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