Cost sharing - basic information

22.04.23 1

Convention - Article 25The 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.

22.04.23 2

School population 2.2.2012

SchoolsCategory

TOTAL1 2 3Alicante 488 3 536 1 027Bergen 109 0 472 581Bruxelles I (Uccle) 2 869 53 209 3 131Bruxelles II (Woluwe) 2 965 106 105 3 176Bruxelles III(Ixelles) 2 760 50 109 2 919Bruxelles IV (Laeken) 1 032 13 14 1 059Culham 92 25 628 745Francfort 780 107 249 1 136Karlsruhe 171 267 496 934Luxembourg 1 2 934 181 464 3 579Luxembourg 2 756 69 132 957Mol 138 15 614 767Munich 1 527 131 332 1 990Varese 775 177 414 1 366

  17 396 1 197 4 774 23 367According to our estimation there will be 24 280 students next September22.04.23 3

School population growth

September 2012 is based on the estimation

22.04.23 4

School population growth by category

September 2012 is based on the estimation

22.04.23 5

Population by nationality 2.2.2012  Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Total %

Allemande 2285 230 938 3453 14,8 %Française 2238 152 511 2901 12,4 %Italienne 1550 201 525 2276 9,7 %Belge 1857 43 313 2213 9,5 %Espagnole 1414 42 408 1864 8,0 %Britannique 1183 114 537 1834 7,8 %Néerlandaise 485 51 576 1112 4,8 %Hellénique 662 16 107 785 3,4 %Finlandaise 644 11 27 682 2,9 %Danoise 519 54 105 678 2,9 %Suédoise 521 31 55 607 2,6 %

Portugaise 543 12 38 593 2,5 %Irlandaise 410 14 58 482 2,1 %Polonaise 353 13 17 383 1,6 %Autrichienne 299 8 22 329 1,4 %Hongroise 291 3 7 301 1,3 %Bulgare 272 11 8 291 1,2 %Lituanienne 248 1 6 255 1,1 %Roumaine 231 10 11 252 1,1 %Tchèque 208 3 18 229 1,0 %Luxembourgeoise 179 4 43 226 1,0 %Estonienne 191 0 0 191 0,8 %Slovaque 168 2 6 176 0,8 %Lettonne 162 0 3 165 0,7 %Slovène 106 0 0 106 0,5 %Maltaise 75 1 0 76 0,3 %Chypriote 38 0 0 38 0,2 %Autre 260 170 439 869 3,7 %Total 17392 1197 4778 23367  

22.04.23 6

SWALS, Cat I & Cat 2, 2.2.2012

22.04.23 7

DISTRIBUTION OF SWALS IN SECTIONS

22.04.23 8

L2 Choices

22.04.23 9

Seconded teachersEtats membres TOTAL Personnel détaché %

Allemands 245 16,07 %Autrichiens 23 1,51 %Belges 222 14,56 %Britanniques 235 15,41 %Bulgares 1 0,07 %Chypriotes 0 0,00 %Danois 33 2,16 %Espagnols 85 5,57 %Estoniens 4 0,26 %Finlandais 34 2,23 %Français 189 12,39 %Grecs 46 3,02 %Hongrois 15 0,98 %Irlandais 60 3,93 %Italiens 104 6,82 %Lettons 1 0,07 %Lituaniens 8 0,52 %Luxembourgeois 21 1,38 %Maltais 3 0,20 %Néerlandais 81 5,31 %Polonais 24 1,57 %Portugais 31 2,03 %Roumains 0 0,00 %Slovaques 4 0,26 %Slovènes 2 0,13 %Suédois 39 2,56 %Tchèques 15 0,98 %  1 525  22.04.23 10

Non-filled posts, 2011-2012

Francophone 9

Anglophone 7

Germanophone 5

Néerlandophone 2

FR 7

BEfr 4

LUX 4

UK 18

IRL 13

DE 5

BEnl 3

DK 1

ES 5

RO 1

SV 1

Total 8522.04.23 11

Budget revenue shares

22.04.23 12

22.04.23 13

Contribution of certain member states

(million euros)22.04.23 14

EU contribution versus pupils from the EU institutions

22.04.23 15

EU contribution per EU institution pupil

22.04.23 16

SCHOOL - YEAR

EU contribution/pupil

2006/07 10 6532007/08 11 6172008/09 11 9752009/10 11 4442010/11 11 488Forecast 2011/12 11 035Announced 2012/13 10357

Budget problems for 2013

• The contribution of the European Institutions have been “frozen” to 2011 level (164.000.000 euro) in spite of the increase of the cat 1 population (1885 new cat 1 pupils since 15.10.2010).

• 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

22.04.23 17

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

22.04.23 18

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.

22.04.23 19

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

22.04.23 20

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 25The 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

22.04.23 21

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.

22.04.23 22

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

22.04.23 23

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. 22.04.23 24

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 2013-14, recruiting for a limited number of targeted posts with 5 year fixed contracts.

22.04.23 25

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

22.04.23 26

What’s next

• Which path to take?• Which alternatives should be studied further?• High level group meeting?

22.04.23 27

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

22.04.23 28