Commission staff working document - Annex to the Report from the Commission annual report from the European Commission to the European Parliament on the functioning of the European School System 2005 {COM(2006) 451 final}
Date: 2006-08-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European school, activity report, educational institution, financial management, financing, impact study, operation of the Institutions, organisation of teaching













EUR-Lex - 52006SC1070 - EN






Important legal notice




|



52006SC1070

Commission staff working document - Annex to the Report from the Commission annual report from the European Commission to the European Parliament on the functioning of the European School System 2005 {COM(2006) 451 final}  /* SEC/2006/1070 */  








[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |Brussels, 11.08.2006SEC(2006) 1070COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Annex to the REPORT FROM THE COMMISSIONAnnual Report from the European Commission to the European Parliament on the functioning of the European School System 2005 {COM(2006) 451 final}ANNEX[pic] | Schola Europaea Office of the Secretary-General |Ref. : 1512-D-2005-en-1Orig. : EN1.  Annual report of the Secretary-General to the Board of Governors of the European SchoolsBoard of Governors of the European SchoolsMeeting in Brussels on 31 January and 1 February 2006IntroductionAs in previous years the purpose of this report is to cast an eye back on the year under review - 2005 in this case – with a view to assessing the achievement of the goals of the European Schools and to provide an overview of the present state of the European Schools system.Once again I wish to thank the two delegations which have held the presidency during the year under review, on this occasion the delegations of Luxembourg and the Netherlands.The two major themes of the report on the year 2005 are those of the enlargement of the EU and the sense of impending change to which the system is subject. Most of the significant developments of the year are related in one way or another to these two important and inter-related factors.Enlargement and its effectsThough 2004 was the year of the enlargement, 2005 was the year when its effects began to be felt. By year’s end all the new member states of the EU had taken all the steps necessary for accession to the Convention defining the statute of the European Schools. 822 pupils who are nationals of the new member states have been enrolled in the European Schools. This is still well below the figure which will be reached when the full effects of recruitment of officials from these states is felt. (See 2.1.2.3. below.) Nevertheless six language sections have been created (and a proposal will shortly be discussed for the creation of a seventh) to accommodate pupils whose mother tongue is one of the new languages. Thirty teachers from those states have been seconded to teach in the schools.The inspectors from these countries are playing a dynamic role in carrying out the responsibilities of the Inspectors’ Boards. The problem referred to last year – a certain lack of presence in the Administrative and Financial Committee - has been largely resolved.Finally, the three countries (Estonia, Hungary, Slovenia) which are to propose candidates for the position of Director of the European School at Frankfurt are all new member states. This makes it extremely likely that we shall have the first European School Director from a new member state before 2006 is out.The integration of the new member states into our system is a development whose importance it is impossible to exaggerate. Our pupils, teachers, administrators and governors now have comrades to whose traditions and insights we previously had little access. However intangible the effects of this development may seem to be, they are very real. Our pedagogical and cultural horizons have been widened and the range of experience and expertise in our schools and in our working groups has been enriched.ChangeReference was made in my report on 2004 to the significance of the changes of the European School system which are under discussion. Developments occurring in 2005 illustrate this and a slightly clearer sense of direction might be said to be emerging.The main Working Group set up to review the financing of the European Schools and to make recommendations on increasing the financial autonomy of the schools reported to the Board at its April 2005 meeting in Mondorf. Decisions in principle, regarding financial autonomy for the schools were made by the Board on the basis of this report and the preparation of concrete proposals in this area, which was entrusted to the AFC, has widened out into a general discussion on financial reform which will lead to proposals being made to the Board of Governors in 2006.The other Working Group, which has been dealing with pedagogical matters, has submitted a preliminary report which has enabled the Board to establish criteria and a process to be followed on behalf of schools seeking accreditation as associated schools of the European Schools. It is continuing its deliberations on the European Baccalaureate and proposals on reform in this area which would facilitate making the Baccalaureate available to pupils outside the European Schools system are to be expected.During 2005, having regard to the criteria on opening, maintenance and closure of European Schools and language sections adopted in 2000, the Board of Governors decided to begin to phase out a total of seven language sections in the schools of Bergen, Culham, Karlsruhe and Mol. The study on the future of these four schools, which was commissioned by the European Commission, is continuing and a final report is expected in May.Meanwhile, the Board has created a working group to reflect upon the future of the European Schools taking special note of the reactions of members of the Board to the Commission’s communication to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers and also to the new resolution of the European Parliament regarding the European Schools adopted by the Parliament in September 2005. Meanwhile, on the initiative of Commissioner Kallas and Minister Maria van der Hoeven, the minister of Education of the Netherlands, another working group has been set up, altogether independently of the Board, to consider options for the European Schools, as a result of whose discussions, proposals may find their way to the Board for decision.Nevertheless, it is evident that the European Parliament wishes to achieve change at a more rapid pace. In December the Parliament decided to block a portion of the 2006 budget of the Central Office. The European Parliament takes the view that the European Schools should already have solved the problem of overcrowding in Brussels and should have modified the governance and administration of the Schools.Furthermore all present indications are that the Board of Governors are opposed to certain changes called for by the European Parliament – most notably the proposal to increase the voting power of the European Commission on the Board of Governors. If the Parliament and the Board find themselves in disagreement over questions such as this and if the result will be that the budget is blocked then the very real danger exists that the quality of the service i.e. the education of the pupils will suffer because the political authorities are in disagreement.Following consultation with the Commission I initiated a written procedure which has now ended successfully, in order to manage the situation which arose because of the decision of the European Parliament. In this manner the Board of Governors has decided to make available two extra twelfths of the expenditures in accordance with the 2005 budget to provide sufficient margin to allow the Central Office to function. In virtue of Art. 8.4. of the Financial Regulations the Commission has been invited to make available now the first part of its contribution to the budget.Facts and FiguresSchool PopulationTotal PopulationTable EL 1 shows the pupil numbers, as they were in mid October 2005, for each school, year on year, for the period 2002 to 2005 as well as the percentage variation, year on year, during that period. The final column shows the percentage variation in pupil numbers across the period as a whole.Table EL 1: School population from 2002 to 2005 |Schools | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | Difference between 2002 and 2005 |Schools | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | Difference between 2002 and 2005 |Schools | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | Difference between 2002 and 2005 |Schools | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | Difference between 2002 and 2005 |Category 1 | Category 2 | Category 3 | Total |Schools | Cycle | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | Difference between 2002 and 2005 |Schools | German | English | French | Other |Alicante | 13,00% | 63,00% | 21,00% | 3,00% |Bergen | 10,00% | 66,00% | 24,00% |Brussels I | 6,00% | 59,00% | 35,00% |Brussels II | 5,00% | 54,00% | 41,00% |Brussels III | 6,00% | 49,00% | 44,00% | 1,00% |Culham | 10,00% | 67,00% | 23,00% |Frankfurt | 52,00% | 44,00% | 4,00% |Karlsruhe | 54,00% | 32,00% | 14,00% |Luxembourg I | 15,00% | 49,00% | 36,00% |Luxembourg II | 16,00% | 53,00% | 31,00% |Mol | 6,00% | 53,00% | 41,00% |Munich | 51,00% | 40,00% | 9,00% |Varese | 11,00% | 67,00% | 21,00% | 1,00% |The great popularity of English for those eligible to study it as Language 2 (i.e. all pupils who do not take English as mother tongue – Language 1) is evident once again this year. It is the most popular choice in all schools except for those located in Germany, where German is the preferred choice.Table LANG 3a and Table LANG 4a show the most popular choices in each school of languages for study as language 3 and language 4 respectively.Table LANG 3 a: the three most frequently chosen languages in each school as language 3 on entry into third year secondary |Schools | Choice 1 | Choice 2 | Choice 3 |Language | % | Language | % | Language | % |Alicante | French | 36,00% | Spanish | 33,00% | German / English | 12,00% |Bergen | Spanish | 36,00% | Dutch | 28,00% | French | 17,00% |Brussels I | Spanish | 28,00% | English / French | 25,00% | German / Dutch | 16,00% |Brussels II | English | 32,00% | French | 27,00% | Spanish | 19,00% |Brussels III | English | 27,00% | Spanish | 23,00% | French | 20,00% |Culham | Spanish | 54,00% | French | 24,00% | German | 13,00% |Frankfurt | English / French | 26,00% | Spanish | 24,00% | Italian | 13,00% |Karlsruhe | English | 41,00% | Spanish | 27,00% | French | 23,00% |Luxembourg I | French | 28,00% | English | 27,00% | German | 22,00% |Luxembourg II |Mol | Spanish | 34,00% | French | 30,00% | English | 17,00% |Munich | English | 47,00% | French | 21,00% | Spanish | 20,00% |Varese | Spanish | 30,00% | Italian | 28,00% | French | 20,00% |Table LANG 4a: the three most frequently chosen languages in each school for study as language 4 on entry into fourth year secondary |Schools | Choice 1 | Choice 2 | Choice 3 |Langue | % | Langue | % | Langue | % |Alicante | German | 23,00% | Italian | 16,00% | French | 9,00% |Bergen | Spanish / Dutch | 15,00% | Italian | 12,00% | French | 8,00% |Brussels I | Spanish | 23,00% | Italian | 10,00% | German | 7,00% |Brussels II | Spanish | 23,00% | Dutch | 9,00% | Italian | 8,00% |Brussels III | Spanish | 20,00% | Italian | 10,00% | German | 6,00% |Culham |Frankfurt | Spanish | 22,00% | French | 12,00% | Italian | 10,00% |Karlsruhe | Spanish | 25,00% | French | 10,00% | Italian | 4,00% |Luxembourg I | Spanish | 22,00% | German | 13,00% | Italian | 6,00% |Luxembourg II |Mol | Spanish | 17,00% |Munich | Spanish | 30,00% | French | 6,00% | German / Italian | 4,00% |Varese | Spanish | 19,00% | Italian | 11,00% | French | 7,00% |Again it is evident that Spanish is a very popular choice with large numbers of pupils choosing this language as soon as such a choice becomes possible. The popularity of Dutch in Bergen and of Italian in Varese suggests that pupils take the opportunity to learn the language of their host countries.2.2.2. Repeat Rates in the European SchoolsTable REPEAT 1 shows the number and percentage of pupils in each year of secondary school in the system as a whole who, over a three year period, repeated the year on having been judged, in accordance with the regulations, by an end of year class council of teachers to have been unready to be promoted to the following year. The final column shows the average number and percentage of pupils per year who repeated the year.Table REPEAT 1: number and percentage of pupils in each year of secondary school in the system who repeated a year2002/2003 | 2003/2004 | 2004/2005 | Average of repeating 02/03 – 04/05 |Total | % |Germany | 223 | 15,91% |Austria | 15 | 1,07% |Belgium | 185 | 13,20% |Denmark | 33 | 2,35% |Spain | 84 | 5,99% |Finland | 27 | 1,93% |France | 176 | 12,55% |United Kingdom | 238 | 16,98% |Greece | 44 | 3,14% |Hungary | 9 | 0,64% |Ireland | 68 | 4,85% |Italy | 106 | 7,56% |Luxembourg | 22 | 1,57% |Netherlands | 86 | 6,13% |Poland | 10 | 0,71% |Portugal | 35 | 2,50% |Slovenia | 3 | 0,21% |Sweden | 30 | 2,14% |Czech Republic | 8 | 0,57% |Total | 1402 |Nineteen of the twenty five member states second teachers to the European Schools. The biggest single contributor of teachers is the United Kingdom, followed by Germany, Belgium, France and Italy – to mention just those countries seconding more than a hundred teachers each.Table ENS2 gives, for each year since 2002, the number of each school’s teaching staff, including part time teachers – expressed as teacher equivalents rounded up to whole figures – educational advisors, seconded librarians and Directors and Deputy Directors. The percentage variations of the numbers over the three years appear in the last column.Table ENS2: Pattern of Development of Teaching Staff for the period 2002-2005 |2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | Difference between 2002 and 2005 |2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | Difference between 2002 and 2005 |2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | Diff. ratio |2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | Diff. ratio |Schools | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | Diff. 2002–2005 (%) |Alicante | 15 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 17.5 | +16,67 % |Bergen | 15 | 15.5 | 15.5 | 15 | 0,00 % |Brussels I | 30.75 | 29.95 | 30.95 | 32.45 | +5,53 % |Brussels II | 29.5 | 28.5 | 30.5 | 30.5 | +3,39 % |Brussels III | 25 | 27.5 | 29 | 30 | +20,00 % |Culham | 17 | 17.5 | 17.5 | 17 | 0,00 % |Frankfurt | 14 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 17 | +21,43 % |Karlsruhe | 17 | 17.5 | 17.8 | 18.8 | +10.59 % |Luxembourg | 43.5 | 46 | 53.5 | 57 | +31,03 % |Luxembourg I | 43.5 | 46 | 37.5 | 38.5 | n.a. |Luxembourg II | 0 | 0 | 16 | 18.5 | n.a. |Mol | 15 | 16 | 16 | 15 | 0,00 % |Munich | 14.5 | 16.5 | 18.5 | 25.5 | +75,86 % |Varese | 22.26 | 22.19 | 22.78 | 22.78 | +2,34 % |OSGBG | 20.75 | 22.75 | 25.75 | 26.25 | +26,51 % |TOTAL | 279.26 | 292.89 | 310.78 | 324.8 | +16,31 % |CostsExpenditure and CostsTable Coût 1 shows the development of the budgets of each of the schools and of the Central Office over the four year period from 2001. A total of three new schools were created during this period and the payment of severance grants under Art. 85 of the staff regulations was a particular burden in the year 2001.Table Coût 1: Development of costs from 2001 to 2005 – Expenditure (€) |2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |Alicante | 1.512.767 | 5.313.200 | 8.265.623 | 9.390.348 |Bergen | 11.440.978 | 10.616.119 | 10.788.305 | 10.664.213 | 9.284.898 |Brussels I | 25.825.729 | 22.765.724 | 22.654.741 | 24.166.319 | 25.545.413 |Brussels II | 27.384.165 | 23.932.768 | 24.781.868 | 26.384.610 | 26.060.154 |Brussels III | 17.041.491 | 18.815.661 | 22.402.851 | 23.512.316 | 24.257.320 |Culham | 12.100.450 | 11.432.001 | 11.109.556 | 10.855.737 | 10.691.064 |Frankfurt | 1.140.701 | 4.608.221 | 7.427.133 | 8.491.278 |Karlsruhe | 11.531.500 | 10.925.559 | 11.274.199 | 11.196.364 | 11.257.948 |Luxembourg I | 32.925.831 | 31.473.248 | 31.203.863 | 32.645.494 | 30.901.470 |Luxembourg II | 2.048.889 | 6.169.510 |Mol | 10.052.756 | 9.964.664 | 10.208.687 | 10.235.123 | 10.166.831 |Munich | 15.239.381 | 14.783.260 | 15.782.314 | 16.810.115 | 17.151.893 |Varese | 14.722.074 | 14.491.566 | 15.057.026 | 15.584.147 | 16.216.142 |OSGES | 5.777.503 | 6.068.121 | 6.575.185 | 6.904.443 | 7.777.823 |TOTAL | 184.041.858 | 177.922.159 | 191.760.016 | 206.700.526 | 213.362.092 |The figures for 2001 – 2004 show expenditure, after deduction of appropriations that were carried forward to the following year and subsequently cancelled. Figures for 2005, which include expenditure commitments carried forward to 2006, are the best figures available at the year end and are subject to adjustment. |Table Coût 2 tracks the cost per pupil for each year since 2001. The exceptionally high figures for 2001 are to be explained by the payment, referred to above, of severance grants in that year. It should be remembered that Luxembourg II is still a primary school only and that neither Alicante nor Frankfurt had their full complement of class groups for all of the year 2005. Leaving those schools aside there is a fairly consistent pattern whereby the biger schools tend to have a lower cost per pupil.Table Coût 2: Cost per pupil (€) |2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |Alicante | 9.781 | 8.925 | 9.301 | 9.758 |Bergen | 14.397 | 13.704 | 15.046 | 15.576 | 14.255 |Brussels I | 10.650 | 9.817 | 10.362 | 10.399 | 10.349 |Brussels II | 9.760 | 8.475 | 8.922 | 9.362 | 8.836 |Brussels III | 10.761 | 9.327 | 8.737 | 8.865 | 8.739 |Culham | 13.351 | 12.567 | 12.390 | 12.257 | 12.177 |Frankfurt | 11.445 | 11.230 | 10.738 | 10.214 |Karlsruhe | 9.834 | 9.343 | 9.824 | 10.316 | 10.581 |Luxembourg I | 8.991 | 8.485 | 8.357 | 9.233 | 9.871 |Luxembourg II | 7.432 | 7.273 |Mol | 14.952 | 14.726 | 15.367 | 15.951 | 15.986 |Munich | 11.300 | 10.628 | 11.019 | 11.425 | 11.272 |Varese | 10.965 | 10.705 | 11.123 | 11.797 | 12.310 |All schools | 10.666 | 9.877 | 10.021 | 10.365 | 10.262 |OSGES | 346 | 349 | 356 | 358 | 388 |Schools + OSGES | 11.012 | 10.226 | 10.377 | 10.723 | 10.650 |Expenditure is based on the figures in Table Coût 1. |Pupils: Weighted average. (N° in 0ctober of year n-1 x 8/12) + (N° in October of year n x 4/12) |Contributions to the European Schools BudgetsTable Coût 3 shows the budget contributions made by the various partners in the system in the period since 2001. The main development over the period would appear to be a drop of over five per cent in the percentage contribution to the budget made by the European Commission and a roughly corresponding (4.5%) increase in the contribution by parents or contracting (Category 2) firms through the payment of fees.Table Coût 3: Budget contributions (excluding surplus carried forward and use of reserve fund) |2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |Member states contribute to the budgets of the European Schools through the payment of the national salaries of the teachers seconded by each state. (There are also of course other significant contributions made by member states which do not appear in the budget such as inspectorial services provided by all member states and buildings provided by host countries.) Table Coût 3a shows the percentage budgetary contribution made by each member state in the form of these salary payments.The amount of this payment by each member state is a function of the number of teachers seconded by the state in question and the amount of the national salary paid to teachers in each state without the employees’ contribution to social security. The European Schools has, of course, no influence over the latter factor.Table Coût 3a: Member States’ contributions through payment of national salaries of their seconded teachers (budget article 7010) as a proportion of all such contributions |2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |Belgium | 14,50% | 14,87% | 15,05% | 15,04% | 14,92% |Czech Rep. | 0,00% | 0,00% | 0,00% | 0,01% | 0,09% |Denmark | 3,42% | 3,41% | 3,36% | 3,14% | 3,06% |Germany | 20,36% | 20,19% | 20,64% | 20,68% | 19,40% |Greece | 1,18% | 1,16% | 1,24% | 1,39% | 1,48% |Spain | 2,15% | 2,11% | 2,52% | 3,89% | 4,85% |France | 10,76% | 10,41% | 10,02% | 9,83% | 9,56% |Ireland | 4,66% | 5,08% | 5,53% | 5,90% | 6,37% |Italy | 5,55% | 5,19% | 5,46% | 5,13% | 4,62% |Luxembourg | 3,98% | 3,38% | 3,39% | 3,30% | 3,57% |Hungary | 0,00% | 0,00% | 0,00% | 0,02% | 0,09% |Netherlands | 7,69% | 7,88% | 7,63% | 7,07% | 6,35% |Austria | 0,82% | 0,80% | 0,85% | 0,86% | 0,86% |Poland | 0,00% | 0,00% | 0,00% | 0,03% | 0,13% |Portugal | 2,28% | 2,29% | 2,25% | 2,14% | 2,04% |Slovenia | 0,00% | 0,00% | 0,00% | 0,01% | 0,05% |Finland | 1,44% | 1,50% | 1,48% | 1,43% | 1,47% |Sweden | 1,85% | 1,86% | 1,97% | 1,98% | 1,94% |UK | 19,37% | 19,88% | 18,61% | 18,14% | 19,12% |Total | 100,00% | 100,00% | 100,00% | 100,00% | 100,00% |* Member States are not shown in the above table in cases where no staff are seconded.A comparison between this table and Table 2d shows that a number of countries make a contribution in excess of the proportion of the pupil population made up of its nationals while others pay proportionately less. Those countries seconding teachers to the language sections of vehicular languages tend to contribute more.Pedagogical DevelopmentsThe vast majority of the programmes being taught in the European Schools are now on the website of the schools. Those which are not yet on the website are those for which changes are imminent in the light of on going review.The inspectors are carrying out an evaluation of the SWALS programme now that the effects of the increase in the number of pupils attending schools which do not have language section corresponding to their mother tongues is being felt. The Board is to receive a report on this at the January meeting as well as a report on the Learning Support programme.In the Primary cycle four new programmes have now been introduced in the areas of Art, Music, Physical Education and the Discovery of the World. Their introduction is currently being evaluated in line with the evaluation of the introduction of the new method of pupil assessment embodied in the new format of the school reports. Team inspections have been carried out on the teaching of Mathematics in the Primary schools and a global report, based on the individual school reports is being prepared.In the secondary cycle the new arrangements for Learning Support have been introduced and are being evaluated. A training course for coordinators of Learning Support has been organised. The Working Group on possible alternative kinds of certification is continuing its work and a report is expected in April. Meanwhile, in the context of the on going work of TROIKA Working Group II, the secondary inspectors are carrying out an analysis of the organisation of the European Baccalaureate. It is expected that the results of this analysis will be submitted to the Board of Governors in April.With regard to the continuing application of computer technology in the pedagogical domain, it can be reported that Learning Gateway has now been set up and that Distance Learning is now used in a number of instances where a particular course could not be provided because of the unavailability of a teacher or because of the small number of pupils requesting it.The two Inspectors’ Boards are now discussing the teaching of languages in the schools and are seeking to draw up a framework for joint Primary/Secondary inspections in areas such as the transition from Primary to Secondary school and more generally in the area of the quality of teaching.INFRASTRUCTUREBrusselsBy far the most urgent infrastructural problems are being experienced in Brussels. Here all three schools have a population greater than was foreseen for them at the time of their creation. Two of the schools are at the limits to which it is thought they can stretch in terms of space. There is space in the third school (Brussels I) but this school too will reach saturation in September 2006. As last year the admissions policy followed by the Directors will have to ensure that the available space at Uccle is utilised before any further strain is placed on the other two schools.The details of the accommodation situation in Brussels were outlined in Doc. 2005-D-69-en-3 (Enrolments in the European Schools of Brussels and the creation of Brussels IV). tabled at the October 2005 meeting of the Board. As was mentioned in that document, assurances have been received from the Belgian authorities that the new school of Brussels IV, which is to be located at Laeken, will be available for 1,000 pupils in September 2009 and for the full complement of some 2,500 pupils in September of the following year.I have written to Minister Reynders concerning the urgent need for transitional accommodation and I am assured that the Belgian government will decide in January which site should be offered for this purpose. It seems likely at time of writing that the earliest moment at which such accommodation can be provided is September 2007. It is to be hoped that the site will be in the region of Laeken as such a location would facilitate the early opening of the nucleus of Brussels IV. In any event it is evident that the school at Berkendael which has been mentioned in this context would be decidedly too small for our purposes.The details of the arrangements to be made for the opening of this school will be the subject of a separate document to be submitted to the Board of Governors meeting in April. A separate written communication is being made to the January meeting. Indeed it must be said that in view of the predictions for future enrolments it is necessary to envisage already the creation of a fifth school at Brussels. This question will be discussed by the Groupe de suivi Brussels IV.Other schoolsLuxembourgThe Luxembourg authorities are proceeding with the preparation of the site at Mamer for the new school of Luxembourg II which is at present a temporary accommodation at the Pedagogical Village adjacent to the Luxembourg I school at Kirchberg. At this site bigger and well equipped classrooms, work rooms and a large library have now beeen provided. The playground now has game areas. The façade of the school has been painted and a large shelter has been added. The fence is now very tastefully decorated with illustrations from Hans Christian Andersen tales. It is, however, very important to expedite the preparation of the site of Luxembourg II at Mamer. This site has been slightly displaced and the construction plans have been adapted to the new topography. Urgency arises from the fact that it is only when the school has been constructed at Mamer that the school of Luxembourg II will be able to reach its full potential size and relieve the situation at Luxembourg I.FrankfurtIt is evident that the early planning of the School at Frankfurt did not take sufficient cognisance of the growth potential of this school. A planning Group for that school presided over by the head of the German delegation is considering some necessary alterations to the present building and, following consultation with the Central Bank, I, in my capacity as president of the Administrative Board of the Frankfurt school have written to the German delegation to ask that the possibility of a future change of site should already be discussed.Munich and VareseThe Munich school continues to expand and a new kindergarten is expected to be finished in the Spring of 2007. The overcrowding of the canteen is increasing, and there are plans to build a new canteen block on the current kindergarten site. This will allow meals to be prepared and cooked on-site. In addition, this block will house new science laboratories, and will have some offices allowing a redeployment of the library, ICT suites, and music rooms and permit a joint primary – secondary staff room to be installed once building is completed. The time scale for these measures is not fixed but it is hoped that the building of the new canteen building will be started shortly after the occupation of the new kindergarten.At the end of these building phases, it is estimated that the capacity of the Munich school site will have been reached.The number of mother tongue classes organised in Varese has of course greatly increased since the enlargement of the E.U. Lack of space obliges the School to organize these courses and some Religion/Ethics classes in the corridor. This situation is unacceptable. There is also a big space problem for the courses of physical education, which obliges the School to organize the courses elsewhere. During a recent Administrative Board of the School the Director of the Joint Research Centre of Ispra underlined the need for more space, announcing that more European scientists would be recruited for the centre.Office of the Secretary GeneralSince my last report the two newly appointed seconded officers have taken up their positions in the Central Office. These are Ms Petra Hommel the Legal and Administrative Officer who is Registrar of the Complaints Board and in charge of the personnel side of the office administration and Mr Jorge Navas the new Head of the Computer Unit.Their contributions have been invaluable since their arrival.Nevertheless, it is clear that the staff of the Office is at full stretch and it will have to be further increased if secretarial services of the required standard are to be maintained.Having moved into our new offices in 2004 our accommodation situation is now greatly improved. During 2005 we acquired the use of a large meeting room at level -1 of the building on Rue Joseph II. The January meeting of the Board of Governors will be the first meeting of the Board to be held in this room and we anticipate considerable savings in rental payments for other meeting places to result from this. Technical equipment will now have to be acquired.Opening outThe opening out of the system which the European Parliament favours and which the Board of Governors favours also has proceeded in two areas.Firstly, as mentioned above, the Board has decided upon a procedure to be followed and criteria to be met by any school wishing to be accredited as an associated school of the European Schools. During debates on this matter some reservations were expressed both concerning issues of finance and issues of principle. In these circumstances it seems to be desirable to clarify exactly what the Board has decided in order to avoid all misunderstandings which could lead to great disillusionment in the future if everything is not crystal clear from the beginning.Secondly, the TROIKA II Working Group continues its work to prepare proposals to make the European Baccalaureate available to pupils other than those in the European Schools. It seems to be an expectation of the officials of the European Food Safety Authority at Parma that their children, following their schooling at the “Scuola per l’Europa”, which is now embarked upon the process of seeking accreditation as an associated school of the European Schools, will be allowed to sit the European Baccalaureate. However, the fact of the matter is that as things stand and without a reform of our rules and perhaps of our practices this is impossible.Clear decision making and clear communication is necessary in both these areas.In general, our system is of great interest to those authorities and agencies which wish to develop a European dimension to the education systems in the various member states. The recent resolution of the European Parliament clearly sees this as pertinent to the role of the European Schools. (See point O of the resolution.)TransparencyThe Complaints BoardThe scope of the Complaints Board has been extended considerably in recent years. It is now possible to appeal to this Board concerning decisions of Class Councils regarding the promotion or non promotion to the following year of study. Decisions of Directors taken on the advice of Discipline Councils can also be appealed against as can decisions of Directors concerning the non admission of pupils with special educational needs.This is a significant extension of the powers of the Board into areas which it had previously considered to be outside its area of competence. Nevertheless, there have been appeals in other areas as well, such as fee levels for example, which the Complaints Board considers to be beyond its competence.Following notice regarding the question in general in my 2004 Report to the Board of Governors, proposals were prepared for extending the powers of the Complaints Board to virtually any area concerning which decisions are taken by the Board of Governors or under the rules established by it. However, it is clear, following the meeting of the AFC that a number of delegations were opposed and that no delegation spoke in favour. In the circumstances it seems pointless to bring the matter further and if an appeal is found by the Complaints board to be beyond its competence the complainants will have to have recourse to the national courts.ConclusionIn all the various debates concerning the European Schools which have taken place of late very few if any complaints are heard about the outcomes of our system i.e. the education which takes place in the schools. It would be very wrong to be complacent about this but contact with teachers and pupils in the schools confirms the impression of vibrant discussion and real educational achievement in the classrooms and during the carrying out of the various projects in which our pupils take place.I salute the teachers, pupils, parents and administrators who have achieved this result.[pic][pic][pic][pic][pic] | Schola Europaea Office of the Secretary-General |Ref. : 2005-D-4310-en-2Orig. : EN2.  CRITERIA FOR PLACEMENT OF LANGUAGE SECTIONS IN BRUSSELS IVBoard of Governors of the European SchoolsMeeting in Brussels on 25 & 26 October 2005I. PREAMBLEThe Board of Governors thanks the Belgian delegation for the information given concerning the efforts being made by the Belgian Government to provide provisions or solutions for September 2006.The Board underlines the importance of the potential location of these provisional solutions in facilitating as far as possible a smooth transition to the definitive site of LAEKEN.II. PROPOSALA. It is proposed that the criteria set out below should be accepted by the Board of Governors as the criteria upon which proposals for the placement of language sections in Brussels IV should be worked out. The final decision on the placement of language sections lies with the Board of Governors.1. Criteria for the choice of language sectionsThe language offer at Laeken must satisfy-  the following four fundamental criteria :A – balance of number of pupils and number of sections between the four schoolsB – a balanced distribution of sections according to size,C – a geographical balance of sectionsD – the distribution of the sections and pupils of old and new Member States(Justification: these criteria, A, B, C, D are intended to ensure the overall balance and coherence of the four schools).-  the following additional criteria :E – the number of existing sections for a given language(Justification: the higher the number of sections for a given language in Brussels, the more extensive the choice of school and where to live for the families in question, and the lower the impact of a transfer of a section for the language community)F – the geographical distribution of the sections between central and outlying schools(Justification: where a language section exists in more than one school, it is better if these schools are spread widely enough throughout Brussels in order to give families the broadest possible geographic choice of where to live)G – the sections transferred when Ixelles was set up(Justification: There should be a fair sharing of the disadvantages. A section which has already been moved from Uccle or Woluwe to Ixelles should not be moved again)H – the growth prospects for a section(Justification: if a section is still small but likely to grow in the coming years, the number of children to be transferred now would be lower, and newcomers would be able to decide where to live according to the school)2. Criteria for the methods for setting up the sectionsHaving made a proposal on how to select which language sections should be transferred, certain procedural issues arise.The objective is to ensure transfer to Laeken in the best possible conditions, in the interests of the pupils, both in terms of the quality of the teaching conditions and in terms of the quality of life in general.The quality criteria include:I – keeping siblings together(Justification: it is considered that this is a fundamental aspect of the organisation of family life and part of achieving the right balance between private and professional life)J – overcrowding(Justification: overcrowding affects quality of life and teaching conditions and is the very reason for creating the fourth school)K – the size of the sections(Justification: enough pupils are needed to ensure the right teaching conditions and particularly the choice of options)L – the obligatory nature of the transfer(Justification: the difficulty arising from an imposed decision which affects daily life)M – the amount of time given to prepare for the change(Justification: early information makes the material and psychological preparation of the change easier for families and pupils)N – the present location of the residences of the families affected by any decision.B. It is also proposed that the Board of Governors should mandate the Secretary General to seek a variety of proposals for transitional accommodation in Brussels from September 2006.[pic] | EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION Director-General |Brussels, 16 June 2005D(2005)MESSAGE TO ALL STAFFSubject: European Schools – transfer of language sections to Brussels IV (Laeken) and enrolment of children in nursery classes in BrusselsThere has been considerable concern among many staff regarding several aspects of the functioning of the European Schools. In particular, there is a great deal of disquiet on two fronts: first, on which sections will be transferred to the Brussels IV school in Laeken when it opens in 2009/10, and second, the difficulties currently being experienced with regard to the enrolment of children in the nursery sections in Brussels. The purpose of this note is to explain the current state of play and the Commission’s position, and to reassure staff that the Commission is making strenuous efforts to ensure that the schools meet the needs of parents and children.Brussels IV European SchoolOn 13th June, a meeting of the Groupe de Suivi Brussels IV took place, and this meeting seems to have given rise to fears – which are groundless - that a decision was imminent on the transfer of language sections. Clearly, there appear to be widespread concerns at the possibility of individual language sections being transferred to Laeken, and the Commission has received a number of letters and petitions from concerned parents.The Commission takes this matter extremely seriously. Its representatives have used our voice in the European School system (only one vote out of 29 on the Board) to defend the interests of staff and to find acceptable solutions – and we will continue to do so.The Commission does not intend to favour the transfer of one section over another, given that its duty as a responsible employer is towards all the staff. Instead, we are trying to play a constructive role in what is a difficult and controversial issue. We believe that any decision on the future composition of the new school should be prepared thoroughly and taken extremely carefully on the basis of a full understanding of its impact. It should be based on clear, transparent and objective criteria, and take into account as far as possible the wishes of parents. The Commission therefore argued strongly for a careful analysis of the impact of the different options currently being envisaged, and I am pleased to report that the Secretary General of the European Schools will now create a working group – composed of the parents, the directors, the Commission and the Secretariat General – to examine them. In particular, the group will look at the costs of a phased transfer, year by year, to the new school which was proposed by the parents. The other two options envisage the traditional transfer of sections and pupils as was done in creating Brussels III some years ago.The Commission firmly opposed the widespread use of a lottery mechanism, which had been suggested, to determine which sections should be transferred. The Groupe de Suivi will meet again after the summer break. The role of this group is consultative, and it aims to present one or more options for decision by the Board of Governors of the European Schools. The Commission representatives will do all they can to help find the best possible solution. In any event, no decision will be taken before the next meeting of the Board in October at the earliest.Enrolments in Brussels, 2005/6The second main discussion at the meeting concerned the question of enrolments in nursery sections, currently being processed in the Brussels schools for the school year 2005-6, and where capacity is extremely limited as a result of the over-population of the Woluwé and Ixelles schools in particular. A limit on the number of places available had been introduced, with the agreement of the parents’ representatives , in order to limit the rapid rise in pupil numbers at those schools. However, the blunt way in which this has been implemented has resulted in the applications of children with brothers and sisters already at one of those schools being rejected, and the children concerned being directed to Uccle.Here, the Commission representatives made clear that, in our view, it is not acceptable to split families with young children between different schools. The Commission fully understands the concerns of the parents affected, and argued strongly that the first criterion for admission should be the presence of a brother or sister in the school, and this was obtained at the meeting. In this way, families with young children should not see them split up.The Group also proposed that in the 2006 enrolment procedure (for the school year 2006-7) for the Nursery and/or Primary School in Woluwe and Ixelles, transfers from Uccle of brothers and sisters who have been refused admission this year and whose parents had been obliged to enrol them at Uccle should be allowed. Importantly, as the Commission advocated, the pupils in question should be given priority . The managements of the Brussels schools will proceed in the manner set out above in their enrolment of pupils for the year 2005-2006.The Commission will ask again that the decisions which have the effect of splitting families be reviewed as soon as possible.Organisation of the European School SystemMore generally, I know that matters concerning the European Schools are of great interest to many of you. The Commission regards the schools as an essential element in being able to recruit and retain highly qualified staff. But, contrary to what some parents might understand, the Commission does not have responsibility for providing that education, nor to manage the European Schools. These are matters for the Board of Governors, which is composed of the Member States, together with the Commission (on behalf of all Institutions), the teachers and the parents. As previously said, the Commission has only one vote out of 29 on the Board.The Commission’s role and that in particular of the European Schools Unit in DG ADMIN, is to monitor the functioning of the schools, and to try to ensure that they meet the needs of parents and children, are well run and provide good value for money. The European Schools were truly visionary when the first one was set up in 1954. Since then, the system has expanded from one school with four language sections, to thirteen schools with fourteen language sections and nearly 20 000 pupils (about half of these are children of EU staff). In order to help ensure that the schools are able to meet the challenges and expectations of today and of the future – educationally, organisationally and financially – the Commission believes that there is a need to examine the basis on which they are run. That is why, last summer, the Commission launched a Communication on options for developing the European School system. We would very much welcome your views on the issues it raises, and so in the coming weeks we will consult you, the parents, via an electronic survey.In the meantime, DG ADMIN will continue to work hard and constructively to ensure that the European Schools meet our needs, as parents and as an Institution, and I will keep you informed of any major developments.(signed) Claude Chêne[pic] | EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION Director General |Brussels, 8 December 2005DG/ADMIN D(2005)28860Message to staffSubject : European Schools.I contacted you on 16 June 2005 to bring you up to date on the European Schools dossier and to clarify the position of the European Commission on certain points which were causes of concern to many parents, especially those in our Institution.I have, therefore, agreed to keep you informed about the latest developments on this important issue for families. The main developments over the past 6 months have been as follows:1. OvercrowdingThe overcrowding in the Ixelles and Woluwe schools is the principal concern of many parents. Overcrowding has led the Board of Governors of the European Schools to adopt an enrolment policy which does not guarantee parents the school of their choice for their children. In these difficult circumstances, the Commission has always defended the principle that siblings should not be separated.Furthermore, the Commission has acted by:a) Intervening, at various levels, to ensure that from 2006 there is a greater in-take capacity.To this end, the Commission has contacted the Belgian authorities. President Barroso himself expressed the Commission’s concerns over this issue during his meeting with Prime Minister Verhofstadt on 20 October this year. Following this meeting, the Belgian authorities, nominated a contact-person responsible for this issue. The Belgian authorities have confirmed that the Laeken School will be opening in September 2009. They also agreed to propose very quickly some concrete measures to respond to the needs from the beginning of the 2006 academic year.b) Contributing to the approval, at the meeting of the Board of Governors on 25-26 October 2005, of a more restrictive enrolment policy for Category 3 students[1], in order to limit the influx of additional students to the Brussels schools.3.  The future school at Laeken4.  How are decisions made?We should remind you that all decisions in this area are taken by the Board of Governors of the European Schools, on which the Commission has only one of the 29 votes[2] (on a par with the Parents’ association). Since the European Schools are governed by an inter-governmental Convention, each Member State also has one vote in the decision making process.A specific Steering Group was put in place to deal with the fourth European School in Laeken. This group is currently preparing proposals which will subsequently be submitted to the Board of Governors for consideration and a decision. This Steering Group is chaired by the Secretary-General of the European Schools; the Commission, as well as the parents’ representatives, teachers and school management boards are members.-  Adopting criteria :The Commission has always considered that decisions relating to the Laeken School should be based on clear, transparent and objective criteria, which, as far as possible, should take into account the expectations of parents. Therefore, the Commission has made clear its opposition to the use of a drawing lots-system to determine which language sections should be housed in Laeken, as was suggested at one point by some.The Steering Group, during its meeting of 11 October 2005, prepared a proposal for a list of criteria concerning, on the one hand, the choice of the eventual linguistic composition of the Laeken school and, on the other hand, the way in which these sections could be put in place.During its meeting of 25-26 October 2005, the Board of Governors discussed this proposal and made some modifications which took into account requests made by the representatives of the parents’ associations (in particular, taking into account where families live in the definition of transitional arrangements).The Commission voted in favour of this list of criteria which was adopted unanimously with two abstentions (Italy and Spain). For your information, the list of criteria is attached.[3].-  What remains to be decided :The Steering Group was also responsible for preparing proposals for the application of these criteria.The Commission would like these questions to be addressed in an open manner during the Steering Group’s discussions, so that the different possible scenarios, based on the criteria adopted, can be defined, and put to the Board of Governors for consideration, if possible in January 2006.As concerns the eventual linguistic composition of Laeken, this should be in harmony with that of the other three schools. This means, for example, that the language sections for students from the new Member States should not be concentrated at Laeken but, instead, distributed between several schools.Regarding transitional arrangements, the Commission feels that these should be the best possible for families of those children who are currently enrolled at the European Schools. In this spirit, the Commission considers that the decision to locate a given language section in Laeken is not necessarily synonymous with the automatic transfer to Laeken of students who are currently in the language section concerned.The Steering Group is working, in particular, on various options for progressive transfer, as proposed by the parents’ associations, which aim to prevent students currently in the system, from having to change schools. If this appears to be reasonably applicable for the pre-school and primary cycles, however, the issue is more complex and, no doubt, difficult to resolve, for the secondary cycles. It should also be clear that pedagogical needs, especially with regard to the size of sections, must be respected in order to guarantee the quality of teaching in the interest of the pupils themselves. The Commission will do all it can to ensure that an optimal solution is found.The Steering Group is also working on different options according to the number of new sections which will be created.The group will continue its work at its meeting on 13 December 2005.3. Staff surveyFollowing the launch of its Communication on the future development of the European Schools in July 2004, the Commission wanted to have a better idea of the opinion of its staff on this important issue. A survey was launched in September 2005 which touched upon the main proposals of the Communication, and was also open to members of staff in other Institutions and European bodies.4,880 responses were received, primarily from personnel whose children attend the European Schools. This participation rate is very high when you consider there are currently approximately 9,000 pupils enrolled at the European Schools who are children of staff of the European Institutions. This shows how important this issue is to staff.A large majority of people who responded to the survey were in favour of the proposals presented, especially those concerning an improvement of the academic programme on offer. Similarly, the proposed changes to the European Schools’ system of governance were accepted positively by 76% of those who took part in the survey.An in-depth analysis of the responses to this survey is currently underway. This analysis will be published and taken into account in an overview of the responses to the Communication made by all those parties concerned with the European Schools system.4. Thinking about the futureVice-President Kallas and the Dutch Minister for Education, Ms van der Hoeven, met in October 2005 to discuss the long-term running of the European Schools system. They decided to establish a high-level group to reflect on the way this system is governed and financed, as well as its development outside the Brussels and Luxembourg sites.This joint political initiative aims to stimulate an open debate on the European Schools system. Its objective is to allow the system to respond to the important changes that have taken place in the EU over the past few years and to their impact on European Schools, including at the pedagogical level. It also aims to preserve the fundamental values that have allowed the European Schools system to develop a high standard of teaching. This high-level group will prepare the elements for a debate, on which the Board of Governors -where all stakeholders are represented- will be consulted, and that will then be discussed at a conference in Maastricht in May 2006 with all Member States.This initiative illustrates the importance which the Commission attaches to the schools, and to the definition of their future guidelines.I can assure you that the Commission will continue to actively involve itself on a political level as well as in the daily management of the European Schools system, in order to respond better to the present and future expectations of its staff. I will continue to keep you informed about future developments on this issue.(Signed)Claude CHÊNE[1] Students whose parents are not employed by the European Institutions[2] 25 Member States, the Commission, parents associations, the European Patent Office (for matters relating to the European School in Munich), staff representatives.[3] See the joint document on criteria in annex