Report from the Commission - Annual Report from the European Commission to the European Parliament on the Functioning of the European Schools System
Date: 2005-10-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European school, activity report, educational institution, financial management, financing, operation of the Institutions, organisation of teaching

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 11.10.2005 
COM(2005)482 final 

. 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

Annual Report from the European Commission to the European Parliament on 
the Functioning of the European Schools System 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This is the first Annual Report from the European Commission to the European Parliament on 
the  Functioning  of  the  European  Schools  System.  It  follows  a  request  from  the  European 
Parliament in the Bösch Report in 2002 on the future financing of the European Schools (ES). 
The present report presents an overview of the principal aspects of the functioning of the ES 
today (with comparative figures to identify major trends), and focuses on an examination of 
the pupil population, the staffing, the main pedagogical issues and financing. The Report goes 
on to highlight the key challenges facing the ES: the consequences of enlargement, the need 
to  take  account  of  the  creation  of  EU  Agencies  and  widen  the  availability  of  the  European 
Baccalaureate, the governance of the school system, the difficult conditions of the large ES in 
Brussels and Luxembourg and the future of the small schools, particularly in view of the very 
small number of cat 1 pupils in the latter. 

The ES system has operated successfully for just over half a century, providing a high quality 
education primarily to the children of the staff of the European Union (i.e. about 51% of the 
ES  total  pupil  population  in  2004  were  children  of  EU  staff)  The  system  operates  on  an 
intergovernmental-type basis under a Convention signed by all Member States (MS) and the 
European Commission. As the said intergovernmental Convention clearly specifies, the very 
purpose of the ES is “to educate together children of the staff of the European Communities”1. 
Besides them, “other children may attend the Schools, within the limits set by the Board of 
Governors”2. Because of  their combined roles  as providers of nearly 60% of the funding of 
the ES system and as responsible employers with an interest in ensuring the continuing good 
functioning of a system which remains a vital element in attracting and recruiting staff of the 
highest  calibre,  the  EU  institutions  have  in  recent  years  taken  a  growing  interest  in  the 
European Schools. 

Following the Bösch Report adopted by the European Parliament in 2002, the Commission in 
2004  put  forward  a  discussion  document  on  the  future  of  the  ES  system,  which  raises  a 
number  of  issues  relating  to  their  governance,  financing  and  educational  services.  This  has 
opened a wide debate on the issues and challenges facing the European Schools as they enter 
their second 50 years of operation, existing as they are in a context of considerable change. 
The continuing enlargement of the Union and the creation of new EU bodies across Europe, 
coupled  with  changing  approaches  to  education,  pose  new  challenges  which  the  ES  system 
should address if it is to remain as visionary over the coming 50 years as it has been over the 
past. It is in this context that the Commission presents a first Annual Report to the European 
Parliament  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Schools  System.  This  report  presents  an 
overview of the system today, and addresses a number of key challenges for the future. 

1 
2 

Convention Defining the Statute of the European Schools, article 1. 
Digest of Decisions of the Board of Governors Ref # 95-D-19, pg 162 sets limit for cat 3 children to 
20% of class. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

STATISTICAL DATA & TRENDS 

2.1. 

Pupil population 

There are currently 13 European Schools3 in 7 Member States. There are 14 languages which 
are used for delivering the pupils’ education in language sections, with 80 language sections 
in total. The pupils attending the ES are classified in three categories according to decisions 
taken by the Board of Governors (BoG), the governing authority for the ES. The first category 
(cat 1) comprises the children of staff of the EU institutions (and also children of certain other 
organisations as well as the children of the staff working for the ES system itself). They do 
not pay school fees. The second category of pupils (cat 2) comprises children whose parents’ 
employers have signed an agreement with the ES and who pay school fees at the full annual 
cost  per  pupil  of  the  ES  which  they  attend.  The  third  category  of  pupils  (cat  3)  are  other 
children, not covered by the first two categories, and who are accepted by the director of the 
ES according to rules and decisions taken by the BoG. They too pay school fees, which cover 
a part of the cost per pupil in their schools. 

There are now almost 20000 pupils in the ES. The system has witnessed an increase of 17% 
in the last 3 years. The bulk of this increase is accounted for by an increase of the cat 1 pupil 
numbers (23%), predominantly in Brussels and Luxembourg. The table below illustrates some 
indicative  figures  regarding  growth  in  the  total  and  cat  1  population  in  the  ES,  while  more 
details are available in Annex 1. 

Pupil population  1995 

2001 

2004 

%  growth 
from 1995 

growth 

% 
from 2001 

Total  number  of 
pupils 

15756 

16985 

19862 

26.1 

16.9 

Category 1 pupils  8965 

10070 

12412 

38.4 

23.3 

At present, the large ES in Brussels and Luxembourg cater for over 12000 or 60% of all the 
children in all the ES. Moreover, these large schools provide educational services to 78% of 
all cat 1 pupils in the system, while the remaining 8 schools account for only 22% of the cat 1 
pupils4 

The  majority,  if  not  all,  of  the  pupils  from  the  new  MS  will  be  entering  the  Brussels  or 
Luxembourg ES where the over-crowding conditions are already significant. Coupled with a 
mini ‘baby boom’ among existing staff, pressure here may become unsustainable in the very 
next  years.  In  addition,  the  over-crowding  situation  in  Brussels  and  Luxembourg  has  a 
negative  effect  on  the  pupil’s  learning  environment  and  general  welfare.  It  also  affects  the 
staff’s  working  conditions  and  general  atmosphere  in  the  schools.  Although  the  necessary 

3 

4 

Another ES is due to open in Brussels in 2009 bringing the total number of ES in Brussels to 4 and of 
all ES to 14. 
The ES in Munich serves the cat 1 children of staff of the European Patent Office and they represent 8% 
of all cat 1 pupils in all the ES. The ES in Varese provides educational services to pupils of the Joint 
Research Centre in Ispra, and they account for 5% of all cat 1 pupils in the system. The cat 1 population 
in the new ES in Alicante and Frankfurt represents 5% of the system  total. Finally the 4 small ES in 
Culham, Bergen, Mol and Karlsruhe (the latter three catering to the pupils of staff of the Joint Research 
Centre) together have a cat 1 population which represents less than 4% of the total cat 1 population. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
decisions  have  been  taken  and  sites  identified  for  the  location  of  the  second  ES  in 
Luxembourg  (Luxembourg  II  will  be  situated  in  Mamer)  and  the  fourth  ES  in  Brussels 
(Brussels  IV  will  be  situated  in  Laeken),  the  opening  dates  for  these  schools  are  2008  and 
2009 respectively. The Brussels ES are estimated to increase by 900 cat 1 pupils by 2009 and 
the Luxembourg ES by 200 cat 1 pupils by 2008. The Commission has intervened with the 
national authorities concerned to respect the delivery date of each school and will continue to 
monitor the situation closely. 

In the small ES there has been a decrease in the overall pupil numbers in the last few years 
and the obvious presence of the large numbers of cat 3 pupils suggests that these schools are 
maintained primarily by this category of pupils (see Annex 2). Approximate 80% of the pupils 
in the small ES are cat 3. The income of the cat 3 fees to the respective ES budget is about 
20% however. 

2.2. 

Personnel levels 

The European Schools are staffed mainly (+/-80%) by teachers sent by national ministries of 
Education  for  a  limited  duration  of  detachment5.  Some  teaching  staff  (supply  teachers  / 
‘chargés de cours’) as well as the schools’ administrative and ancillary staff (AAS) are hired 
locally  by  the  school  directors.  Only  the  seconded/detached  teachers  have  a  comprehensive 
staff  regulation  outlining  the  terms  and  conditions  of  their  employment.  The  AAS  staff 
follow, by and large, the national regulations in place in the country where the ES is located. 
The locally hired, part-time teachers (chargés de cours) usually have a limited contract with 
the ES for one year but which is renewable. They are paid according to the number of lessons 
they provide per week. 

In keeping with the increase in the pupil population, the staff levels in the ES and the Office 
of  the  Secretary  General  (OSG)  have  also  increased.  Many,  if  not  all,  of  the  additional 
teaching  posts  are  the  result  of  enlargement  with  the  creation  of  3  new  language  sections 
(Polish,  Czech  and  Hungarian)  in  Brussels  and  another  3  (Polish,  Czech  and  Hungarian)  in 
Luxembourg. Indicated in the table below are the pupil/teacher ratios in the various ES. 

Pupils-Teacher Ratio in the ES in 2004

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

e

t

n
a
c

i
l

A

n
e
g
r
e
B

1

l

x
B

2

l

x
B

3

l

x
B

m
a
h
u
C

l

t
r
u

f
k
n
a
r
F

e
h
u
r
s
l
r
a
K

1

x
u
L

2

x
u
L

l

o
M

i

h
c
n
u
M

e
s
e
r
a
V

5 

Up to nine years. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The full impact of the creation of these language sections has not yet been absorbed as only 
the nursery and primary cycles have opened so far. The secondary levels will open gradually 
and  it  seems  that  the  full  effects  in  terms  of  teaching  staff  for  these  language  sections  will 
only  be  visible  near  2010.  By  then,  it  is  likely  that  a  new  round  of  enlargement  will  have 
required additional teaching staff in the ES. In addition to the 6 new language sections opened 
in  Brussels  and  Luxembourg  (3  in  each  location),  teachers  have  been  hired,  as  needed,  in 
several ES to provide mother-tongue instruction in the other 6 languages from the new MS for 
which language sections were not yet created due to the low number of pupils expected. 

The growth in the Ancillary and Administrative Staff (AAS) has particularly increased since 3 
new ES were opened in 2001: Alicante, Frankfurt and Luxembourg 2. Other than in these ES, 
the most noticeable increase in AAS posts from 2001 to 2005 is to be found in Munich (37% 
increase in AAS posts in comparison to a 9.3% increase in pupils over the same period) and at 
the  Office  of  the  Secretary-General  (33.8%  increase  compared  to  a  16.9%  increase  in  pupil 
numbers throughout the ES system). An overview is provided below comparing 2005 staffing 
levels to 20016. Annex 3 provides more information including a detailed breakdown for the 
seconded  teachers  and  the  AAS  personnel  in  all  ES  for  the  2005-2006  school  year.  The 
number of locally hired part-time teachers will be approximately the same next year, that is, 
about  430,  but  there  may  be  a  slight  adjustment  depending  on  the  local  situation;  i.e. 
fluctuation in pupil numbers affecting the number of classes needed and/or detached teacher 
availability. 

Seconded 
Teachers 

Locally  hired 
teachers 

Total 
Teaching Staff 

Teaching 
staff growth 

AAS 
hired) 

(locally 

AAS  staff 
growth 

Pupil Population 

Pupil 
Increase 

2001  2005  2001  2005  2001  2005  2005/2001 

2001

2005 2005/2001 

2001 

2005 2005/2001

1199  1390 

311 

430  1510  1820 

20,5% 243

311

27,8%  16985  19862

16,9%

2.3. 

Pedagogical Issues 

The European Schools have long been recognised for the quality of the service they provide in 
terms  of  a  multi-lingual  and  multi-cultural  education  in  a  unique  manner  and  setting.  In 
addition,  the  European  Baccalaureate  (EB),  the  leaving  certificate  offered  in  the  ES,  enjoys 
wide recognition among MS and the bearer is entitled to the same conditions for university 
entrance as those enjoyed by the nationals of the particular MS to whose higher educational 
institution he is applying. 

The results of the pupils taking the final EB examinations are improving yearly. In fact, there 
has been a significant increase in the percentages of pupils who succeed in passing the EB as 
well as those scoring above 75%7. The average success rate of the EB in all ES was 98.1 in 
2004  compared  to  96.4  in  2000.  The  overall  average  mark  acquired  in  the  EB  in  2004  has 
risen by 2% points from 74% in 2000 to 76% in 2004. In 2004, nearly half the pupils sitting 
the EB (49.6%) received a mark of 75% or higher. The number of pupils who scored higher 

6 
7 

The Annual Report of the Secretary General to the BoG of the ES. Ref # 1612-D-2004. 
Report on the European Baccalaureate. BoG 1-2 Feb 2005. Ref # 2004-D-3210. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
than  80%  on  their  exam  has  risen  to  29%.  Furthermore,  3  ES  have  had  100%  success  rates 
every year since 2000. 

There  are  in  addition,  differences  among  language  sections  in  terms  of  pass  rates  and  good 
results.  In  six  of  the  eleven  language  sections  in  which  the  European  Baccalaureate  is 
currently available, half the pupils achieved good results (>75%) in 2004, while the other five 
language  sections  scored  below  the  system  average  of  49.6%  for  attaining  good  results. 
Annex 4 provides more details on the success rates and scores of the pupils in the European 
Baccalaureate,  while  Annex  5  illustrates  the  failure  rates  per  school,  language  section  and 
level in the years before the Baccalaureate examinations. 

The most recent confirmation that the ES do indeed provide a good level of education is the 
results that the ES in Luxembourg scored in the OECD PISA II 2003 evaluation. The results 
of  the  192  15  year-old  children  (in  the  Anglophone,  Francophone  and  Germanophone 
language sections) who took this test were slightly higher in relation to their counterparts in 
the  equivalent  national  Luxembourg  schools.  The  European  Commission  is  examining  the 
possibility for other ES to undergo the PISA III 2006 tests. In addition, a survey to examine 
the  academic  studies  and/or  career  paths  followed  by  the  pupils  after  the  Baccalaureate  and 
the  reasons  for  their  success  or  failure  is  also  under  consideration  by  the  Commission 
services.  

In the last few years a number of programmes for the ES have been developed or updated by 
the Board of Inspectors. In particular many of the language programmes and foreign language 
programmes dating back to the early seventies and eighties have been revised and approved 
by the BoG. In addition, several programmes for the non-core subjects have been improved 
and updated. At present about half of the existing programmes for the ES curricula have been 
written or re-written between 2000 and 2005. However, several still date back to the 1980s. 
An important addition to the ES curricula, are the programmes designed to assist pupils with 
difficulties or special needs. 

The ES now offer a variety of teaching assistance and individual help to pupils with learning 
difficulties  and/or  handicaps.  The  new  policies  for  pupils  with  Special  Educational  Needs 
(SEN) and those requiring Learning Support (LS) are based on the principle of integration of 
the  pupil  in  the  classroom  and  where  the  pupils  can  actively  participate  in  a  minimum  of 
collective  activities  at  the  cognitive  level.  However,  notwithstanding  all  on-going  efforts, 
there  are  instances  where  the  ES  cannot  cope  with  the  concrete  needs  of  the  pupil.  The 
Commission  strongly  supports  the  provision  of  assistance  to  children  with  special  needs. 
However, the SEN and LS programmes require better monitoring in order to optimise services 
and  to  evaluate  their  impact.  The  Commission  has  asked  the  BoG  for  more  detailed  reports 
and for an evaluation of the implementation and success of the programmes in each ES. 

Other special programmes have been developed in preparation for enlargement and the influx 
of  pupils  for  whom  language  sections  would  not  be  created.  The  BoG  recently  adopted 
programmes  that  will  assist  pupils  integrating  in  language  sections  that  do  not  correspond 
with their mother-tongue. The SWALS (Students Without A Language Section), SEN and LS 
programmes, have received the strong support of the Commission and an increase in the ES 
budget for the material and human resources needed. 

Since  1999,  when  the  BoG  adopted  the  first  SEN  policy,  the  number  of  pupils  in  this 
programme  has  increased  dramatically.  Indicated  below  is  the  evolution  of  the  SEN  budget 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
line  in  the  ES8.  As  it  can  be  seen,  the  budget  dedicated  to  helping  these  pupils  has  been 
correspondingly increasing and is currently at the level of about €8700 per child9. 

Evolution of ES budget line for the SEN (Students with Special Needs) programmes 

Year 

2003

2004

2005 

2006

TOTAL (in euros) 

1.680.670

2.045.499

2.331.233 

2.604.399

No of pupils concerned 

197

214

273 

Est 300

Despite increases in the financial resources for helping children with special needs or learning 
difficulties, the implementation of these programmes varies. A number of complaints lodged 
with the European Ombudsman attest to this fact. 

An examination of the repeat rates in the secondary10 cycle in the ES, illustrates that the peak 
in the repeat rates occurs in the 4th and 5th year of secondary school, where pupils are required 
to  take  a  large  number  of  obligatory  subjects  in  science,  languages  and  mathematics  at  a 
demanding  level  (see  Annex  5).  This  and  the  drop  out  rates  make  it  necessary  to  adapt  the 
learning support policy to avoid such peaks and to offer a different course of studies leading 
to an alternative leaving certificate than the European Baccalaureate, as requested by parents 
in recent years. A new Working Group was created by the BoG to discuss this issue and will 
meet for the first time in September 2005. 

2.4. 

Finance 

The financial responsibility for the budget of the ES is divided among the contribution from 
the MS, the income generated from cat 2 and cat 3 fees and the provision from the EU budget 
of  a  balancing  contribution.  The  MS  contribute  to  the  ES  budget  by  way  of  paying  their 
detached  staff  in  the  ES  system  their  national  salaries  (the  EU  budget  then  fills  the  gap 
between the national salary and the ES salary). In 2004, this amounted to approximately 22% 
of the total ES budget. The income received from cat 2 and cat 3 school fees contributed 5% 
and 8% respectively. An additional 2% is derived from various small direct contributions to 
the  individual  schools  (e.g.  parents  paying  insurance,  cost  for  photocopying  etc).  and  the 
remaining 56% was provided by the Commission from the EU budget. For the ES in Munich, 
the European Patent Office assumes the financial role similar to that of the Commission’s in 
the other ES. The EPO’s financial contribution to the ES system is about 7% of the system 
total. 

For the past several years, the total budget allocated to the European Schools system has been 
under-spent from 1 to 14.4 million euros annually (see Annex 6). Though this under-spending 
is  due  mainly  to  overestimated  staff  expenses,  the  under-spending in  the  operational  budget 
lines,  such  as  expenses  for  SEN  pupils,  intervention  of  experts,  training  for  staff  etc.,  is 
proportionately higher, as the table in Annex 7 illustrates. In addition, the differences among 
the  ES,  both  as  regards  their  initial  budget  requests  and  the  final  amount  spent,  seem  to 
warrant an in-depth analysis in terms of sound financial management.  

8 
9 
10 

The SWALS and secondary LS programmes are too new to have comparative data at present. 
Data provided by the Office of the Secretary General of the European Schools. 
The  ES  have  a  universal  policy  on  the  conditions  in  which  a  pupil  will  repeat  a  year.  It  is  found  in 
article 60 of the General Rules of the ES. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
There  has  been  a  steady,  yearly  increase  in  the  ES  budget  and  the  contributions  from  the 
various components. The subsidy from the EU budget, administered by the Commission, has 
grown from €81.6 million in 1995 to €118.4 million euros in 2004 (a growth of 45%). In the 
same period of time, the pupil population grew by 33% from nearly 15000 pupils to almost 
20000. The number of schools increased from 9 in 1995 to 12 in 2004, and the budget of the 
Office of the Secretary General has more than doubled in the same period from €4.0 million 
in 1995 to an allocated budget of €8.2 in 2005. The EU subsidy for the budget of the Office of 
the Secretary General is about 80%. The estimated EU contribution to the ES budget for 2005 
is €127 million, the same as was allocated in 2004. However, the 2004 ES budget was under-
spent by €14.4 million due to lower needs than anticipated. Therefore, the EU contribution of 
€127 million should be ample for the ES needs in 2005. Illustrated in the table below is the 
total spent ES budget and the EU contribution for the last 10 years11. 

Evolution of ES budget 1995-2004

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

250

200

150

100

50

0

Commission
subvention
Total budget of ES

5
9
9
1

6
9
9
1

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

As the EU institutions grow and the EU staff levels increase, it is reasonable to expect that the 
budget of the ES will increase. However, there is no clear correlation between the increasing 
cat 1 children at a ES and the EU funding of that school as the table below indicates. In fact 
the  large  ES  receive  a  lower  percentage  of  EU  funds  than  their  percentage  of  cat  1  pupils, 
whereas the small ES, receive a much higher percentage of EU funds than their percentage of 
cat  1  pupils  would  warrant.  The  cat  1  pupil  population  in  the  4  ES  in  Bergen,  Culham, 
Karlsruhe  and  Mol  together  account  for  3.8%  of  the  system’s  total.  In  contrast,  the  EU 
contribution to the budgets of these 4 ES constitutes 18.8% of the total EU contribution to the 
ES system. In the table below, the comparisons of the percentages, both for cat 1 pupils and 
the EU contribution is in relation to the total cat 1 pupils in the ES system and the total EU 
subsidy for the ES system budget. 

11 

The ES total budget and the EU contribution in 2000 and 2001 are unusually high due to a decision of 
the BoG to pay the relocation allowance to all teachers in the ES for longer than 9 years in the school 
year 2000-2001. It is estimated by the Financial Controller of the ES that this inflated the ES budget by 
€35 million in these 2 years but also reduced the subsequent years by €4-5 million annually. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Comparison between cat 1 pupils and EU subsidy per ES 

2003 

2004 

Alicante 
Bergen 
Bxl 1 
Bxl 2 
Bxl 3 
Culham 
Frankfurt 
Karlsruhe 
Lux 1 
Lux 2 
Mol 
Munich 
Varese 
OSG 

% of cat 1 in 
ES system 
2,1
0,9
14,5
20,7
18,4
1,0
2,1
1,1
24,5

1,1
8,4
5,1

% of total EU 
subsidy to ES 
3,1
5,8
14,4
14,5
13,6
5,5
2,7
3,7
17,4
0,0
6,0
0,9
6,8
5,5

% of cat 1 in 
ES system 
2,5
0,9
14,7
20,4
18,7
0,9
2,7
1,0
19,1
4,8
1,0
8,2
5,2

% of total EU 
subsidy to ES 
4,8 
5,4 
14,4 
15,0 
13,2 
4,7 
3,5 
3,3 
17,1 
1,0 
5,4 
0,8 
6,6 
4,8 

More information on the EU financial contribution per ES and the evolution of the ES budgets 
is provided in Annexes 8 and 9. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
The 2004 data on cost per pupil and pupil population per ES is found in the table below12. The 
ES have been placed according to their size, from largest to smallest13. 

2004: Cost per pupil (total expenditure) and n° of pupils

18.000

16.000

14.000

12.000

10.000

8.000

6.000

4.000

2.000

0

Cost per pupil - €
N° of pupils

lu

b2

b3

b1 mu

va

ka

al

cu

ff

be mo

l2

lu = Luxembourg 1; b2, b3, b1 = Brussels 2,3,1; mu = Munich; va = Varese; ka = Karlsruhe; al = Alicante; cu = 
Culham; ff = Frankfurt; be = Bergen; mo = Mol;l2 = Luxembourg 2 

3. 

KEY CHALLENGES FACING THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS 

3.1. 

Enlargement 

Recent  and  future  enlargements  add  pressure  on  the  ES  system  by  further  increasing  its 
complexity  and  size  in  terms  of  new  languages  and  growth  in  pupil  numbers.  The  revised 
estimates  for  pupil  numbers  coming  from  the  new  MS  are  1110  spanning  between  2004  -
2007. Mainly the Brussels (80%) and Luxembourg (20%) ES will be affected. The other ES 
are not likely to be affected by enlargement. Annex 10 indicates the estimated pupil numbers 
in the Brussels and Luxembourg ES for the next five years, including children coming from 
the new MS. 

Provisions made 

The  educational  provisions  for  the  children  of  staff  from  the  10  new  Members  States  are 
carried out on the same basis as those for children of staff from the old Member States. The 
BoG has set numerical criteria for the establishment of language sections and once these are 
met,  new  language  sections  may  be  created.14  Only  Polish,  Czech  and  Hungarian  language 

12 
13 

14 

Table taken from the Annual Report of the Financial Controller. Ref # 2005-D-163, p. 12. 
The data for the Luxembourg 2 ES is skewed and should be ignored as this school only operated for 4 
months in 2004. 
The Criteria for Setting up, Closure or Maintenance of European Schools. Ref # 2000-D-7510. pg 2. 
(75 children in primary and 84 in secondary are needed before a section can open) 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
sections  and  only  in  Brussels  and  Luxembourg  have  thus  far  been  opened  since  these 
countries  have  the  highest  population  among  the  new  MS  and  it  is  expected  that  they  will 
easily fulfil the numerical criteria. 

At the present, therefore, pupils coming from 6 of the new MS15 (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, 
Slovakia, Slovenia and Malta) do not have a language section corresponding to their mother 
tongue  and  are  being  integrated  into  existing  language  sections.  Their  choice  has  been 
predominantly  the  Anglophone  language  section  and  to  a  much  lesser  extent  the 
Germanophone and Francophone ones. This has created a situation in Brussels where up to a 
quarter of the pupils in a particular class may not be native-speakers. 

Two special programmes have been implemented in order to provide extra language lessons 
to the pupils in this situation. Firstly, language lessons in their mother-tongue (up to 5 lessons 
per week) are ensured to all cat 1 and cat 2 pupils. This is an existing policy available in all 
ES and applied to pupils from the new MS as well, provided that an appropriately qualified 
teacher  is  available.  Secondly,  the  pupils  in  a  language  section  that  does  not  correspond  to 
their mother-tongue will receive extra tuition in the language of the section to help them catch 
up.  The  situation  in  the  sections  concerned  will  need  close  monitoring  and  evaluation 
however as these new programmes are at their infancy. 

Effects on provision of services in the large ES 

As yet, enlargement has not had a significant effect on the staffing levels in the ES. There are 
some  teachers  hired  to  provide  mother-tongue  teaching  and  other  to  provide  lessons  in  the 
new language sections. By 2010, i.e. by that time the pupil population from the 10 new MS 
should have become stable, it seems likely that another round of enlargement will have taken 
place. The impact of that in terms of the ES system is not yet known and will be studied in the 
coming years. However, experience has shown that even the small language sections require 
about 15 detached teachers. 

3.2. 

Decentralisation policy & Agency needs 

With  the  creation  of  new  Agencies  throughout  the  Union,  the  provision  of  a  multi-lingual, 
multi-cultural education (similar to that provided in the ES) for the children of the Agencies’ 
staff  is  a  major  challenge.  The  low  numbers  of  staff  in  most  Agencies  do  not  justify  the 
creation of new European Schools. Therefore, there is a need to develop new models which 
provide for their differing needs in a flexible and appropriate way and which enable them to 
ensure  a  geographical  balance  in  the  recruitment  of  their  personnel  and  to  attract  highly 
qualified staff in general. This becomes difficult, and in some cases almost impossible, if the 
Agency  is  located  in  a  city  or  town  that  does  not  offer  education  in  at  least  one  of  the 
vehicular languages. Even in locations where there are alternatives to the national educational 
system, in private schools for example, the Agencies request equal treatment with locations of 
establishments of the European Commission with a low number of children of EU staff, but 
which have the presence of a European School (Culham, Mol, Bergen, Karlsruhe). 

15 

The  pupils  coming  from  Cyprus  are  entering  the  Greek  language  section  which  corresponds  to  their 
mother-tongue. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The table below shows the number of children of EU staff in the existing small ES in Culham, 
Bergen, Karlsruhe and Mol for the school year 2003-200416. 

European School 

Culham 

Bergen  

Karlsruhe 

Number of children 
of EU staff 

14 

66 

83 

Mol 

85 

Officials working in other EU institutions i.e. Thessaloniki (CEDEFOP & EAR) and Seville 
(IPTS) and those anticipated  for  Parma (EFSA)17 have a similar, if not a greater number of 
children for whom a multilingual education must be provided. Annex 11 gives an estimate of 
the number of children in each agency in 2005. 

Besides the emerging pressure to provide for the educational needs for the children of staff in 
locations  where  there  is  an  Agency  (or  one  will  be  created),  the  European  Parliament  in 
200218 asked the BoG to examine the possibility of widening the availability of the European 
Baccalaureate  outside  the  European  Schools,  in  co-operation  with  local  schools.  In  April 
2005, the BoG approved the framework of accreditation and the core elements of European 
Schooling as presented in the report  from the relevant Working  Group19. It will continue to 
meet to specify the procedural aspects of this co-operation and to evaluate the costs involved. 
Once everything is in place and the BoG approves the arrangements, it is foreseen that the EU 
institutions will be asked to contribute financially for the education received by the children 
of EU staff in such ‘associated/accredited’ schools. 

As  a  result  of  this  decision  taken  by  the  BoG,  the  national  authorities  in  three  locations  -
Parma  (Italy),  Dunshaughlin  (Ireland)  and  Heraklion  (Greece)-  will  be  following  the  new 
evaluation procedure in order to have the services they offer (or will offer) measured against 
the established  criteria for European Schooling provision. Each of those national authorities 
has undertaken the task of providing special multi-lingual education (European Schooling) to 
the children of the EU staff located in their territory. Their delivery methods vary according to 
the  size  of  the  Agency  and  the  pupil  numbers  (see  Annex  12).  It  is  also  envisaged  that  a 
decision  from  the  BoG  will  be  reached  to  allow  the  pupils  in  such  schools  who  follow  the 
European Schooling to sit the European Baccalaureate20. It is expected that, once available to 
all pupils receiving the European schooling, the European Baccalaureate will on the one hand 
reward the efforts of those national authorities having put considerable financial and human 
resources  into  the  creation  of  a  new,  highly  qualified  School  on  their  territory,  and  on  the 
other hand allow the EU budget to be better focused on its target priority according to the ES 
Convention, i.e. the education of children of EU staff. 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

The data for the Culham, Bergen, Karlsruhe and Mol ES has been taken from their 2003-2004 School 
Reports. 
The number of children for EFSA in Parma is projected to be over 200 once the agency has finished 
recruiting its staff. 
Bösch  Report(FINAL  A5-0395/2002)  on 
(2002/2083(INI))  
Report  of  the  Troika  Working  Group  II  “European  Baccalaureate  and  Cooperation  with  Other 
Schools”. Ref 2005-D-342-en-4 
This may involve amending the Convention. 

the  Future  Financing  of 

the  European  Schools 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.3. 

Governance 

A  key  and  pivotal  issue  facing  the  European  Schools  is  governance;  the  efficiency  and  the 
efficacy  of  their  management.  A  system  originally  organised  for  a  single  school  in 
Luxembourg, with four language sections and a BoG consisting of only the then 6 MS, now 
has to deal with 80 language sections in 14 different languages in 13 schools in 7 MS. The 
BoG and its preparatory committees now comprise 29 members: 25 representatives from MS 
(soon  to  be  more)  plus  a  representative  of  the  European  Patent  Office21,  the  parents’ 
associations,  the  teachers’  staff  committee  and  the  European  Commission.  In  October  2002 
the new Convention of the ES came into force and, from this point on, most decisions require 
only  a  two  thirds  majority  vote  to  be  taken.  Experience  in  the  last  two  years,  however,  has 
shown that the BoG’s ability to take decisions has not become easier as a result of the move 
the  European  Schools 
from  unanimity.  As  proposed 
(COM(2004)519  final),  the  local  autonomy  in  the  governance  of  the  schools  should  be 
increased. However, greater accountability must accompany the increased autonomy and the 
evaluation of the schools’ functioning should be systematically undertaken. 

the  Communication  on 

in 

Besides the highest authority, the BoG, the ES system has a plethora of committees, working 
groups  and  sub-groups,  at  both  the  central  and  local  level.  These  include  a  number  of 
preparatory  committees:  three  Boards  of  Inspectors22,  three  Teaching  Committees23,  the 
Administrative and Financial Committee24, various other ad hoc Working Groups created by 
the  BoG  as  well  as  the  Administrative  Boards  of  each  ES  which  meet  three  times  a  year. 
These committees give their opinion or expert advice in order to alleviate the burden of the 
BoG on micro-management issues. The Commission, which participates in only a portion of 
these, counted over 130 meeting days in 2004 attended by its officials for the ES. 

A Working Group which was assigned in 1995 the task of updating the General Rules of the 
ES presented the revised rules only this year. The task of consolidating the decisions taken by 
the BoG has not been completed yet. The latest “Digest of Decisions” dates back to 1995, and 
most documents including the decisions of the BoG are not posted on the website. Both the 
EP  and  the  Commission  have  requested  more  transparency  in  the  ES,  including  making 
publicly available the minutes and decisions of the BoG. 

Even  with  the  great  number  of  committees,  there  is  still  no  clear  appeal  procedure  for  the 
pupils  and  parents  against  decisions  taken  by  the  schools  or  the  BoG  itself.  The  ES  system 
includes  a  Complaints  Board,  to  which  members  of  the  ES  community  can  address 
themselves.  This  Board  in  2004,  however,  pronounced  itself  incompetent  to  treat  subjects 
other  than  administrative  matters  usually  regarding  the  ES  staff25.  Hence,  appeals  regarding 
transfer of pupils, admission of SEN pupils, decisions of Discipline Committees, increase in 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

The EPO has a special agreement with the BoG where it pays most of the cost of the ES in Munich in 
much  the  same  way  as  does  the  Commission  for  the  rest  of  the  ES  and  which  entitles  it  to  a  seat  in 
the BoG. 
One  for  nursery  and  primary  level,  another  for  the  secondary  and  a  joint  with  a  representative  from 
each MS. 
One  for  nursery  and  primary  level,  another  for  the  secondary  and  a  joint  with  all  the  inspectors, 
directors  and  deputy  directors  as  appropriate,  representatives  from  parents,  teachers  and  pupils  and  a 
representative from the Commission. 
This  committee  is  comprised  of  representatives  from  each  MS  –  usually  from  ministry  of  finance, 
the director, parents, teachers, pupils and Commission in most meetings. 
Annual Report of the Financial Controller, p. 6. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
school fees and marks in the EB have been rejected. This is met with serious criticism from 
the end-users, who for some matters are seeking recourse in the national courts. 

In spite of its single vote (out of 29) and, therefore, its limited power, the Commission is often 
held accountable by parents and EU staff for decisions taken by the BoG or directors of the 
ES.  Some  of  them  address  the  European  Ombudsman  who,  despite  recognising  the  limited 
power  of  the  Commission  in  the  BoG,  has  repeatedly  requested  that  the  Commission 
promotes good administration and transparency in the ES26. 

3.4. 

Category 3 pupils and the question of the viability of the small schools 

Perhaps the most sensitive issue in the ES system has been the level of school fees charged in 
respect to cat 3 children. On the one hand the EP and Commission have requested that these 
fees  come  closer  in  line  with  the  real  costs  while  the  parent,  teacher,  and  director 
representatives argue against any substantial fee increase in order not to reduce the number of 
cat 3 children in the ES. 

The cat 3 fees have been increased considerably in the last 3 years. This may have caused a 
slight  reduction  in  the  cat  3  population  in  some  ES.  The  overcrowding  situation  in  the 
Brussels schools also restricted the number of cat 3 pupils admitted there. However, despite a 
small reduction in cat 3 population (from 36% in 2002 to 32% in 2004), the income from cat 3 
fees in the ES budget has increased from 6.5% in 2002 to 8.4% in 2004. The current cat 3 fees 
in  the  ES  for  2004-2005  are:  €2178  for  the  nursery  cycle,  €3028  for  the  primary  cycle  and 
€4132 for the secondary cycle with a 50% reduction for the second and 75% reduction for the 
third and subsequent child in the same family. 

The Commission firmly believes that category 3 children should continue to have a place in 
the  ES.  Nonetheless,  an  appropriate  balance  needs  to  be  struck  between  ensuring  an 
affordable  level  of  fees  on  the  one  hand  and  limiting  the  amount  of  subsidy  paid  by  the 
European tax payer on the other. In the case of some of the small ES, where category 3 pupils 
amount for about 80% of the total student population, this issue becomes more pressing and 
even raises concerns about the long term viability of the schools concerned. (See Annexes 2 
and 8.) Furthermore, the high levels of exoneration from cat 3 fees in these small ES should 
be addressed since they involve 65% of all exonerations given in all the ES (i.e. 571 cases out 
of a total of 882).  

The Gaignage criteria27 adopted in 2000 set benchmarks for the creation of ES by indicating a 
minimum number of pupils per language sections and state that at least 50% of the pupils in a 
ES  outside  Brussels  and  Luxembourg  should  be  cat  1.  The  same  document  states  that  a 
language section or even a ES may close “when the small number of category 1 pupils on roll 
no longer justifies the School’s continuing existence”28. The EP also focused on this issue in 
the Bösch report in 2002 and requested the BoG to take action. Following this, 7 very small 
language  sections  in  the  4  ES  of  Bergen,  Culham,  Karlsruhe  and  Mol  (which  had  only  17 
category 1 children in all 7 language sections29) are being phased out. 

26 

27 
28 
29 

The Commission has presented a document on this issue (Proposed Actions for Greater Transparency 
and Good Administration in the European Schools System) and is waiting for the ES to implement it. 
The Criteria for Setting up, Closure or Maintenance of European Schools. Ref # 2000-D-7510. 
The Criteria for Setting up, Closure or Maintenance of European Schools. Ref # 2000-D-7510, p. 3. 
Annex  to  document  entitled  Application  of  the  ‘Gaignage’  Report  Criteria  for  Language  Sections 
tabled at the BoG meeting in January 2004. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Because  the  current  situation  raises  important  concerns  as  to  the  long  term  future  of  these 
schools,  the  European  Commission  is  launching  an  external  study  on  the  viability  of  the  4 
small ES. The results of their findings should be ready in 2006 and the Commission will of 
course present them to the BoG. It is foreseen in the terms of reference that the consultants 
entrusted  with  the  study  will  visit  the  4  ES  and  meet  with  the  representatives  of  the  school 
community as well as collaborate closely with the Commission, the Secretary General and his 
Office for data and other pertinent information. Also included in the terms of reference is the 
task of proposing alternative methods of providing for the educational needs of the children of 
EU  staff  in  the  4  ES  concerned  along  with  transitional  and  social  measures  in  the  event  of 
closure, respecting the difficulty for current pupils to find alternative solutions. 

4. 

CONCLUSION 

The European Schools are an important element of the EU institutions’ social policy and their 
good functioning, as they contribute into making EU institutions an attractive employer on the 
long-term for highly qualified staff from across Europe. The European Commission therefore 
believes that it is crucial that, while building on the visionary model established in 1954, the 
ES are put in a position to meet successfully the challenges of the future. 

In its role as a major employer of the primary end-users and as main provider of the financing 
of the ES system, the Commission feels it has the duty to closely monitor the functioning of 
the ES  system, with a view to ensure that ES continue to prepare our young people for our 
increasingly  competitive  and  knowledge-based  information  society,  whilst  at  the  same  time 
providing good value for money to the EU Institutions and the European taxpayers. Therefore, 
although  the  schools  operate  within  an  inter-governmental  framework  established  by  the 
Convention,  the  Commission  believes  that  it  should  be  a  constructive  partner  in  identifying 
and facilitating improvements to the system. 

in 

this 

reason, 

July  2004 

the  Commission 

For 
launched  a  Communication 
(COM(2004)519 final)  on  the  Options  for  Developing  the  European  Schools,  which 
specifically  highlights  the  need  for  improvement  in  governance,  finance  and  educational 
provision.  In  particular,  the  Commission  believes  that  the  overview  of  the  ES  system 
presented in this report demonstrates that it is faced with a number of important challenges. 
While  the  ES  were  avant-garde  at  the  time  of  their  creation,  some  aspects  now  need  to  be 
modernised. After 50 years of operation, the time has come for a review of the functioning of 
the  ES  in  order  for  them  to  improve  further  the  quality  and  nature  of  education  offered, 
become  increasingly  efficient  and  cost  effective,  put  in  place  a  modern  and  appropriate 
system  of  governance  which  provides  for  greater  participation  of  the  key  stakeholders,  and 
operate  with  greater  transparency  and  follow  best  practices  in  education.  This  first  Annual 
Report  should  therefore  be  seen  in  the  context  of  the  Commission’s  Communication  on  the 
future of the schools. Together, these two documents seek to identify means to develop and 
improve the system further through consultation and discussion with the national authorities 
and experts, and all those involved in the European Schools system. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 1 

Trends in Pupil Numbers in the European Schools 2001-2004 

Table 1: Total ES population by school and % comparison to total population in all ES 

Schools 

Pop 

Alicante  

Bergen  

Brussels I 

Brussels II 

Brussels III 

Culham 

Frankfurt  

Karlsruhe  

Luxembourg I 

Luxembourg II 

Mol 

Munich  

Varese  

Total 

798 

2411 

2845 

1751 

913 

1166 

3702 

677 

1376 

1346 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

% of all 
ES 

4,70 

Pop. 

464 

728 

% of all 
ES 

2,55 

3,99 

Pop. 

858 

695 

% of all 
ES 

4,52 

3,66 

Pop. 

950 

664 

% of all 
ES 

4,78 

3,34 

14,19 

2135 

11,71 

2289 

7.21% 

2394 

7.21% 

16,75 

2782 

15,26 

2769 

14,59 

2917 

14,69 

10,31 

2550 

13,99 

2592 

4,66 

2773 

5,38 

903 

299 

4,95 

1,64 

884 

633 

4,66 

3,33 

889 

809 

6,86 

1176 

6,45 

1091 

5,75 

1074 

4,48 

4,48 

4,07 

5,41 

21,80 

3724 

20,43 

3753 

19,77 

3101 

15,61 

3,99 

676 

3,71 

641 

3,38 

827 

643 

8,10 

1421 

7,80 

1455 

7,66 

1504 

7,92 

1369 

7,51 

1323 

6,97 

1317 

16985 

100  18227 

100  18983 

100  19862 

4,16 

3,24 

7,57 

6,63 

100 

Difference 
between 
2001 and 
2004  

Pop. 

950 

-134 

-17 

72 

1022 

-24 

809 

-92 

-601 

827 

-34 

128 

-29 

2877 

The Brussels and Luxembourg pupil population is 12012 out of the 19862 in all the ES (i.e. 60%) 

Table 2: Category 1 population by School and % comparison to total population in that school 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

Cat 1 

%  

Cat 1 

%  

Cat 1 

%  

Cat 1 

%  

Schools 

Alicante  

Bergen  

119  25.65%

123  15.41% 

109  14.97%

236

107

27.51%

15.40%

Brussels I 

1730  71.75% 

1470  68.85% 1657

72.39%

Brussels II 

2358  82.88% 

2311  83.07% 2359

85.19%

Brussels III 

1345  76.81% 

2051  80.43% 2100

81.02%

Culham 

Frankfurt  

104  11.39% 

113  12.51%

88  29.43%

Karlsruhe  

119  10.21% 

121  10.29%

113

238

123

12.78%

37.60%

11.27%

308

108

1825

2536

2319

107

329

130

32.42% 

16.27% 

76.23% 

86.94% 

83.63% 

12.04% 

40.67% 

12.10% 

2773  74.91% 

2784  74.76% 2797

74.53%

2372

76.49% 

130  19.20% 

143  21.15%

846  61.48% 

915  64.39%

542  40.27% 

579  42.29%

1080

127

963

585
1140
5

19.81%

67.77%

44.22%

593

127

1018

640

71.70% 

19.75% 

66.88% 

48.60% 

Lux. I  

Lux. II 

Mol 

Munich  

Varese  

2004 

Children 
of school 
staff 

50

35

118

101

87

82

46

48

121

27

37

62

95

% of 
cat 1 
in ES 

16,23 

32,41 

6,47 

3,98 

3,75 

76,64 

13,98 

36,92 

5,10 

4,55 

29,13 

6,09 

14,84 

Total 

10070  59.29% 

3  59.27%

60.19%

12412

62.45% 

909

7,32 

The Brussels and Luxembourg cat 1 population is 9645 out of the 12412 in all the ES (i.e. 78%) 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
ANNEX 2 

Category 3 Pupil Numbers in the European Schools 2001-2004 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

Schools 

Pop.  % 

Pop. 

% 

Pop. 

% 

Pop. 

% 

Alicante  

342 

73.71% 

618 

72.03% 

639 

67.26% 

Bergen  

670 

83.96% 

604 

82.97% 

579 

83.31% 

547 

82.38% 

Brussels I 

652 

27.04% 

638 

29.88% 

599 

26.17% 

532 

22.22% 

Brussels II 

345 

12.13% 

331 

11.90% 

265 

9.57% 

230 

7.88% 

Brussels III 

379 

21.64% 

479 

18.78% 

455 

17.55% 

416 

15.00% 

Culham 

761 

83.35% 

734 

81.28% 

722 

81.67% 

730 

82.11% 

Frankfurt  

202 

67.56% 

373 

58.93% 

431 

53.28% 

Karlsruhe  

982 

84.22% 

968 

82.31% 

859 

78.74% 

810 

75.42% 

Luxembourg I   704 

19.02% 

709 

19.04% 

719 

19.16% 

577 

18.61% 

Luxembourg II 

140 

16.93% 

Mol 

547 

80.80% 

527 

77.96% 

501 

78.16% 

493 

76.67% 

Munich  

403 

29.29% 

370 

26.04% 

374 

25.70% 

366 

24.34% 

Varese  

687 

51.04% 

664 

48.50% 

599 

45.28% 

502 

38.12% 

Total 

6130  36.09% 

6568 

36.03% 

6663 

35.10% 

6413 

32.29% 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Table 3: Category 3 population by School and % comparison to total population in that school 

2003/2004 Cat 3 Fee Exoneration in ES

s
d
n
a
s
u
o
h
T

s
o
r
u
e

500

400

300

200

100

0

e
t
n
a
c

i
l

A

n
e
g
r
e
B

1

l

x
B

2

l

x
B

3

l

x
B

m
a
h
u
C

l

t
r
u
f
k
n
a
r
F

e
h
u
r
s
l
r
a
K

1

x
u
L

l

o
M

i

h
c
n
u
M

e
s
e
r
a
V

The data for above graph are taken from the Annual Report of the Financial Controller. Ref # 2005-D-163. 

Tables 1, 2 and 3 are taken from the Annual Report of the Secretary General to the Board of Governors of the 
European Schools. Ref # 1612-D-2004 

.

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3 

Staffing Levels in the European Schools for 2005-2006 

EN 

19 
EN 

 
 
 
AAS posts in organigram 

as of Jan 2006;       

Seconded  posts in 
organigram as of Sept 
2005
Secretaries/assistants/commis
Secretaries/assistants/commis
Accountants/bursars/assistants
ICT technician/ICT assistants
Technicians/workers
Librarians
Nursery class assistants
Nurses/medical assistants
Preparateur/teaching assistants
Total AAS posts

e
t
n
a
c
i
l

A

n
e
g
r
e
B

4
2
1
3
1
4
1
2
18

3
2
1
3
1
2,5
0,5
2
15

1
s
e
l
l
e
x
u
r
B

7,25
3,5
1
7
1
7,5
1,7
4
32,95

Detached / seconded Staff - levels in ES organigram for 2005-2006
Directors / Deputy Directors
Teachers
Bursars
Librarians
Office of Secretary General
Total Seconded Staff

3
177
1
1

3
188
1

3
64
1

3
68
1

182

192

72

68

EUROPEAN SCHOOL

m
a
h
u
C

l

3
3
1
2
1
3
0,5
3
16,5

3
66
0

t
r
o
f
k
n
a
r
F

3,5
2
1
3
1
4
1
1,5
17

3
58
1

e
h
u
r
s
l
r
a
K

4,5
3
1
3
1
3
0,8
2,5
18,8

3
81
0

1
g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

7
5
2
7
**
11
1,5
6
39,5

4
235
1
3

2
g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

l

o
M

3,5
2
1
3
1
9
1
0,5
21

2
52
1

2
s
e
l
l
e
x
u
r
B

3
s
e
l
l
e
x
u
r
B

5,5
3
1
6
1
8
1,5
4
30

7
3
1
5
2
7
1,5
4
30,5

3
178
1

182

69

62

84

243

55

n
e
h
c
n
ü
M

7
4
1
4
2
5
1
3,5
27,5

3
86
1

e
s
è
r
a
V

6,78
3
1
5
**
3
1
3
22,78

3
100
0
1

90

104

3
3
1
4
**
1
1
2
15

3
65
1
1

70

Seconded and AAS staff
Pupil population (2005)*
Cat 1 pupils (2005)*
No of pupils per staff
No of cat 1 pupils per staff

90
944
307
10
3

83
690
109
8
1

215
2433
1870
11
9

222
2923
2543
13
11

212,5
2766
2334
13
11

85,5
854
100
10
1

79
808
332
10
4

102,8
1076
131
10
1

282,5
3112
2389
11
8

76
734
527
10
7

85
647
130
8
2

117,5
1514
1022
13
9

126,8
1348  
655
11
5

35,25

* Figures provided in April 2005 by the Office of Secretary General of the European Schools
** Librarians are seconded personnel in this school

EN 

20 
EN 

y
r
a
t
e
r
c
e
S

f
o
e
c
i
f
f

O

s
l
o
o
h
c
S
n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

e
h
t

f
o

l
a
r
e
n
e
G

L
A
T
O
T

14,75
6
6
0
0
0
0
1,5

79,78
44,5
20
55
12
68
14
39,5
28,25 332,78

0
0
0

7
7

39
1418
10
6
7
1480

1813
19849
12449
11
7

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4 

Statistic on Results Obtained in the European Baccalaureate (Bac) 

Table 1: % of pupils who successfully passed the in the Bac in the ES, 1995-2004 

Year 
Pass rate 

1995 
95.7% 

1996 
95.7% 

1997 
95.5% 

1998 
97.2% 

1999 
96% 

2000 
96.4% 

2001 
97.2% 

2002 
98.3% 

2003 
97.2% 

2004 
98.1% 

Table 2: % of pupils who scored 80% or higher in Bac in the ES, 1995-2004 

Year 
>80%  

1995 
21% 

1996 
21.1% 

1997 
18.8% 

1998 
22.4% 

1999 
23.4% 

2000 
27.3% 

2001 
28% 

2002 
29% 

2003 
33% 

2004 
29% 

Table 3: % op pupils who scored 75% or higher in Bac in ES, 1995-2004 

Year 
>75% 

1995 – 1999 Average 
41.3% 

2000 
45.7% 

2001 
45.9% 

2002 
45.5% 

2003 
51.5% 

2004 
49.6% 

Table 4: Average Bac score of all pupils in ES, 2000-2004 

Year 
Average EB mark 

2000 
7.4 

2001 
7.4 

2002 
7.5 

2003 
7.6 

2004 
7.6 

Comparative Data on Language Section Results in the European Baccalaureate, 2004 

Table 5: % of pupils succeeding in the Bac in 2004 by Language Section 

2004 
pass rate  

SW 
100 

FI 
100 

DK 
100 

NL 
99,2 

IT 
99,1 

EN 
99,1 

ES 
97,7 

DE 
97,7 

FR 
97,2 

GR 
95,5 

PT 
95,3 

Table 6: % of pupils succeeding in the Bac on average between 1995-2004, by Language Section 

Avg 1995-2004 
pass rate 

FI 
100 

DK 
99,8 

EN 
98,5 

SW 
98,3 

NL 
98,3 

DE 
97,3 

GR 
97,2 

IT 
97,2 

ES 
95,6 

FR 
95,4 

PT 
94 

Table 7: % of pupils scoring >75% in the Bac in 2004, by Language Section 

2004 
>75% 

FI 
92 

SW 
71 

GR 
68 

DE 
62 

DK 
62 

EN 
58 

average 
49,6 

PT 
44 

IT 
39 

NL 
39 

FR 
37 

ES 
36 

Table 8: % of pupils scoring >75% in the Bac, on average 1995-2004, by Language Section 

Avg 1995-
2004 
>75% 

FI 
79,9 

SW 
73,8 

DK 
63,2 

GR 
60,7 

DE 
56,2 

EN 
54,47 

average 
51,6 

IT 
39,6 

ES 
36.7 

NL 
34,9 

FR 
34,9 

PT 
33,5 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

ANNEX 5 

% Repeat rates/school

n
e
g
er
B

1
s 
el
s
s
u
Br

2
s 
el
s
s
u
Br

3
s 
el
s
s
u
Br

m
a
h
ul
C

e
h
u
r
s
ar
K

l

g
ur
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

ol
M

h
c
ni
u
M

e
s
e
ar
V

S.
E.
Al

l

% Repeat Rates / Language Section

2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003

2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003

n
a
m
r
e
G

h
c
ni
a
D

k
e
e
Gr

i

h
s
gl
n
E

h
s
ni
a
p
S

h
s
ni
Fi

h
c
n
e
r
F

n
a
al

i

t
I

h
c
t
u
D

e
s
e
u
g
u
t
r
o
P

h
s
di
e
w
S

e
g
a
r
e
v
A

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
% Repeat Rates / Year Level in Secondary

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003

c
e
s
1

c
e
s
2

c
e
s
3

c
e
s
4

c
e
s
5

c
e
s
6

g
v
A

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total Allocated vs Executed Budgets Comparison in the ES System 2000-2004 

ANNEX 6 

Year 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

alloc 

exec 

alloc 

exec 

alloc 

exec 

alloc 

exec 

alloc 

exec 

School 
Luxembourg 
Lux II 
(4months) 
Brussels I 
Brussels II 
Brussels III 
Munich 
Varese 
Karlsruhe 
Culham 
Bergen 
Mol 
Alicante 
Frankfurt 
Ofc Sec-Gen 

TOTAL 
Not spent 

EN 

34.456.692 

33.977.968

34.210.582 

32.957.559

32.284.456 

31.574.527

31.945.707

31.229.866

34.562.372 

32.671.205

29.819.176 
27.928.123 
12.600.341 
15.680.626 
15.295.071 
12.634.553 
12.307.344 
12.757.157 
10.964.087 

28.135.116
27.563.406
14.219.152
15.271.062
15.362.270
12.762.941
13.889.837
12.404.488
10.334.241

28.226.386 
27.424.908 
17.063.462 
16.232.026 
15.536.782 
11.895.663 
13.164.212 
12.485.698 
10.559.021 

25.912.899
27.394.960
17.101.474
15.241.501
14.732.380
11.567.255
12.101.021
11.450.350
10.055.345

6.243.796 

5.675.667

6.554.765 

5.894.574

23.755.967 
23.662.085 
19.130.383 
14.826.346 
14.667.823 
11.870.902 
12.200.603 
11.536.600 
10.199.853 
1650000 
1700000 
6.885.436 

22.817.588
23.940.633
18.858.833
14.784.591
14.493.087
10.933.169
11.437.042
10.623.375
9.970.209
1514192
1149324
6.399.617

23.962.277
24.468.782
22.285.783
15.892.679
15.274.106
11.480.626
12.330.374
11.858.242
10.704.772
5748702
5637352
7.186.488

22.694.123
24.792.967
22.415.008
15.782.917
15.060.188
11.276.785
11.114.141
10.808.872
10.231.665
5316744
4638920
6.808.403

2.722.894 
26.021.831 
26.646.298 
24.246.378 
18.572.297 
15.794.950 
11.753.185 
12.277.338 
11.483.558 
10.994.523 
9.921.031 
8.698.131 
7.987.360 

2.058.524
24.202.763
26.388.699
23.545.733
16.815.075
15.585.131
11.228.532
10.861.824
10.677.106
10.245.052
8.268.170
7.440.340
7.286.970

190.686.966  189.596.148

193.353.505  184.409.318

184.370.454  178.496.187

198.775.890

192.170.599

6.605.291   

221.682.146  207.275.124
14.407.022

1.090.818   

8.944.187   

5.874.267   

24 
EN 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
ANNEX 7 

Percentage of Budget Utilised in Each European School and the Office of the 
Secretary General Compared to the Initial Budget Requested for 2004 

European School 

I

x
u
L

I
I

x
u
L

I

l

s
e
s
s
u
r
B

I
I

l

s
e
s
s
u
r
B

I
I
I

s

l
l

e
s
s
u
r
B

i

h
c
n
u
M

e
s
e
r
a
V

e
h
u
r
s

l
r
a
K

m
a
h
u
C

l

e
t
n
a
c

i
l

A

n
e
g
r
e
B

t
r
u
f
k
n
a
r
F

l

o
M

f
o
e
c

i
f
f

O

n
e
G
-
c
e
S

.

.

S
E
L
A
T
O
T

M
E
T
S
Y
S

Number of pupils 

3835 

734 

2396 

2847 

2688 

1483 

1368 

1163 

918 

914 

759 

740 

674 

19785 

Total Salaries: detached 
and locally hired teachers 
and managers, 
administrative staff, staff 
outside organisgramme, all 
social charges and 
benefits. 
Operational expenses: 
Training, conferences, 
missions, special projects, 
SEN programme, etc. 
Functional and 
administrative expenses: 
furniture, equipment, 
printing, cleaning, tel, fax, 
insurances, didactic 
material etc. 
UTILISATION OF TOTAL 
BUDGET ALLOCATED 

EN 

94,0%  72,3% 93,8% 99,4% 96,3% 87,8% 98,7% 

95,5% 87,6% 83,0% 92,7% 82,5% 92,7% 91,7%  93,1% 

128,4%  71,8% 51,7% 70,8% 98,4% 82,7% 85,8% 

64,7% 91,7% 94,2% 64,6% 89,0% 92,8% 92,9%  82,3% 

95,6%  93,4% 99,7% 99,7% 103,8% 114,4% 99,9%  101,1% 99,6% 84,8% 99,6% 108,9% 97,2% 90,7%  98,6% 

94,5%  75,6% 93,0% 99,0% 97,1% 90,5% 98,7% 

95,5% 88,5% 83,3% 93,0% 85,5% 93,2% 91,2%  93,5% 

25 
EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
ANNEX 8 

EU financial contribution to the ES annual budget by school 

Alicante 
Bergen 
Bxl 1 
Bxl  2 
Brxl 3 
Culham 
Frankfurt 
Karlsruhe
Lux 1 
Lux 2 
Mol 
Munich 
Varese 
OSG 
Total 

1999

1998

1997

1996 

1995 

2001*

2000*

6.979.595

6.356.958 

5.000.816 

4.917.980 

5.833.608 

6.995.189
6.388.801
19.335.913  21.719.305  20.988.385 20.601.472 21.029.992
12.696.913  16.204.386  15.311.326 16.270.505 16.388.104
4.037.630
7.188.649

2004 
5.723.283 
6.346.386 
17.010.951 
17.694.770 
15.655.353 
5.546.959 
4.160.513 
3.946.485 
20.277.176 
1.208.960 
6.350.337 
970.078 
7.800.585 
5.665.198 
81.618.120  92.108.795  93.430.346 93.563.594 98.980.954 118.819.123 110.754.957 102.066.107 109.805.050 118.357.034 

5.814.821
6.276.596
16.823.725  18.139.950  18.840.845 19.877.870 18.676.738

2003
3.435.247
6.349.789
15.836.882
15.915.807
14.973.514
6.054.878
2.927.508
4.093.215
19.146.114

2002
1.281.828
5.985.727
15.527.268
14.431.672
12.543.329
6.525.151
1.112.500
5.561.889
18.996.446

8.483.134
20.300.446
19.046.855
10.221.836
8.514.679

7.116.390
18.811.353
19.015.360
11.878.666
7.119.891

6.504.273 
635.231 
6.655.026 
3.335.958 

6.126.532 
611.001 
6.960.505 
4.580.649 

5.906.547
634.208
7.595.073
4.714.003

6.077.399
836.321
7.538.961
5.647.616

6.540.924
973.247
7.482.328
6.075.597

6.993.195
932.846
9.132.190
5.027.289

6.189.821
951.062
8.129.409
5.238.656

6.272.071
668.984
7.404.896
4.394.012

6.033.871
624.840
7.545.227
5.019.041

7.856.360
22.310.293

5.607.756
20.696.593

4.879.493 

6.408.693 

5.512.057

6.401.414

5.582.132

The ES budget and the EU contribution to it for the years 2000 and 2001 are unusally high as a result of a BoG decision to 
pay the removal allowances to all teachers who had been in the system for longer than 9 year in that school year.  This early 
payment of the removal allowances, besides resulting in higher costs for the ES in the school year 2000-2001, also means 
that subsequent budgets are lower because the removal allowances already paid are not encountered in the year in which 
they occur. 

It is estimated (by the OSG) that this decision had the effect of increasing the 2000 and 2001 ES budgets and specifically the 
EU subsidy by  35 million euros more than normal and by reducing the subsequent years by approximately  4-5 million euros 
per year.  

EN 

26 
EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 9 

Total Budget for the European School System 1995-2006 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

9.408.815 
29.400.370 
20.219.149 

9.553.937 
29.964.831 
22.427.046 

9.751.417 
29.464.470 
22.532.853 

10.344.077 
30.251.098 
23.866.422 

7.813.517 

8.266.480 

9.758.808 

10.503.719 

10.590.168 
29.386.627 
24.527.102 
5.231.730 
10.797.586 

12.404.488 
28.135.116 
27.563.406 
14.219.152 
13.889.837 

11.450.350 
25.912.899 
27.394.960 
17.101.474 
12.102.021 

9.974.327 
25.828.255 

10.534.488 
26.631.439 

10.173.922 
27.390.562 

10.304.481 
29.012.394 

11.202.614 
30.221.863 

12.762.941 
33.977.968 

11.567.255 
32.957.559 

2002 
1.514.192 
10.623.375 
22.817.588 
23.940.633 
18.858.833 
11.437.042 
1.149.324 
10.933.169 
31.574.527 

2003 
5.316.744 
10.808.872 
22.694.123 
24.792.967 
22.415.008 
11.114.141 
4.638.920 
11.276.785 
31.229.866 

9.510.287 
10.810.071 
10.560.393 

9.509.110 
11.371.787 
12.506.354 

9.261.748 
11.519.371 
12.708.747 

9.373.312 
11.734.445 
12.924.338 

9.273.803 
12.717.308 
13.214.968 

10.334.241 
15.271.062 
15.362.270 

10.055.345 
15.241.501 
14.732.380 

9.970.209 
14.784.591 
14.493.087 

10.231.665 
15.782.917 
15.060.188 

2004 
8.268.170 
10.677.106 
24.202.763 
26.388.699 
23.545.733 
10.861.824 
7.440.340 
11.228.532 
32.671.205 
2.058.524 
10.245.052 
16.815.075 
15.585.131 

2005 
10.387.360 
10.752.172 
27.089.538 
27.272.550 
25.617.400 
11.208.821 
9.398.748 
11.171.442 
33.272.011 
6.420.443 
10.703.110 
18.711.626 
15.801.545 

4.048.813 

8.188.302 
137.573.997  145.987.998  148.128.908  153.363.710  162.512.162  189.596.148  184.410.318  178.496.187  192.170.599  207.275.124  225.995.068 

7.286.970 

5.222.526 

5.675.667 

6.808.403 

5.348.393 

5.567.010 

5.894.574 

5.049.424 

6.399.617 

Alicante 
Bergen 
Brussels 1 
Brussels 2 
Brussels 3 
Culham 
Frankfurt 
Karlsruhe 
Luxembourg 1 
Luxembourg 2 
Mol 
Munich 
Varese 
Office Sec-
Gen 
Total 

NB: the 1995 – 2004 figures are actual spent budget whereas the 2005 are the provisional allocated budget to the schools. 

EN 

27 
EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 10 

2006-2010 FORECAST OF PUPIL NUMBERS IN THE BRUSSELS AND 
LUXEMBOURG EUROPEAN SCHOOLS  

All 3 European Schools in Brussels 

2003/4 
Actual 

2004/5 
Estimate 

2004/5 
Actual 

2005/6 
Estimate 

2006/7 
Estimate 

2007/8 
Estimate 

2008/9 
Estimate 

2009/10 
Estimate 

New  Cat  I 
pupils from:  
new MS  
+  
old MS 
Cat. 
pupils 
leaving ES  

III 

200 
+ 
150 

333 

300 
+ 
150 

300 
+ 
150 

250 
+ 
150 

250 
+ 
150 

0 
+ 
150 

- 150 

-141 

- 110 

- 140 

- 140 

- 120 

-120 

TOTAL 

7.930 

8.130 

8.122 

8.470 

8.780 

9.040 

9.320 

9.350 

The 2 European Schools in Luxembourg 

2003/4 
Actual 

2004/5 
Estimate 

2004/5 
Actual 

2005/6 
Estimate 

2006/7 
Estimate 

2007/8 
Estimate 

2008/9 
Estimate 

2009/10 
Estimate 

New  Cat  I 
pupils from:  
new MS  
+  
old MS 
Cat. 
pupils 
leaving ES  

III 

25 
+ 
30 

68 

60 
+ 
40 

50 
+ 
50 

50 
+ 
50 

25 
+ 
60 

0 
+ 
60 

- 50 

-65 

- 40 

- 50 

- 35 

- 50 

-40 

TOTAL 

3.835 

3.840 

3.846 

3.900 

3.950 

4.015 

4.050 

4.070 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 11 

COMMUNITY AGENCIES 

Agency 

Location 

Staff in

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

CEDEFOP 

Thessaloniki** 

EUROFOUND 

Dublin 

AEE / EEA * 

Copenhague 

ETF 

Turin 

OEDT/EMCDDA* Lisbon*** 

OHMI/OHIM* 

Alicante 

EU - OSHA 

Bilbao 

OCVV/CPVO* 

Angers 

CdT 

EUMC 

EAR 

EFSA 

Luxembourg 

Vienna 

Thessaloniki** 

Parma 

AESM/EMSA* 

Lisbon*** 

AESA/EASA* 

Cologne 

ENISA 

ECDC 

EMEA 

Heraklion 

Stockholm 

London 

AFE/ERASI* 

Lille 
Valenciennes 

– 

Galiléo 

? 

FRONTEX 

Warsaw 

3rd  

Eurojust 

3rd pilier CEPOL 

The Hague 

Bramshill 

2005 

91 

94 

115 

104 

77 

675 

37 

38 

181 

37 

115 

194 

95 

200 

40 

29 

379 

72 

15 

17 

87 

18 

Estimated 
number of 
pupils30 

55 

56 

69 

62 

46 

405 

22 

22 

108 

22 

69 

116 

57 

120 

24 

17 

227 

43 

9 

10 

52 

11 

TOTAL 

All locations 

2710 

1622 

* English acronym 

**  Total  agency  staff  in  Thessaloniki  91+115  =  206 ;  estimated  number  of  pupils  =  124 
in  Lisbon  77  +  95  =172;  estimated  number  of  pupils  =  103
***  Total  agency  staff 

30 

Statistics show the ration of pupils enrolled in a European School per staff member is 0.6 :1. This ratio 
is applied for the estimates above. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 12 

Experimental Approaches to Delivering European Schooling in Parma Italy, 
Dunshaughlin Ireland and Heraklion Greece. 

A first alternative model of an “associated or accredited” school is being established in Parma. 
There,  the  Italian  authorities  have  almost  reproduced  a  miniature  ES  which  offers  the 
complete  range  of  ES  programmes  and  which  is  organised  in  3  language  sections;  English, 
Italian  and  French.  The  school,  ‘Scuola  per  l’Europa’,  was  visited  by  a  team  of  inspectors 
from the ES and they and the parents were very pleased with this experiment in an alternative 
delivery of European Schooling. The nursery and primary levels are operating this year with 
35  pupils,  the  first  3  years  of  secondary  are  scheduled  to  open  in  Sept  2005,  years  4-5 
secondary in Sept 2006 and years 6-7 secondary in Sept 2007. Enrolments for Sept 2005 have 
already reached 210 pupils as the educational provision is attractive to other parents, besides 
the  Agency  staff,  who  are  also  interested  to  have  their  children  partake  in  a  European 
Schooling.  The  Italian  authorities  have  borne  and  will  continue  to  bear  the  full  cost  of  this 
pilot project for another 3 years. 

In  a  second  case,  the  Irish  authorities  offer  a  different  type  of  provision  for  the  children  of 
staff in the “Centre for European Schooling” in Dunshaughlin (near Grange) than that started 
last  year  in  Parma.  The  Irish  authorities  have  dealt  with  this  requirement  on  an  individual 
basis  and  have  discussed  and  respected  the  expressed  main  concerns  of  the  parents: 
proficiency  in  the  child’s  mother  tongue,  appropriate  English  and  second  language 
programmes, and that the leaving certificate awarded to the child has wide recognition31. The 
28 children (most in primary) from the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) are integrated into 
national Irish schools where they receive instruction in English (a vehicular language and one 
that  would  facilitate  mobility  to  another  international  or  ES  school)  but  also  attend  special 
courses at the “Centre for European Schooling”. Unlike the Parma model, no special classes 
are  created  for  them  or  others  interested  in  receiving  a  European  Schooling  in  language 
sections.  They  do  however  receive  instruction  in  foreign  languages,  European  Hours  and 
Mother-tongue tuition as in the ES, and cooperate with the ES in Mol for some exchanges and 
teaching  by  distance  learning  of  some  courses.  After  the  latest  BoG  decision,  the  Irish 
authorities will try to organise lessons to meet the core criteria for European Schooling for the 
secondary. 

A  third  model  is  the  planned  cooperation  of  a  national  school  with  the  ES  system  in 
Heraklion,  Greece  is  yet  again  a  different  model  in  providing  European  Schooling.  As  the 
children  of  the  European  Network  and  Information  Security  Agency  (ENISA)  will  be  very 
few (about 20 at most) the Parma example with 3 language sections cannot be functional. The 
Dunshaughlin model on the other hand where the children are integrated into the local schools 
(taught in English) is not feasible as the national schools in Heraklion provide instruction in 
Greek. The proposed organisation of the “Public School of European Education in Heraklion” 
is to provide the core elements of European Schooling in two language sections: English and 
Greek. They will start the project in Sept 2005 and like the Italian and Irish authorities they 
will bear all costs themselves and will submit their request to be evaluated for compliance to 
the core criteria for European Schooling and later for accreditation to become an “associated 
or accredited” school with the ES system. 

31 

Centre for European Schooling in Dunshaughlin, Ireland. April 2005. Ref # 2005-D-34. 

EN 

30 

   EN