REFERENCIA DOCUMENTAL: 2002-D-54
GUIA, de 29 de MAyo de 2002.
Guidelines for school outings and trips organized by the
nursery and primary departments of the European Schools:
domingo, 18 de noviembre de 2012
viernes, 9 de noviembre de 2012
BOLETIN 1852: Accredited European Schools, specialist speech & psychomotor therapists, 10th year
Published since 1964
COMITE DU PERSONNEL STAFF COMMITTEE PERSONALRAT
ECOLES EUROPEENNES EUROPEAN SCHOOLS EUROPÄISCHE SCHULEN
Bulletin 1852
Budgetary Committee meeting, 6 and 7 November, Brussels (continued from BI 1851)
VII ITEMS REQUIRING AN OPINION FOR THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
11) Accredited European Schools (2012-09-D-7-en-2)
SG: a document bringing together of all decisions and adapting the one or other to create a single coherent document. But some decisions are outdated or contradict one another.
Distinction between Type II schools and Type III blurred for many. Suggests arriving at a point where they are called accredited schools with the schools themselves deciding whether EU officials’ children are to be privileged in any way.
Commission: why not just pass to BoG pointing out where changes have been made to reflect their decisions.
Parents: financial contribution from these schools welcomed (Commission agrees!), quality control should not be to the detriment of the scarce resources available in the ES.
The SG suggests taking the document to the BoG for a mandate to produce a more streamlined document,
Commission: not allowed to put in our budget things that go beyond that which is found in the Convention.
12) Call for expressions of interest: specialist speech therapists and specialist psychomotor therapists (2012-10-D-en-2)
Mandate from the BoG in April 2011. Tri-partite agreement. Parents now cover the costs and claim from the health insurance. RCIM has insisted that therapists used are approved ones so that these can be reimbursed. If therapists are invited to an advisory board meeting then it is the school that pays.
Some therapists at present working in the schools have taken legal action against the ES since they can’t be employees of the school and independent therapists in the school. OSGES lawyer sees no problem. Very few candidatures have been received in response to the call for interest.
Parents: concerned about the dismissal of long-standing support staff. Problems with call for tender since too restrictive. Call for tender attracted 3 replies…In their view it doesn’t comply with EU law.
Commission: call expressed the way it is since wanted to ensure parents could be reimbursed…concerned about additional administrative cost (OSGES there are none) Existing contracts have not been terminated. They will run as long as the existing need continues. The new procedures are only for new cases.
DSG: Not a call for tender, call for expressions of interest and we are only establishing a list.
The list will cover all schools i.e. therapists will indicate in which schools they are prepared to offer therapy Text for tripartite agreement exists and is being checked for those countries hosting an ES.
13) Evaluation of the costs of granting a tenth year and the transfer of teachers (2012-09-D-34-en-1)
Introduced by Albert Kuhn. A table showing the extra cost involved in granting a tenth year instead of recruiting a new teacher on the new salary scales and comparing the cost of a tenth year with the cost of a CdC if a post is not filled. In addition, information on transfers in 2012.
Germany comments “stick to reality and not hypothetical cases” and pleads for a restrictive application of the provisions for a tenth year. Wants directors’ proposals submitted to the BC for approval before making a proposal to the delegating authority.
Both the Commission and France strongly favour not granting a tenth year because of the cost, and the Commission asserts that the table shows a CdC is cheaper.
CdP: surprised by the Commission intervention since the BC was informed that unfilled posts cost the EU almost 4.5M €. The provisions of Article 29 of the Regulations are restrictive, and it is a statutory provision. Not questioning the competence of new teachers, but the tenth year is usually proposed to retain expertise that new teachers do not have….
In reply to a question from NL it is made clear that the reasons for a larger number of tenth years in some schools is due to the fact that almost all teachers in a section were due to leave at the same time.
The SG confirms that it is a statutory provision, which cannot easily be changed (“but the delegations can say no to proposals for a tenth year...”). The rules on transfers were applied much more strictly this year.
14) Review of the derogations from Chapter XIX of the Digest of Decisions of the Board of Governors for the 2012-2013 school year (2012-10-D-33-en-1) (a 153-page document!)
SG: an unbelievable workload for us at this moment. Big majority of exceptions in the doc are legal and justified. The BC has asked for this information. DSG: not all admin boards have yet been held. New rules from Sept 2011 so only second year and very difficult to make comparisons.
Commission: sees room for improvement in the future. Agrees that the great majority are not true exceptions and would like a coherent structure of data so easy to identify what is really an exception. Future documents should identify real exceptions. Notes that schools that are strict in their interpretation are being disadvantaged in comparison to those that are more generous.
SG: rules on religion decided by the BoG are anything but clear.
Parents: autonomy is not working well if a decision is taken by the Admin Board and a less transparent instance then decides otherwise. Beware of introducing blocked options through the back door…
Directors: with this procedure the schools have less autonomy than before with the credit d’heures... Timetable for exercise – enrolment procedure not finished when drawing up timetable.
DSG: I would also prefer to work at another time than July but don’t have all data until after the class councils. Suggests agreeing a definition of derogation and developing template accordingly.
Commission: no secret negotiations – what use is a consensus 3 months into the school year?
SG: practical proposal – you need to see the derogations. Schools give all information to admin board and this meeting just sees the real derogations. Propose does not go to the BoG.
VIII ITEMS FOR INFORMATION
Not discussed
IX OTHER BUSINESS
- The 60th anniversary of the ES. (Started on 23.4.2013) There will be a celebration next April 12 and 13 in Lux I with an open say on Sat 13 April. The parents ask if any budget is foreseen (A Kuhn answers “No”!). The SG is “sure the school will find the necessary funds”
- Re-organisation of Secondary
The DSG informs the BC that the BoG had given the SG a mandate to propose a more efficient organisation of secondary courses. The WG had already worked on teaching LIII and SWALS. Data was drawn up on failure rates for each year, the choices of pupils and on courses with less than 11 pupils. I was noted that in the 4th year in maths (2 levels and small classes) the failure rate was higher than in a complete L1 class. Hence the idea of a modular organisation with a common course and an advanced course (c.f. maths 5 and maths 8 in 6&7). The WG meets again on 27 November.
- SWALS
DSG: A delicate question, there have been reactions on the part of parents in some schools. There have been discussions in the WG. It has been noted that the pupils are often more successful than the average in the BAC. The Commission enquires about the composition of the group. DSG: inspectors of different subjects, parents’ rep, teachers’ rep, pupils’ rep, directors’ rep. But the Commission is welcome to participate if it wishes to. Commission: why not invite a member of the BC. DSG: Yes when there are financial implications.
End
BOLETIN 1851: Staff regulations Locally Recruited ; learning SupportTeachers, "languages Working Group"
Published since 1964
COMITE DU PERSONNEL STAFF COMMITTEE PERSONALRAT
ECOLES EUROPEENNES EUROPEAN SCHOOLS EUROPÄISCHE SCHULEN
Bulletin 1851
Budgetary Committee meeting, 6 and 7 November, Brussels (continued from BI 1850)
VII ITEMS REQUIRING AN OPINION FOR THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
6) Financing agreements for admission of Category II pupils to the Brussels European Schools (2012-10-D-21-en-1)
Introduced by SG: in 2005 BoG decided not to sign any new Category 2 contracts for reasons of space. Existing Cat 2 contracts sometimes conflict with enrolment policy. Seeking a mandate to re-negotiate cat 2 contracts (“so we don’t give cat 2 pupils rights which cat1 do not have”). Some organisations would like to sign a cat 2 contract. Asking for BC opinion on re-negotiation of existing agreements and signing new ones. Commission favours such a mandate re-negotiation and a limited opening up to new cat 2 (beware of splitting classes). FR: OK for re-negotiation but against any new cat 2 contracts. Parents: re-negotiate? Only for new pupils: Fear that all such pupils could enrol in EN section. Finland: hesitant on new contracts but OK for renegotiation. Asks that method of calculating category 2 fees be reviewed.
SG: all contracts will have a no splitting of classes clause. Notes that all delegations favour re-negotiations, and the OSGES wants all contracts to follow the enrolment policy. Category 2 fees will be considered by the School Fees WG.
Chair: concludes that the BC favours a mandate to renegotiate contracts and that only France is opposed to new contracts.
7) Draft Proposal for Staff Regulations for Locally Recruited Teachers of the European Schools. (2012-10-D-20-en-1)
A. Beckmann (Head of HR) resumes the outcome of the BoG in April. There were two issues of a legal nature (can the BoG establish Regulations for this group of teachers, can these Regulations take precedence over national legislation). It is now accepted that the BoG has the right to approve such Regulations but legal advice on the second question is still outstanding from Italy, Spain and Belgium. Sums up the statutory position of various different groups of employees. 7 different sets of conditions dependent upon country and school. The situation is one of total confusion, with conditions of employment like a Swiss cheese. The cost of a lawyer in 2011 for Munich was 30,000€. With the new Regulations there will be no distinction between religion and others, will keep limited contracts but offer the possibility of unlimited contracts. It defines a recruitment procedure, an evaluation procedure, a career structure, and rules for representation. It makes clear that the Complaints Board and not national tribunals are the correct legal instance
On the question of steps there is opposition from FR and the Commission. Those with a permanent contract would move up a step every 4 years in the case of a positive evaluation.
There are 3 model calculations in the document: the cost would be 21000€ for Munich, the most “expensive”, in 2017....
B hopes for a legal opinion before BoG in December and that it will be in a position to approve in December. Commission: welcomes work done and procedure followed; finds method of representation good but suggests video-conferencing to reduce costs. It has a problem with the question of steps. Not against the principle but cannot accept any decision which implies extra expenditure in the current budgetary uncertainty. Either keep status quo or introduce steps in a cost neutral way. ES: have opinions from two ministries and have been advised to seek a third from ministry of employment. Await this and hope to be able to express themselves at the BoG in December. Lux: cannot finally clarify certain legal details until the case arises and the legal instances are asked to take a decision. In favour of echelons and against discrimination between religion teachers and others. EPO: in favour. Directors: welcome proposal. FR: Cost neutral please.
CdP: welcomes proposals on representation, asks that a CdC rep be invited to the BOG in December and pleads for keeping steps proposal as it is, to avoid creating yet another salary group.
SG: The calculation of cost is a “worst case scenario”; there will be savings on religion teacher steps...Compares cost of steps with that of non-secondment. Fill the posts and we cut CdC hours and costs...
A Beckmann answers all the points raised, and the proposal passes to the BoG.
8) ‘Languages’ Working Group: final proposal (2012-01-D-36-en-4) (c.f. BI 1847)
Presented by DSG. Some of the group’s mandate has now been superseded by the new mandate from the BoG in April. Final doc only concentrates on 2 issues. Level of competence to be achieved when languages are taken at different levels in ES system. Issue of HCL. See JTC
Spain: want to discuss both HCL proposals in the BoG... The SG replies that both proposals will go to the BoG, but with the opinion of the JTC and that of the BC.
FIN: support Spain since there is an increased demand for teaching Finnish in Helsinki.
Commission: points to mobility problems if pupils choose HCL as L2 Possible cost reductions for UK, FR if HCL fully fledged L2 (with his and geo...). Against proposal B2 – costs. “Open to B1” but with nuanced opinion.
FR: Doesn’t believe B1 is cost neutral, favours B2.
DE: shares Commission views on introduction of HCL in nursery and primary. True costs higher than those given in doc. Cannot approve any proposal.
Parents: not happy with way work of group has been conducted. Parents would have to well informed of the consequences of choosing HCL (mobility etc.) They see a problem with an accredited school trying to change the accreditation conditions after it has been accepted for European Schooling.
DSG: document does not prefer the one or other option, but tries to show the advantages and disadvantages of each. Mobility: new pupils have 2 years to achieve the required level in a language and subjects taught in it. Modify text for B1 before passing to the BoG.
DE repeats its opposition to the doc in its present form since financial statement incomplete.
The SG points out that “we already do an L2 Bac in ES, NL, IT” so no extra costs there, but if did L2 FIN then we would have type II schools creating costs for us...
9) Implementation of Learning Support in the European Schools (c.f. BI 1847)
►Policy on the provision of Educational support in the ES (2012-05-D-14-en-4)
► Provision of Educational support in the ES (2012-05-D-15-en-4)
Introduced by DSG. Avoid labels and put pupil at centre of the support. Welcomed by Inspectors and JTC. The JTC found the resources available for support inadequate at present. No costs involved, doc only includes the rules as they exist. Costs are dealt with in the procedural document.
Parents: on the non-exclusive nature of ES: want a proper appeals procedure in this context. The DSG replies that this exists.
10) Review of the results of the 2012-2013 Enrolment Policy in the Brussels Schools (2012-09-D-56-en-1)
Introduced by SG: who explains the composition of the CEA.
Was not possible to reduce overcrowding in Bx II. 101 Category 3 applicants of whom 33 were successful.
Asking BC to take note of the document and it will pass to the BoG. The CEA will be proposing slightly modified enrolment policy to BoG in December.
Notice there is space in Bx I so new policy will attempt to “lighten the load for” Bx II and Bx III.
UK: imbalance in Bx II nursery with only 2-3 UK nationals in the English nursery classes.
New languages: criteria for a section fulfilled but where to house them? Hope to create RO section for September 2014 but it is for the BoG to decide.
Continued in BI 1852
BOLETIN 1850: Post of seconded teachers 2014-15, School Fees Working Group
Published since 1964
COMITE DU PERSONNEL STAFF COMMITTEE PERSONALRAT
ECOLES EUROPEENNES EUROPEAN SCHOOLS EUROPÄISCHE SCHULEN
Bulletin 1850
Budgetary Committee meeting, 6 and 7 November, Brussels (continued from BI 1849)
VII ITEMS REQUIRING AN OPINION FOR THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
2) Review of the Salary Levels for Administrative and Ancillary Staff (2012-10-D-11-en-1)
Introduced by A Beckmann. The WG decided to review salary scales for particular AAS posts in 2012 seeks a mandate to conduct a comprehensive review of the salary scales and the structure of the AAS of the Schools and the OSGES with concrete proposals for the BoG by the end of 2013. It is proposing upgrading 5 salary scales at an annual cost of €78,000 in 2013.
Debate
DE: against proposals, wants a comprehensive review before deciding on specific cases and has a problem with the composition of the WG (with 5 AAS reps...)
Commission: no to proposed increases, not just a decision for next year but for mayn years to come. Questions(!) the need for 4 laboratory assistants in Munich and wants coherence in application of criteria across the board.
France: Favours rejecting proposals.Any review should produce a cost neutral proposal. (idem Italy)
The parents find it logical to compensate people accordingly if the same numbers of people do ever more for an ever increasing number of pupils.
A Beckmann: understands objections to treating individual cases before comprehensive review but the 5 cases represent gross injustices and there is a danger of postponing remedying these indefinitely.
A show of hands yields 9 delegations against the proposals for these 5 cases.
The SG notes that no speakers opposed to comprehensive review.
The Commission adds that there were no objections raised to the proposed reduction for a psychologist in Luxembourg...
3) Posts of seconded nursery, primary and secondary cycle teachers – by school – 2013-2014 school year (2012-09-D-39-en-2)
SG: has been very difficult to produce the document. 43 new posts (18 of them for Bx IV), 154 posts to be replaced because of teachers leaving, 106 existing posts are not filled at present at a cost to the system of €4,472,388. There are different reasons Ireland could not find candidates, lack of German inspector Would like to tackle the problem of unfilled posts and ask each MS to fulfil its responsibilities.
Commission: disturbed by the continually increasing number of unfilled posts. Cannot continue to absorb the cost of MS failing to meet their obligations. Not desirable to retain old teachers for a tenth year considering the reduced new salaries compared with high step on old scales. Want decisions on tenth year taken in the BC.
Chair: points to the benefit of keeping experienced teachers.
The Commission rejects this argument saying new teachers are also competent.
The SG notes “we will have 303 teachers on the new salary scales”
Further discussion of this is postponed since it is a later point on the agenda
4) Draft proposals of the ‘School Fees’ Working Group on category III school fees (2012-10-D-12-en-1)
Introduced by A Beckmann, who informs the BC that it had not been possible to find agreement on one proposal but the WG had been able to decide to present the document in its present form. He proposes dealing with the two issues (reductions for siblings and the annual adjustment) separately. Reductions three alternatives presented: A: 30% for first sibling, 60% for subsequent siblings, only applicable to new families after September 2013 (supported by parents). B: 25% for first and 50% for subsequent siblings, applicable for all new pupils from September 2013 (favoured by EPO and BC rep). C: 15% for first and 30% for subsequent siblings, applicable for all new pupils from September 2013 (supported by the Commission and NL)
The Commission notes that “even with option C” the ES are still the “second most generous” on reductions and favours this option (as does FR). Germany and Spain favour this option would be prepared to look for a compromise (20%, 40%) between B and C. ES. The UK and Finland favour of B. Only the parents favour option A. They point out that the calculations based on stable numbers of cat 3 pupils – but history has shown that when fees go up then numbers go down so projected fee income does not materialise; are very much opposed to proposal C because it is far too radical.
A vote show 10 delegations prefer B and 8 prefer C. The BoG will be informed of this, and that some delegations favoured a compromise between the two.
Annual adjustment Again 3 options since no consensus. A: a fixed percentage plus inflation rate each year with fees capped at 70% of the cost for category 1.. B: an increase to 55% of the average cost for category 1 and then the rate of inflation each year, with local autonomy to deviate by (+/-5%). C: a one off increase of between 10% and 30% and then annual increases of inflation +2% with a 70% cap. The directors’ representative raises concerns of schools outside Bxl that the increase will not achieve the required effect, because of a significant decrease in cat 3 numbers. Luxembourg shares these concerns and prefers the option allowing some flexibility (option C). The EPO sees option C as offering the possibility of changing things without endangering what is good in the system. The UK agrees with the EPO and Lux and favours C. The parents ask “how should a director fill places with a 51% increase in category 3 fees” and likens the proposals to amputating a leg and then making a gift of running shoes...
A vote shows 8 delegations in favour of option B, and 8 in favours of C.
Commission: (to those who fear a drop in numbers): If this happens there is nothing to stop the BoG reviewing its decision. Don’t be too pusillanimous! Parents: some schools already find it difficult to find interested C3 pupils and this won’t improve with a 51% increase. Bergen is heavily dependent on C3 income.Has the Commission a different perception f the reality on the ground...
In reply to a question from the parents about the number of delegations absent it emerges that 7 are absent and one abstained.
5) Admission of the children of UN staff to the Brussels European Schools / Second application (2012-10-D-13-en-1)
Introduced by the SG: last year the BoG rejected treating the same way as NATO and decided that it should pay cat II fees. The UN happy to pay the real costs but cannot sign a contract. They accept that the real costs are payable, there will be no reductions for siblings and if admission would lead to splitting a class then no admission. The BC was in favour last year.
France points to situation in Bxl (presentation at start of meeting). Will oppose any proposals for new cat 2 pupils in Bxl. (no splitting on admission but could have to split later!)
Commission: in favour; blocked admission of C2 and C3 for years but now there is some spare capacity.
LUX in favour/ EUROCONTROL also in favour
Parents: against (“ just voted to keep Cat III out so why should we now vote for a new Cat II. Why is UN money better than Cat III money?”)
SG: look to BE to find the space we need. We are doing them a big favour by educating 10600 pupils, all we need are the buildings...
A vote shows 1 delegation against, 1 abstention and 13 in favour.
Continued in BI 1851
BOLETÍN 1849: Agenda 60 Aniversario, Recruitment Head ICT,
Published since 1964
COMITE DU PERSONNEL STAFF COMMITTEE PERSONALRAT
ECOLES EUROPEENNES EUROPEAN SCHOOLS EUROPÄISCHE SCHULEN
Bulletin 1849
Budgetary Committee meeting, 6 and 7 November, Brussels
Chair: Mr S Dupré (Belgium)
I ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA (2012-09-D-66-en-6)
In answer to the parents the SG agrees to discuss the 60th anniversary of the ES under Other Business
The Commission regrets that the Reform of the Secondary is not foreseen as an information point. The SG offers to give information under Other Business. He also offers to give an explanation of the rules for SWALS since the Commission has received complaints from parents
II ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
SG: have inaugurated 4 new ES inaugurated in recent weeks (Lux II, Bx IV, The Hague, Bad Vilbel) and Type II schools in Copenhagen and Tallinn in the pipeline.
Budget: likely to end 2012 “with dignity”; awaiting ECJ decision on salaries. If there is a positive decision soon then “we have the funds to pay”, if it comes in 2013 then need another mechanism to pay,
Interpretation at BoG. Now found a new solution. Will offer then languages of countries hosting Type I schools.
► Recruitment of the Head of the ICT Unit
Only one possible candidate from Sweden at present. Appeal to delegations for more candidates.
► Reflection on the Brussels European Schools and on their structure
It is difficult to present a document before getting an answer from Belgium about Bx V and this has been promised for the near future.. There was 42% take up rate for cat I four years ago and this is now 48%. Need a solution by 2018.
Desperately need nursery and primary premises. Considering a school by phase approach. Need for a third Spanish section and maybe a second Greek one; a second Polish section has been requested. Need a Rumanian section from 2013.
Parents: Is there a plan B if the 5th school is not made available as foreseen in the reflections.
SG: we have space at Laeken and will use that but need a solution for 2018 – there is no plan B...
III WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Use of fees for the processing of higher education applications of European Baccalaureate candidates (2012-10-D-5-en-1)
A question of how to enter the income – it will be entered on the budget line for Overtime. In reply to a question the DSG informs the BC that schools have been asked to exercise as much flexibility as possible regarding a deadline for students to express their intention to apply.
IV CONCLUSIONS AND MINUTES
- a) Approval of the draft conclusions of the meeting of 14 and 15 March 2012 and follow-up at the meeting of the Board of Governors (2012-03-D-30-en-2)
- b) Approval of the draft minutes of the meeting of 14 and 15 March 2012 (2012-08-D-1-en-1)
- Correction of Italy’s position on school fees
V REPORTS
Report of the Chair of the Budgetary Committee for 2011-2012 (2012-10-D-29-en-1)
Introduced by its author: short report focussing on main issues under consideration. The cost sharing issue remains unresolved and the BoG must take a decision this year.
Chair: cost sharing debate still open and would like to conclude the debate under Belgian presidency.
SG: Cost sharing WG exists. The BoG discussed its proposals in April and there was a total lack of consensus. But the idea of cost sharing is not dead. Awaiting outcome of the 2014-2020 budget discussions. Idea is that the BoG should give the WG a clear mandate as to which way to go. (“Wait one month for the outcome of the budget framework debate”...)
- Report of the Court of Auditors for 2011 and replies of the Secretary-General of the European Schools (2012-09-D-47-en-1)
- Introduced by the Financial Controller: Accounts reliable (despite several criticisms). Seven recommendations with replies from OSGES to each.
- Commission: Disappointed by the position on accruals accounting. Welcomes memorandum on purchasing policy; regrets only 3 of last year’s recommendations implemented
- Parents: ask about the company providing new COBEE; on recruitment: on local level there has to be a degree of flexibility to be able to respond to an emergency situation.
- SG: drastic decisions taken on ICT (“spent €2M for nothing”...) the new school management software is developing very well; realistic hopes that new COBEE will be in first 4 schools by Jan 2013 and by mid February all the schools will have it, including the inventory module. The BC has discussed accruals accounting and decided not to go that way. The pressure increases for it to be introduced and when new COBEE is available will have to analyse the costs involved as well as the consequences. On recruitment: have clear rules for AAS staff but there is a “big black hole” for recruitment of CdC. Guidelines to be found in the proposed new Staff Relations for CdC (“one of our top priorities this year!”).In the field of ICT “we are starting to be compatible with the rest of the world....”
- VII ITEMS REQUIRING A DECISION FOR THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
1) Reorganisation of the General Secretariat of the European Schools (2012-09-D-35-en-2)
Because of challenges resulting from an increase in workload in the pedagogical and legal affairs areas and difficulties with recruitment for ICT. The document proposes the creation of a new seconded post of Head of Pedagogical Development Unit, the conversion of a post of assistant to one of secretary, the creation of legal assistant post and approval to temporarily create an AAS post of Head of ICT unit. The DSG energetically defends the proposal for the new seconded post.
Commission: proposal not a good response to the problem; the answer to an increased workload cannot always be to create a new post; misses a list of current resources in the OSGES; cannot believe there is a need for 60 WGs. The ICT post is a seconded post and the MS must accept their responsibilities so against an AAS post. Germany: cannot deal with this request outside the normal budgetary procedure and agrees with the Commission on need for establishment chart; asks how Type II and Type III would contribute to the cost of a post... UK supports Commission and DE – 40% reduction in UK administration (“look for necessary resources elsewhere in the Bureau”) France and Luxembourg support these positions. Idem ES, NL (strongly opposed to any increase in the budget...) Greece asks about the possibility of using external legal services. The parents find it difficult to support new posts in the OSGES against the background of ever more stringent cuts in the schools and comments that “cost-sharing was an enormous flop until now”
SG: understand it is no on head of PDU and transformation of post; will provide an establishment chart; “should stop doing things which are not so useful” (like preparing the 153 page document on the derogations from chapter XIX !!) and focus on priorities instead of doing everything for everybody. The ES needs a Head of ICT.
A Beckmann on the legal assistant post: easy to reorganise distribution of tasks in a ministry with 1200 people. In an office of 50 with only 6 in senior posts it is not possible. With the ever increasing number of appeals the workload of the Complaints Boards will increase significantly. Also pleads “please don’t tie our hands on the Head of ICT.
SG: Concludes “understand there will be no new posts” and need to discuss in the framework of the budget. Points to the risk of being without a head of ICT in the middle of the biggest ever ICT changes and asks that the door be left open for the BoG to decide if there are no candidates for a seconded post. Will provide an establishment chart of the OSGES for the next meeting.
Continued in BI 1850
miércoles, 7 de noviembre de 2012
EVALUACIÓN PROFESORADO-Visita Sra. DIRECTORA ADJUNTA
De acuerdo con el envío que nos ha llegado, adjunto las "plantillas de evaluación": aquello que observará la Sra. Directora Adjunta, Sra. Da Silva, para la evaluación de los profesores que estén implicados en estas visitas, siguiendo las directrices del Consejo Superior de las Escuelas Europeas.
Extrait des lignes directrices du Conseil supérieur concernant l'évaluation des
enseignants dans les Ecoles européennes.
6. Domaines d'évaluation
L'enseignant peut être évalué par rapport aux trois domaines suivants:
6.1. Pratique professionnelle
6.1.1. Preuve de la connaissance actualisée de la (des) matière(s)
6.1.2. Conscience des problèmes pédagogiques généraux démontrée par
l'enseignement ou tout autre activité éducative
6.1.3. Connaissance pratique des principaux règlements administratifs et
pédagogiques
6.2. Performance comme enseignant(e)
6.2.1. Compétence en matière de planification (à court et à long terme)
6.2.2. Adaptation des objectifs et stratégies pédagogiques aux besoins des
élèves et au contenu pédagogique
6.2.3. Capacité de réflexion sur sa propre performance
6.2.4. Evaluation des travaux oraux et écrits des élèves
De plus, doivent être pris en compte:
6.2.5. Participation à la vie scolaire (fêtes à l'Ecole, expositions, spectacles
à caractère musical ou théâtral, concours sportifs,…)
6.2.6. Fonctions consultatives en matière d'organisation et de coordination
dans le cadre tant scolaire qu'extrascolaire (coordination des matières
et/ou des sections, participation aux commissions de matières,
animateur lors de stages de formation continuée, organisation de
voyages d'études ou scolaires,…)
6.3. Qualités professionnelles
6.3.1. Relations avec les élèves
6.3.2. Collaboration avec les collègues et les parents
6.3.3. Initiative
6.3.4. Ponctualité
6.3.5. Fiabilité
|
ECOLE EUROPEENNE ANNEE SCOLAIRE
DE
Rapport
rédigé
à la fin de la période probatoire
à la fin de la période de 3 ans
à la fin de la période de 4 ans de
conformément aux articles 28 - 30 du Statut du personnel enseignant
A.
Nom et prénoms:
Date de naissance:
Nationalité:
Détaché(e) par (Pays et Administration):
Date de détachement auprès des Ecoles européennes:
Date de détachement à l'Ecole européenne de:
Connaissance des langues:
Diplômes et autres titres:
Qualifié(e) à enseigner (matières):
Autres tâches et fonctions:
|
B. Rapport du (de la) Directeur/trice:
(pour domaines d'évaluation, voir page 4)
Carmen CARRO
Directrice de l’Ecole Européenne d’Alicante
|
C. Rapport de l'inspecteur:
(pour domaines d'évaluation, voir page 4)
Proposition de l'inspecteur
relative au prolongement du détachement
Date: Inspecteur:
D. Commentaires de l'enseignant(e):
Je reconnais avoir pris connaissance des rapports du (de la) Directeur/trice et de l'Inspecteur
Date et signature:
E. Décision:
Cette décision du …/…/… sera communiquée au (à la) Directeur/trice et ensuite à
l'Administration nationale compétente.
Le Secrétaire général du Conseil supérieur
(pour enseignant en période probatoire)
ou
L'inspecteur national (pour tout autre enseignant)
|
EMBED Word.Picture.8
Extract from Board of Governor's guidelines for the evaluation of Teachers in the European
Schools.
6. Areas of assessment
A teacher can be assessed in relation to the following three areas:
6.1. Professional practice
6.1.1. Sound up-to-date knowledge of the subject(s) taught.
6.1.2. Awareness of general educational issues as demonstrated by
teaching and other educational activity.
6.1.3. Knowledge of relevant administrative and pedagogical regulations.
6.2. Performance as a Teacher
6.2.1. Planning competence (short and long term lesson planning)
6.2.2. Adaptation of teaching objectives and strategies to the needs of pupils
and to the pedagogical content.
6.2.3. Capacity for reflecting upon one's own teaching performance.
6.2.4. Assessment of pupil's oral and written performance.
In addition account should be taken of:
6.2.5. Contribution to school life e.g. school functions, exhibitions, musical
and theatrical performances, sports competitions.
6.2.6. Advisory, organizational and coordination work inside and outside the
context of school proper e. g. subject and/or section coordination,
participation in the inspector's subject groups, group leader in in-
service training, organization of study trips and school journeys.
6.3. Professional Standards
6.3.1. Relations with pupils
6.3.2. Cooperation with colleagues and parents
6.3.3. Initiative
6.3.4. Punctuality
6.3.5. Reliability
|
EUROPEAN SCHOOL SCHOOL YEAR
OF
Report
drawn up
at the end of the probationary period
at the end of the 3 years period
at the end of the 4 years period
A.
Surname and First Name:
Date of birth:
Nationality:
Appointed by (Country and Administration):
Date of appointment to the European Schools:
Date of appointment to the Schools of:
Knowledge of Languages:
Diplomas and certificates:
Qualified to teach (subjects):
Other duties and functions:
|
B. Director's Report:
(for areas of assessment, see page 4)
Carmen Carro
Headmistress of the European School of Alicante
|
C. Inspector's Assessment
(for areas of assessment, see page 4)
Inspector's proposal
concerning the prolongation of secondment:
Date: Inspector:
D. Teacher's comments:
I hereby acknowledge having read the reports of the Director and the inspector.
Date and signature:
E. Decision:
This decision taken on …./…/… will be communicated to the Director and thence to the
relevant national Authority.
The Secretary-General of the Board of Governors
(for probationary teachers)
or
The National Inspector (for all other teachers)
|
LUXEMBOURG
BRUXELLES/BRUSSEL I
BRUXELLES/BRUSSEL II
BRUXELLES/BRUSSEL III
VARESE
MOL
KARLSRUHE
BERGEN N.H.
MÜNCHEN
CULHAM
ALICANTE
FRANKFURT-AM-MAIN
EMBED Word.Picture.8
ALICANTE
Date: Director:
Director's proposal:
concerning the prolongation of secondment:
LUXEMBOURG
BRUXELLES/BRUSSEL I
BRUXELLES/BRUSSEL II
BRUXELLES/BRUSSEL III
VARESE
MOL
KARLSRUHE
BERGEN N.H.
MÜNCHEN
CULHAM
ALICANTE
FRANKFURT-AM-MAIN
Alicante
Proposition de la Directrice
relative au prolongement du détachement:
Date: Directrice:
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)