BOLETÍN 1847: Currículum L2, Host Country Language

Published since 1964

COMITE DU PERSONNEL STAFF COMMITTEE PERSONALRAT

ECOLES EUROPEENNES EUROPEAN SCHOOLS EUROPÄISCHE SCHULEN

Bulletin 1847

Joint Teaching Committee, 11 & 12 October 2012 (continued from BI 1846)

5) Languages of tuition for Economics in the European Schools system (2012-05-D-23-en-2)

DSG: the matter has been discussed for several years. Clarification has been proposed and approved. Eco in L1 if there is no other possibility

Several speakers thank the DSG for the document and clarification.

Parents: agree with everything so far, but ask why it is a communication instead of a point discussion?

DSG: only a clarification of the rules so not a new document but to give you the information that we can continue in a harmonised manner.

Approved

• IV SYLLABUSES 
• 1) Curriculum L2  – Primary cycle (2012-08-D-13-en-1)
• Mr Schimek: Presentation of the document including the proposed timeline: presentation in May 2013, in service training for all in 2013/2014.
• CdP: In the teachers’ opinion the document contains a plethora of ideas and new features and is very ambitious. Would like to see some moderation of this ambition and that training will be offered as well as the times and resources for the implementation.

Parents: Pleased but the new L2 program still neglects the bilingual, the very talented and the SWALS child. “Don’t introduce too quickly!”

Mr Schimek: Of course lot of in-service training is needed. Want to work out a strategy to reach each individual teacher. The differences demand lots of differentiated works which why already set the A1, A2 and B1.

Several speakers express their thanks for the document

• Approved 
• 2) FR L II syllabus– Primary cycle (2012-09-D-46-fr-1)
• Presentation and explanation of the document.
• Approved
• 
  
• 3) Extra point from COSUP
• Demand that more attention be paid to global warming in all the syllabuses.
• Answer: In the policy is clearly written that pupils are trained to be European citizens. If this were changed to  “world” citizen ready for the future this would be implemented automatically.
• The pupils are asked to send the written proposal to everybody.
• V ITEMS REQUIRING AN OPINION FOR THE BUDGETARY COMMITTEE

1) Accredited schools (2012-09-D-7-en-1)

Secretary General:

New document that is a collection of several old documents, which the schools had to work through before they could ask for accreditation. The inspectors already asked that the original texts be added as an annex, and commented that the document must be made more comprehensible.

Mentoring of the new type 2 schools by a type 1 school is missing in the document.

Commission:  An Important document because there are more and more candidates.

Parents: A few detail remarks (native speaker problem and teacher qualifications)

Denmark: Differences between 2 language versions.

SG: seem to have worked with 2 different documents for years. Teacher qualifications needed to be changed because the type 2 and 3 schools are national schools and they use the national system. According to the BoG “native speakers don’t exist anymore.”

Take note of the document, takes note of the remarks and will be passed forward to the budgetary committee

2) Working Group Languages: final proposal (2012-01-D-36-en-3)

DSG introduces the document

There will be a report in February concerning the problem of pupils who fail the year.

The JTC is being asked for an opinion on 2 proposals

1.  A proposal concerning the basic level.

Some doubts were mentioned, especially concerning universities and their acceptation of the plan.

This proposal is accepted by consensus but taking into account the remarks.

2^.  A proposal regarding the Host Country Language

A long discussion ensued with every delegation giving their point of view. No consensus was possible so a vote was taken.

Outcome of the vote:

Proposal B1: 4

Proposal B2: 24

Abstentions: 3

Proposal B2 was accepted, but with reservations concerning timetables and financial problems

3) Provision of Support in the European Schools

Mrs Huisman: Explanation and short introduction of the documents. The aim is to create one document, which clarifies everything, and ensures that there is harmonisation between all the schools.

Commission: If it goes to the BC need an overview of the changes

CdP: the teachers would like to stress that, if they are prepared to practise it, differentiation has its limits and it is very difficult to apply in classes with large numbers of pupils. This leads to a remark on the critieria for splitting classes, which at present only take account of the number of pupils. Would it not be desirable to take account of the presence of 1 SEN pupil in a class to split it ?

Furthermore, the teachers would like to now how the coordination of this learning support is to be organised since this will be a greate deal of work…

Parents: Measures to be taken to help pupils with special needs must be in the document. Demand a full review at the end of the school year. Create specialist category of staff. A Call for expression of interest from therapists has been launched before test and not properly tendered.

COSUP: Extremely important document because every pupil needs support.

Primary directors:  Miss the fact that the multidisciplinary test should be updated every 2 years (Reply: it is in the document)

Secondary deputies: Fear of budget cuts, coordination is very important but money is restricted. Fears about the workload for the teachers especially the differentiation. Technical help is neglected in the document but this can also be a solution.