WRITTEN QUESTION E-2357/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. European report on the quality of school education.
Date: 2000-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, EU Member State, EU publication, comparative education

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/189

(2001/C 89 E/211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2357/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: European report on the quality of school education

(13 July 2000)

In the European report on the quality of school education by the European Commission the Belgian
Federation scores low marks (cid:129) by comparison with other EU Member States (cid:129) for tolerance of foreigners
by young people. For foreign-language learning, the Federation even scores in the lowest group. But for
parental participation, mathematics and natural sciences, the European Commission awards marks to the
Flemish community considered separately. And there the Flemish community is one of the front runners.

Because the Commission ignores the division of powers in the Belgian Federation (education is unequi-
vocally the responsibility of the federal states) its report gives a distorted and unfair picture. On 9 out of
16 counts, it uses figures for Belgium as a whole; on the remaining ones (mathematics, natural sciences,
use of integrated computer technology (ICT) in the curriculum, education system, parental participation,
number of learners per computer and educational expenditure per learner/student) it draws on data for the
communities considered separately. The findings of
the report consequently cannot be interpreted
unambiguously.

Does the Commission recognise that its methodology (viz. failure to distinguish between the data for
1.
the Flemish and French communities respectively) gives a distorted and therefore unfair picture of the
education situation in the Belgian Federation? If not, how can the Commission justify its choice of
methodology, given that education in the Belgian Federation is unequivocally the responsibility of the
communities?

2.
Does the Commission recognise more specifically that its methodology (viz. failure to distinguish
between the data for the Flemish and French communities) gives a distorted and therefore unfair picture of
the attitudes of Flemish and French-speaking young people to foreigners? If not, what arguments can the
Commission put forward for its failure to distinguish between the different sets of data on attitudes to
foreigners?

(2001/C 89 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2358/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: European report on the quality of school education

In the European report on the quality of school education by the European Commission the Belgian
Federation scores low marks (cid:129) by comparison with other EU Member States (cid:129) for tolerance of foreigners
by young people. For foreign-language learning, the Federation even scores in the lowest group. But for
parental participation, mathematics and natural sciences, the European Commission awards marks to the
Flemish community considered separately. And there the Flemish community is one of the front runners.

Because the Commission ignores the division of powers in the Belgian Federation (education is unequi-
vocally the responsibility of the federal states) its report gives a distorted and unfair picture. On 9 out of
16 counts, it uses figures for Belgium as a whole; on the remaining ones (mathematics, natural sciences,
use of integrated computer technology (ICT) in the curriculum, education system, parental participation,
number of learners per computer and educational expenditure per learner/student) it draws on data for the
communities considered separately. The findings of
the report consequently cannot be interpreted
unambiguously.

1.
Does the Commission recognise more specifically that its methodology (viz. failure to distinguish
between the data for the Flemish and French communities) gives a distorted and therefore unfair picture of
the linguistic abilities of Flemish and French-speaking young people? If not, what arguments can the
Commission put forward for its failure to distinguish between the different sets of data on language skills?