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 But some decisions are outdated or contradict one another.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 60^th 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 4^th 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