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