Cost sharing - basic information

Convention - Article 25 The budget of the Schools shall be financed by: 1. contributions from the Member States through the continuing payment of the remuneration for seconded or assigned teaching staff and, where appropriate, a financial contribution decided on by the Board of Governors acting unanimously; 2. the contribution from the European Communities, which is intended to cover the difference between the total amount of expenditure by the Schools and the total of other revenue; 3. contributions from non-Community organizations with which the Board of Governors has concluded an Agreement; 4. the School's own revenue, notably the school fees charged to parents by the Board of Governors; 5. miscellaneous revenue. The arrangements for making available the contribution from the European Communities shall be laid down in a special agreement between the Board of Governors and the Commission

School population Schools Category TOTAL 123 Alicante Bergen Bruxelles I (Uccle) Bruxelles II (Woluwe) Bruxelles III(Ixelles) Bruxelles IV (Laeken) Culham Francfort Karlsruhe Luxembourg Luxembourg Mol Munich Varese According to our estimation there will be students next September

School population growth September 2012 is based on the estimation

School population growth by category September 2012 is based on the estimation

Population by nationality Cat 1Cat 2Cat 3 Total % Allemande ,8 % Française ,4 % Italienne ,7 % Belge ,5 % Espagnole ,0 % Britannique ,8 % Néerlandaise ,8 % Hellénique ,4 % Finlandaise ,9 % Danoise ,9 % Suédoise ,6 % Portugaise ,5 % Irlandaise ,1 % Polonaise ,6 % Autrichienne ,4 % Hongroise ,3 % Bulgare ,2 % Lituanienne ,1 % Roumaine ,1 % Tchèque ,0 % Luxembourgeoise ,0 % Estonienne ,8 % Slovaque ,8 % Lettonne ,7 % Slovène ,5 % Maltaise ,3 % Chypriote3800 0,2 % Autre ,7 % Total

SWALS, Cat I & Cat 2,

DISTRIBUTION OF SWALS IN SECTIONS

L2 Choices

Seconded teachers Etats membresTOTAL Personnel détaché% Allemands245 16,07 % Autrichiens23 1,51 % Belges222 14,56 % Britanniques235 15,41 % Bulgares1 0,07 % Chypriotes0 0,00 % Danois33 2,16 % Espagnols85 5,57 % Estoniens4 0,26 % Finlandais34 2,23 % Français189 12,39 % Grecs46 3,02 % Hongrois15 0,98 % Irlandais60 3,93 % Italiens104 6,82 % Lettons1 0,07 % Lituaniens8 0,52 % Luxembourgeois21 1,38 % Maltais3 0,20 % Néerlandais81 5,31 % Polonais24 1,57 % Portugais31 2,03 % Roumains0 0,00 % Slovaques4 0,26 % Slovènes2 0,13 % Suédois39 2,56 % Tchèques15 0,98 %

Non-filled posts, Francophone9 Anglophone7 Germanophone5 Néerlandophone2 FR7 BEfr4 LUX4 UK18 IRL13 DE5 BEnl3 DK1 ES5 RO1 SV1 Total

Budget revenue shares

Contribution of certain member states (million euros)

EU contribution versus pupils from the EU institutions

EU contribution per EU institution pupil SCHOOL - YEAR EU contribution/ pupil 2006/ / / / / Forecast 2011/ Announced 2012/

Budget problems for 2013 The contribution of the European Institutions have been “frozen” to 2011 level ( euro) in spite of the increase of the cat 1 population (1885 new cat 1 pupils since ). Due to non-secondment and national salary cuts the contribution of the member states might decrease Less cat III pupils – less income Increasing number of SWALS increase the teaching costs in spite of the rationalisation of the organisation of the lessons The salary reductions are not yet very effective

Structural problems Increasing number of SWALS in DE, FR and EN sections – more DE/EN/FR classes and teachers needed Teaching of L2, L3, L4 and subjects and options taught in L2 The seconding of non-native teachers has proven to be rather problematic The chosen non-binding agreement does not really work in practice

Issues raised by member states in BoG 1.Some countries would like to second teachers but there are no posts available for them to fill. 2.Some countries would like to contribute to a cost sharing ‘fund’ but there are very few possibilities/mechanisms available to do so. 3.Some countries would consider seconding a teacher who is a non- national to serve in the European Schools but again, a mechanism for arranging this between countries is not readily available. 4.Some countries feel that they have seconded more than their fair share of teachers to the system and that the costs associated with this are not sustainable in an era of national economic cutbacks. 5.Some countries find it very difficult to second teachers due to the fact that teachers in those countries are employed directly by schools who are not always willing to release their teachers to the European Schools for a nine year secondment. In this case, the country is willing to second a teacher but the pool of teachers who are ‘secondable’ is very small

Possible solutions (not exhausted list of options) Irish proposal to create Central Appointment Board Increasing funding by European Institutions Pro-rata models – Each country pays the national average cost per pupil to ES – The host country pays the national average cost per pupil the ES – GNP based model New intergovernmental cost sharing mechanism (e.g. Eurocontrol) Fee for Category 1 to cover the additional costs for locally recruited teachers

Irish proposal In the Board of Governors the Irish delegation proposed that the basic principles of cost-sharing, proportionality and fairness should underpin any structural model that allows the system to engage quality teachers where and when needed and ensure the continuity of the quality teaching to pupils. Convention, article 25 The budget of the Schools shall be financed by: 1. contributions from the Member States through the continuing payment of the remuneration for seconded or assigned teaching staff and, where appropriate, a financial contribution decided on by the Board of Governors acting unanimously

Short term solution terms Recognition by BoG members that there is a cost sharing crisis and the status que is not an option Agreement by member states to use the “quota” principle to fix payment into a fund, managed by the OSG, which will be used to bring down the quata surplus of the countries which so wish Agreement to work towards a more structural permanent solution at whatever level required

THE CENTRAL APPOINTMENTS BOARD CAB The CAB would be based on the following principles: Cost sharing Proportionality Fairness Quality teachers and quality teaching Continuity of supply of quality teaching staff

Locally recruited expat teachers The CAB would facilitate the recruitment and distribution of ‘non-seconded’ teachers posts which could not be filled through the ‘traditional’ secondment mechanism. This procedure could run in parallel with the usual system in which Member States agree to create seconded posts, on the recommendation of Administration Boards at the December Board of Governors meeting. Teachers recruited by the CAB would be employed by the school which requested such a post. – Contract type could be flexible, e.g. 5 year fixed, locally recruited teacher contracts – The CAB teacher contracts would differ from the traditional seconded posts in that there would be no ‘seconding authority’ as such and that taxes and social charges would be paid to the national system of the host school. – The CAB teachers would differ from the locally recruited teachers in that they would be guaranteed a full teaching timetable for a fixed term and might have some extra initial allowances for installation etc., as they would probably be recruited from outside the country of the host school

CAB FUNDING These posts should be financed from a specific ‘fund’ to which Member States, the European Commission and perhaps other third parties could contribute. A proportionate contribution mechanism would be agreed so that all Member States could fulfil their obligations to the system through a combination of traditional secondments and an agreed contribution in lieu of seconding teachers to the European Schools system. The agreed level of contribution could be based on the indicative reference, which Member States would be free to exceed on a voluntary basis. Where Member States have difficulty with the principle of a direct financial contribution to the fund, the CAB would have the responsibility of identifying all possible posts where the Member State could second a teacher as a non-native speaker. A pilot phase for the CAB model could begin in the school year , recruiting for a limited number of targeted posts with 5 year fixed contracts

CAB in practice A created EN LII post should be filled in the ES BXL II. Finland informs BoG that they will take the post CAB recruits a competent native speaker teacher and informs the BXL II School about the outcome The director of the BXL II makes 5 year locally recruited teacher contract with the chosen teacher Finland sends monthly a national salary (+maybe social charge cost) to BXL II school

What’s next Which path to take? Which alternatives should be studied further? High level group meeting?

Timeline proposal February 6th: first meeting - guidelines March: second meeting – drafting proposal March: discussion in the Budgetary Committee April: discussion in the Board of Governors meeting and decisions in principle May: third meeting – possible pilot-project? November: preparation of decision proposals in the Budgetary Committee December: Board of Governors - Final decisions