The Erasmus Plan: what evaluators actually score

The Erasmus Plan is the core of an accreditation application — the Programme Guide defines it as the plan confirming you can implement high-quality mobility as part of a wider development effort. That last part is the whole game: evaluators are not scoring a wish list of trips; they’re scoring whether mobility serves a development strategy your organisation actually has.

The scoring makes this concrete. Of the 100 points, the Erasmus Plan carries 90:

Criterion	Max points	The question behind it
Relevance	10	Is this organisation what the accreditation is for?
Plan: Objectives	40	Do the objectives respond to real, named needs?
Plan: Activities	20	Are the numbers and profiles realistic?
Plan: Management	30	Will this survive contact with reality — and with staff turnover?

Threshold: 70 overall and at least half the maximum in every category. A 38/40 on objectives cannot rescue a 10/30 on management.

Objectives that score (the 40-point category)

The Guide’s own criteria say objectives must respond “clearly and concretely to the needs of the applicant and its staff and learners” and be “realistic and sufficiently ambitious”, with appropriate, concrete arrangements for monitoring progress. Translated into writing practice:

• Name the need before the objective. Not “improve digital competence” but “our 2025 internal survey shows 24 of 31 teachers never use the school’s tablets; by 2028 every department uses them weekly”. A stranger should be able to check whether you got there.
• Put a number and a date on each objective. “Realistic and sufficiently ambitious” is scored — give the evaluator something to measure ambition against: your size, your starting point.
• Attach a monitoring habit to each objective, not a generic “we will evaluate annually”. Who looks at what, when?

Activities (20 points): the realism check

This category asks whether the number of participants is realistic and their profiles relevant. The classic mistake is inflating numbers to look ambitious — but ambition is scored under objectives; here, an implausible volume for your organisation’s size costs points. Estimate from your staff count and turnover, and say so.

Management (30 points): where good plans die

The criteria ask for a clear distribution of tasks, adequate resources, involvement of the organisation’s leadership, integration of results into everyday work — and one that most applicants miss: continuity if key people leave. If your whole plan lives in one enthusiastic coordinator’s head, write down how it survives their departure. That sentence is worth points.

What you’re allowed to lean on

Seeking advice from education authorities, experienced peer organisations and experts is explicitly encouraged. You may support the application with your existing strategy documents — an internationalisation strategy, a development plan from your supervising body. Use them.

Frequent questions

How many years should our Erasmus Plan cover?

Between two and five years — your choice. Shorter plans are easier to keep realistic; five-year plans suit organisations with a stable internationalisation strategy. An approved plan stays valid until your national agency approves an update.

Do we need to list every future activity in detail?

No. You need objectives that respond to named needs, an estimate of participants that is realistic for your size, and management arrangements. Precise activity lists come later, year by year, in each annual grant request.

Can consortium members help write the plan?

Candidate consortium coordinators may consult their potential members while preparing the application — the Guide explicitly allows it. Paying anyone external to write it is what's prohibited.