managing external funds, leads to some discrepancies with regards to the
speed and process in which funds are reaching implementing organizations.
Policy - Governance
There is an issue of mandate absence from governments to some SC Members. National
governments have different level of commitments to the project. The absence of an official
mandate precludes participants from asking for official support from their governments of any
type; money, development, policy, agenda and the like. SEECEL member states need to
provide strong support to SC Members so that they can participate and contribute more in
SEECEL activities.
Although SEECEL activities are important, there needs to be a process where the context of
countries will be accounted for and more country-specific activities can be implemented
which could address specific problems which each country has, which is clear now according
to SBA report. The SBA and TNA are contributing to this end, but project activities need to
engage the local businesses.
Given the fact that SEECEL is based in Croatia, supported by the EC and the Croatian
government, some partners feel it is a bit too Croatian focused. The balance of being physically
based in Croatia and serving the region, needs to be revisited. That will give SEECEL the
status to command funding from other governments on the network.
Stakeholders believe that SEECEL organizes and presents its work in a professional way and
the information flow from SEECEL to the Board members is sufficient and satisfactory. Some
members of the SC feel they would like to contribute more towards the management and
implementation of SEECEL. Although the agenda is set by SEECEL, when circulated to the
members, very few SC members provide feedback.
In order to increase its reach out, representation of multiple stakeholders, and impact, the
Steering Committee needs to include active representatives from the business community.
Stakeholders feel that SEECEL and its partners need to involve the business sector more. In
addition to building the mindset, improving competencies at school level, it is equally
important to make the connection with real world business sector in each country in the region.
As SEECEL grows, office space will be a challenge. With the new building under construction,
which will be able to house more than 100 staff, SEECEL will be in a position to run its
operations and scale up in more countries, provided sufficient funding is provided by the
European Commission and partner countries.
Because of the history of the region and the political complexities, it is challenging to get
stakeholders from various countries to collaborate. Collaboration requires patience and good
will, as well as the development of a common vision.
Confidential 55
Schools and Teacher Training
One of the biggest challenges schools faced was that they had limited to no knowledge of
entrepreneurial learning and how to implement it in their teaching practices. Teachers who
wanted to engage had to invest time in order to educate themselves and develop an action plan
and find some examples on the internet. There were several theoretical discussions about EL
in all countries, but SEECEL’s practical approach was welcomed by all.
There is a gap between developing and implementing training for the teachers. The training is
insufficient and the actual implementation of the training (delivering to the teachers) is
problematic. The only countries that implement some sort of teacher training is Montenegro
(the best practice example) and Croatia (with mixed reviews to date).
SEECEL developed an evidence-based model and package of material, but does not have the
capacity on its own to implement at the school level. SEECEL needs to develop solid
agreements with implementing organizations and agencies in each country that will ensure
teachers receive the necessary training and support for sustainable impact.
There are still weaknesses in the region, for example the education experts, curriculum experts,
teacher training experts, they need time in order to be so critical of their own work before they
become critical of someone else’s work and be able to participate effectively in peer-learning
activities. There is a need for more experts and trainers from both education and business
community. Developing and supporting the train the trainer model will facilitate future scale
up in more schools and communities.
In the beginning there was resistance at institutional level since some schools and education
institutions already had several projects going on, but at the meetings we observed, principals
and teachers were convinced to be a part of this project and they were happy with that decision.
SEECEL policies and tools such as curriculum and lesson plans are adopted by the various
schools at various levels. Some countries adopt them more than others. SEECEL should
continue to support member states to align national policies, processes, and curricula to meet
the jointly agreed vision and objectives.
Teachers expressed the need to have an interactive platform (like the CoP and maybe
something new) so they could have better networking with colleagues. As it stands now, each
school has limited access. It would be good if all teachers could have an account on the
platform. They also suggested the development of an activities calendar for all schools
involved so they can decide easier when to peer visit someone or just to see what other schools
are doing; as well as SEECEL members visiting schools.
Teachers and stakeholders suggested that what is missing is some kind of tracking of the
quality of all activities, not as monitoring, but some kind of methodology which could note the
quality level as it is difficult to see the real measurable impact of entrepreneurial learning itself.
During peer review, activity planning, and implementation it is important to include local
experts from the countries in which the program is implemented, as they know better the
situation and are more aware of the needs of the local environment. By engaging local experts,
we also build capacity at the local and national level with potential long term impact.
Confidential 56
The fact that all deliverable, activities, documents, and communication is conducted in English,
it becomes a challenge. Not all partners and schools in the region can communicate effectively,
develop lesson plans and prepare reports in English. As the project grows it needs to have a
plan for allowing local stakeholders to work in their local language.
Confidential 57
Recommendations There is a large number of recommendations stemming from the data analysis. These
recommendations are considered critical to further develop and grow SEECEL. After this
comprehensive evaluation, the partner states will expect some changes to be developed and
implemented. It is imperative that this process is done transparently and information should be
actively communicated and feedback should be solicited by the partners. The main findings from
the evaluation can be classified in the following categories
Strategic Objectives & Policy
There is ample evidence that strong capacity has been developed since 2009 within
SEECEL in the area of entrepreneurship learning. SEECEL should continue its valuable
work and expand beyond the regional dimension to include the rest of European Union
members. Furthermore, SEECEL could also play a more active role in the Mediterranean
region and Eastern Partnership Countries (EaP) since there was already strong
expression of interest from other non-EU countries to participate in SEECEL activities.
SEECEL has the strong potential to become part of the infrastructure solution for EU to
implement SME and entrepreneurship policies and practices
The SEECEL strategy should remain the same because it works well for the SEECEL
member states.
Communication
Develop a communication strategy that will improve awareness and branding for
SEECEL’s vision. It is our recommendation that a comprehensive media development
plan includes a public media campaign possible with short videos that address issues such
as Entrepreneurial Skills, Entrepreneurial Culture, Entrepreneurial Mentality, and all that
can benefit the community as a whole, the economy in areas such as unemployment, and
the individual practitioners.
Communication between the active SEECEL project participants, for example, SEECEL
Management/Team and Teachers, SC, and others close to the organization needs
improvement in bidirectional communication. It is important to have clear and concise
processes and tools to funnel recommendations, opportunities and issues back to SEECEL
for action. SEECEL should be clearer and distinct to communicate its strategies and
policies as well as provide feedback to teachers and other implementation stakeholders. It
also needs to communicate better with Ministry and other agency stakeholders.
The SEECEL website and the CoP are already in place and provide access to information
and resources. Future developments should build on the existing infrastructure to allow for
more users to engage with the online tools and benefit from SEECEL activities.
Excellent examples of building entrepreneurial learning in SEECEL member states need
to be better documented and shared. Such success stories can increase awareness among
Confidential 58
the general public and that will have an impact on a cultural change that will embrace
Entrepreneurial Skills Learning.
Governance
It is important to engage more SEECEL member states in developing the agenda for SC
meetings, so that it becomes more relevant to the needs of countries and stakeholders.
A more active role should be given to business representatives, chambers of commerce,
and SMEs, which can lead to more holistic approach to SEECEL strategic objectives. For
this, there is a need to develop some new activities which strengthen cooperation between
the business sector and education sector.
As the program grows and scales, it might be useful to consider to establish local
entrepreneurship coordination mechanisms in SEECEL member states to facilitate the
implementation and monitoring of SEECEL goals and achievements.
Program Implementation
Continue the dedicated work related to the SBA for Europe and use findings from the TNA
to further develop programs that target each country’s needs.
There is a need for using English as the language of communication for SEECEL activities.
However, as project activities scale and more schools engage in each member state, it will
be important to consider ways of addressing the language barrier to allow for more schools
and students to engage.
It is important to continue and expand the involvement of the local and local SMEs in
SEECEL activities. The program should also facilitate and encourage and expand
participation by parents, as we have seen in many cases and schools visited. If the kids
who are involved in the program receive encouragement by their parents, they will be more
willing to get involved and invest more time. This will also snowball to other parents who
will eventually support their children to participate and eventually the whole community
will be involved.
Program continuity is a challenge that needs to be addressed. Students participate in the
program only for one year after which time the program and infusion of knowledge ends
for them. It is a concern that the interaction of the students and the program ends when
there is an opportunity to learn more about Entrepreneurial Skills Learning. Our
recommendation is to extend the program progressively to more years until it becomes part
of the national curriculum.
A clear plan on how scaling up to more schools and probably full country implementation,
should be developed be each SEECEL member state. A toolkit and a service to partner
countries could be provided that will entail strategic planning but also training for decision
makers, policy makers, ministry officials, school principals, and teachers.
Confidential 59
Many teachers expressed the need to increase the interaction between schools with
student exchanges and exchange visits. In future activities the process for more
exchanges and the financing of such activities should be considered carefully to ensure
the best value for money.
School Related
Given the important role of education, as part of the entrepreneurship learning ecosystem,
SEECEL should continue to work closely with SEECEL member states, to include more
schools into the program and perhaps provide some continuity of the program to allow
students to participate in the program for more than one academic year.
Also, maybe address all levels of education to include more teachers, elementary and
high schools, and universities, and perhaps involve more countries into the program to
pass on the knowledge and experiences to other regions in the European Union.
The process of joining SEECEL and managing project implementation at school level,
requires specific skills. Offering project management training to teachers and principals
will be useful and will empower them to better implement and monitor project activities.
Teachers who were involved in one year, should be able to share their knowledge and skills
with others, in a way that will transfer their knowhow to colleagues and more schools and
communities. This knowledge and experiences should be captured and shared with all
current and future school participants. Tacit learning is one of the most effective ways to
learn from other’s experiences.
Community of Practice
A useful feature for the CoP could be a rating system for teachers to rate the lesson plans,
and also a way to show which lesson plans and activities were downloaded more often.
This can provide tips to teachers on how to choose lesson plans and also adapt them into
their teaching and context.
The TASK BOX on the CoP, should be further used and expanded to allow for teachers to
receive prompt feedback on their work. Teachers need to receive feedback on the lesson
plans they develop and also on their reports and project activities. SEECEL member states
and local teacher training institutes should collaborate to better support teachers during
project implementation.
The complete package for training of teachers, mentors and stakeholders can be developed
using eLearning technologies to allow for flexibility of delivery and possibility to reach
out to all countries.
Regarding the online learning, it would be valuable to establish a process for using learning
analytics, integrating it with the online community, and future eLearning developments, to
provide detailed data on how the resources are used, and how teachers communicate and
receive feedback.
Confidential 60
Teacher and Stakeholder Training
There is a need for a structured and formalized Teacher training that takes place prior to
the program being implemented at school level. Teacher training should be required for
all schools that decide to join the program.
Instead of 1-2 day workshops, it will be good to offer a whole week or even longer summer
courses, to ensure teachers get the needed knowledge and skills to implement EL in their
classroom practices.
For the future designs of teacher training, it will be important to have two types of Mentors.
The School Mentors who will support new schools coming into the program and Mentors
from the local communities and SMEs who can support the learners and the teachers during
the implementation stage of their idea development.
Special effort and support should be provided at the policy level to ensure that EL is
integrated in country school curricula. Therefore, training should be provided not only to
teachers but also to school principals, inspectors, teacher educators, academics, training
agencies, SBA experts, and ministry of education officials.
A Certification system could be developed with local ministries and teacher training
agencies, so that teachers who participate in the program can be certified and earn extra
points on their CV, something that can act as a motivation on teacher engagement.
Monitoring and Evaluation
There is a need to establish a benchmarking process to help determine how successful the
SEECEL program is. It would be useful to have a process to collect data on the long term
impact of Entrepreneurship Learning on SEECEL member states. For example, what
happens to the program graduates, how successful they are in their communities, if they
transfer the knowledge to others, and if they facilitate similar learning activities in their
communities?
Establish a process to identify success stories and give recognition at the Teacher, Student,
School or the Systemic Level. It will be useful to develop an alumni database that; a) It
keeps track of what happens to the individuals graduating from these programs, and b) It
registers these graduates contribution towards achieving the overall goals and objectives
set by SEECEL. The initial benchmarking should be done from existing data as well as
through an original data gathering research that should be undertaken by a third party to
ensure integrity of data gathering. This information could be also used to perform a
comparative analysis with similar programs run by other organizations and government
agencies.
Confidential 61
References Flash Eurobarometer 354 (2012). Entrepreneurship in the EU and beyond. Online.
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_354_sum_en.pdf (accessed on 13th June 2016)
Europe (2020). A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Online.