Content uploaded by Laszlo Molnarfi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Laszlo Molnarfi on Dec 02, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
The Plea of the Locally Recruited Teachers – A Study on the
Failure of Cost-Sharing within the European Schools
Laszlo Molnarfi
1. BACKGROUND
“Maybe nobody can do anything, but we want to express our disquiet, we want to make sure we’re
heard by those who CAN change the system,” says a student of EEB4 at an emergency meeting
hastily convened in the wake of the new crisis facing the European Schools. Subsequently,
approximately 200
1
students gathered on the 12th of March at 11:00 AM and began striking in their
school against the recently proposed directive of the Board of Governors. Drafted and imposed upon
the European Schools by the pressure of bureaucrats in the European Commission, it would be fair
to say that this was not a democratic process. This is the story of how our beloved European Schools
are being pushed to a breaking point, and how we may be powerless to stop it.
In the European Schools, there is a long history of struggle against the injustices and failures of the
financial system, which also trickles down into the hiring system. Article 3 of the 1994 Convention
Defining the Statute of the European Schools
2
declares that classroom education in the European
Schools is guaranteed by (European) Member States appointing their own national teachers to each
European School. Unfortunately, this idealistic system does not work fully in practice, for the reasons
which you will see quite shortly. According to the Convention, the terms under which the
recruitment takes place is to be worked out at the Board of Governors
3
– on this board, which is the
highest decision-making body in the European Schools, sit some of the major political and financial
stakeholders of the system, such as the representatives of each European Member State (the
ministries of education) and a representative from the European Commission. In addition to staff
and parent representatives, a few other stakeholders are also members
4
. To understand the
situation we face currently, we need to take a look at Article 25 of the Convention
5
. Article 25
stipulates that the budget of the European Schools is mostly made up of contributions from Member
States through the payment of national emoluments (salaries) of the seconded teachers, the
schools’ own revenues, and the contribution of the European Institutions, namely the European
Commission
6
. The budget of the individual European School is set by the Board of Governors from
the general budget of the European Schools. Thus the seconded teachers’ salaries are fully shared
across the Member States, or one would think. However, the current regulation developed by the
1
Private correspondence with the CdE of EEB4 says 100, and the APEEE of EEB4 says 300.
2
https://www.eursc.eu/BasicTexts/SW1_21994A0817-en.pdf, Article 3
3
https://www.eursc.eu/BasicTexts/SW1_21994A0817-en.pdf, Article 8
4
See also the European Patent Office (for ES Munich), European Investment Bank/European Investment Fund
(for ES Luxembourg since 2016), EUIPO (for ES Alicante since 2017) and ECB (for ES Frankfurt since 2017); with
the right to vote only on matters relating to the ES covered by their agreements. From https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2018:0152:FIN:EN:PDF
5
https://www.eursc.eu/BasicTexts/SW1_21994A0817-en.pdf, Article 25
6
The budget of the European Union is also provided for to some extend by the Member States, but is then
redistributed back to the Member States: http://eu2013.ie/ireland-and-the-
presidency/abouttheeu/theeuexplained/howtheeuisfinanced/ (“Member State contributions, based on a
percentage of their Gross National Income” and “However, over 75% of the budget is distributed directly to
Member States, who are responsible for allocating funds. Member States then report back to the Commission
on how the money was spent.”) / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#cite_note-
Europa_Budget_Data_2014-20
2
Board of Governors in force
7
specifies that the salary rate of the teachers is pegged to the rates of
the officials of the European Institutions, and that the Member States pay only the national salary of
their seconded teachers, meaning that the individual European School must pay the rest of the
salary from their own budget (which comes mostly from the European Commission). In essence, the
individual European School, thus the European Commission, and the Member States jointly pay the
seconded teachers to achieve Luxembourg-based rates
8
. In addition, there exist locally recruited
teachers, who are widely employed across the European Schools today due failure to fully
implement the seconding system (keep this in mind) – locally recruited teachers are fully paid for by
the individual European School’s budget, thus mainly by the European Commission.
2. THE SHORTCOMINGS OF COST-SHARING
On the 1st October of 2002, the 1994 Convention Defining the Statute of the European Schools came
into force
9
. In March of 2005
10
, the European Parliament called for a reform of the system and ruled
that “the current arrangement, whereby Member States’ contributions are directly linked to the
number of teachers they second to the European Schools and to the premises they provide for the
European Schools, is not equitable and that alternative systems of financing should be explored” but
that it does recognize that this system ensures access to the teaching expertise in each Member
State and that through this system the obligations of the Member States as set out in the
Convention are fulfilled. Preceding this, another European Parliament ruling passed in December of
2002
11
urging the European Schools to develop a sustainable model of funding. The Board of
Governors was quick to react; over a period spanning years, there were lively debates to find a
solution. Finally, at the meeting in April of 2009, the Board of Governors agreed to uphold a few
basic principles
12
: to ensure that running costs are fairly divided between the Member States, to
reform the governance structure of the European Schools, and to develop the European School
Accreditation system as per the advice(s) of the European Parliament. Essentially, the largest
problem by far was that the Member States sent teachers unequally (e.g. there was more demand
for English nationals than for Hungarian nationals), and as such, the amount they had to pay
depended on the number of seconded teachers they sent. For example, in the scholastic year 2011-
2012, the United Kingdom had sent 235 seconded teachers, which was 15.41% of the budget, while
Austria had sent only 23 seconded teachers, which was 1.51% of the budget
13
. While the reform and
its principles undoubtedly improved the situation, for some, like the United Kingdom, it was too little
and too late. One of these principles adopted was that certain language courses could now be taught
by non-natives (with quality control), in order to allow Member States other than the United
Kingdom to second English teachers, to alleviate the disproportionate number of United Kingdom
seconded teachers. Another one was that a theoretical threshold be set for the maximum amount a
Member State can be asked to contribute. In addition, it was decided that “Indicative minimum
objectives will be used to start a dialogue with Member States“, and that the European Schools will
also focus on seconded posts other than teachers (e.g. Directors seconded by Member States). The
7
https://www.eursc.eu/BasicTexts/2011-04-D-14-en-9.pdf, Section 1 – Basic Salary
8
And in addition, the buildings, their infrastructure works, and maintenance are provided by the host country
(e.g. in Belgium, it is the Regie Des Batiments).
9
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/Brochure-en.pdf, p. 9
10
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:C:2006:193E:FULL&from=NL#ntr2-
CE2006193EN.01033301-E0002
11
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2004:031E:FULL&from=EN
12
http://gudee.eu/Finance/2011-07-D-8-en-3.doc, p.2
13
http://gudee.eu/Finance/2011-07-D-8-en-3.doc, p. 18
3
solution some – including the United Kingdom – would have preferred was one in which the
financial contribution for a Member State would be calculated depending on the percentage of
nationals from the Member State enrolled across the European Schools – or some similar pro-rata
system - was rejected by the Board of Governors
14
. Instead, the BOG passed a non-binding
resolution (January 2008
15
) to link the number of teachers seconded by a Member State
proportionately to the number of their nationals enrolled at the European Schools. As such, it was a
structural solution and not a financial solution, but the most worrying is that this pièce de résistance
was non-binding. Nobody followed it, it did not create more teachers out of thin air for less in-
demand countries, and the United Kingdom still had to second additional teachers, thus bypassing
the theoretical threshold. The United Kingdom was not content with this. In 2011, at a meeting of
the Troika (a reform working group in the Board of Governors
16
), the United Kingdom hinted at its
plans to stop seconding a percentage of teachers above the percentage of United Kingdom nationals
enrolled across the European Schools, as per the theoretical threshold
17
. Many, including Ireland, the
Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, the Commission, Finland and Belgium supported the United
Kingdom in recognizing the problem. Portugal, like the United Kingdom, suggested a radical change
in the funding system. Sadly, no consensus was found. At the same time, another ruling came
through from the European Parliament
18
in June 2011, stating that “the current funding system
places a disproportionate burden as regards secondment and supply of infrastructure
on certain Member States, and calls on the Board of Governors to review the way in which the
Schools are funded and the recruitment of teachers,” and also mentioning the lack of commitment
from the Member States. The United Kingdom’s grievances were supported by facts; in the 2010-
2011 scholastic year (one year after the reform passed), the United Kingdom still seconded 16.3% of
seconded staff to the European Schools, yet the European Schools was composed of only 8.5% of
United Kingdom nationals in that year.
19
As to the theoretical threshold for secondments, the United
Kingdom claims it had spent 5.5 million euros more than the threshold would normally allow for due
to the demand for secondments. During the scholastic year of 2011-2012, negotiations deteriorated,
and no progress was made with the Cost Sharing Working Group set up in April 2008
2021
, even
though there was consensus that the matter at hand is a huge problem; the Member States still
failed to fulfill their obligations (though non-binding) of seconding a proportional number of
teachers. In 2012, the United Kingdom was still sending 105 more teachers than it had to as per the
non-binding agreement of Stockholm.
2223
At this point, the United Kingdom announced its plans to
reduce the number of seconded teachers to the threshold for the scholastic year 2013-2014, a pre-
14
http://gudee.eu/Finance/2011-07-D-8-en-3.doc, p. 2
15
http://gudee.eu/Finance/2011-07-D-8-en-3.doc
16
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2014-02-D-14-en-3.pdf, p. 5
17
http://gudee.eu/Finance/2011-07-D-8-en-3.doc
18
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A7-2011-
0293+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
19
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2011-02-D-39-en-2.pdf and http://gudee.eu/Finance/2011-07-D-8-en-
3.doc
20
http://gudee.eu/Finance/2012-01-D-9-fr-2.doc, “Extrait du projet de procès-verbal de la réunion du Conseil
supérieur des 6-8 décembre 2011 concernant les débats relatifs au document 2011-07-D-8-fr-3 : Cost sharing”:
All Member States wanted something different and there was no unanimous agreement, but they set up a
working group for the issue.
21
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2013-02-D-21-en-2.pdf page 39 / Working group:
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2018-01-D-58-en-2.pdf, p. 47
22
https://luxtimes.lu/archives/23313-european-school-parents-make-urgent-plea
23
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2013-02-D-21-en-2.pdf, p. 40
4
Brexit if you will, and offered to help in finding locally recruited teachers via an official statement on
the 13th of April 2013
2425
.
And as such, with this sudden lack of seconded teachers from the United Kingdom, the number of
locally recruited teachers in the European Schools suddenly skyrocketed. Today, it is widely known in
the European Schools that there are two types of teachers distinguished by the system; the locally
recruited teachers (LRT for short) and the seconded teachers. Since the European Schools had a lack
of teachers from the Member States, especially after the loss of the United Kingdom, they had to
hire teachers from their host countries, which would be paid for by their own budget, which in turn
is mostly given to them by the European Commission. It was not only the United Kingdom who
started being reluctant to second teachers. Over the years, all Member States have decreased their
number of seconded teachers, and thus decreased on a global average their financial contribution to
the European Schools
26
:
Figure 1: Data source is in footnote number twenty-six and generated via Excel. All research data can be found at
https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-Plea-of-the-Locally-Recruited-Teachers-–-A-Study-on-the-Failure-of-
Cost-Sharing-within-the-European-Schools_DATA.xlsx .
This is probably also due to the badly-timed budget cuts of 2011. The actual contribution of the
European Commission for the scholastic year 2011-2012 was less (163.9 million euros) than the
budget expected by the Board of Governors (171 million euros). This cut of more than 7 million
euros can be linked to national austerity measures in the Member States after the 2007 housing
market crash and a general deficit in the budget of the European Union
27
. Despite several attempts
by associations such as the INTERPARENTS, the European Commission failed to act - "It is not
possible to take the money from somewhere else. We have a rule in the EU of financial
accountability," said Marco-Umberto Moricca from the European Commission's directorate for social
policy and health
28
. Reports say that the salary of seconded teachers was cut by 30% while the salary
of locally recruited teachers was cut by 20% - this may have affected the seconded teachers more
than locally recruited ones, since understandably they became less willing to leave their home
24
http://europeanschooluxembourg2.eu/europe-day-european-schools-in-crisis/
25
http://gudee.eu/qualite/GU_United KingdomStatement201304.pdf
26
Facts and Figures: https://www.eursc.eu/en/Office/reports-statistics
27
https://euobserver.com/education/31986, 1st paragraph
28
https://euobserver.com/education/31986, 18th paragraph
5
countries, seeing that their salary was not worth more or worth even less than if they worked in
their national states
2930
. As for locally recruited teachers, this was also an issue because it made the
hiring of good-quality substitutes (for the seconded teachers) difficult. It is worth pointing out that
the United Kingdom’s decision to stop sending a disproportionate number of teachers had a delayed
effect; it is not immediately apparently in the scholastic year 2014-2015 as the statistics include the
personnel already seconded, but quickly becomes apparent when looking at the global average
through the years. What it boils down to is that this threw the ecosystem of the European Schools
off-balance; nobody ever expected to deal with locally recruited teachers so quickly taking the place
of seconded teachers and the contribution, both personnel and financial of the Member States, so
sharply decreasing. It is precisely because of this unexpected situation that recently, due to the
pressure of the European Commission, the Board of Governors has taken the wrong step forward.
The Board of Governors, in response to the United Kingdom’s sudden withdrawal (or rather, their
unwanted compliance with the regulations in place, i.e. their decision to stop seconding a
percentage of staff higher than the percentage of United Kingdom nationals enrolled across the
European Schools) overhauled the cost-sharing model
31
in 2013. This was essentially also a structural
quota model but more binding – in its language - on the Member States. It considered the number of
pupils by nationality, the national salary, the language section’s place in the European School system
and the number of seconded staff members by nationality. The Member States were given a
mandate to implement this system from 2015 until 2019, with a quota of 20% needing to be
gradually filled each year
32
– if they did not fill the required part of the seconded staff quota, they
would, in theory, be asked to make a financial contribution to the European Schools or would be
asked to provide the required teachers next year as per the quota
33
. Some of the funds from the
Member States would be used to refund those, like the United Kingdom, who over-second teachers
(send more than the required number). At the Board of Governors meeting in December 2014 (and
all the years since then), where this new system was announced, all the Member States who were
below the quota promised to second additional staff, while some of them explicitly expressing
unwillingness to make a financial contribution, and throughout the years none were asked to
either.
34
The Board of Governors never used its power under Article 25.1 of the 1994 Convention to
request a “financial contribution decided on by the Board of Governors acting unanimously”. In fact,
the Member States could decide on whether to promise the Board of Governors seconded teachers
or to promise them a financial contribution (as mentioned above, all opted each year for the promise
of seconding more teachers) – it can be speculated that since the Board of Governors is made up
primarily from representatives of each Member State, none ever wanted to set a precedent by
attempting to force a financial contribution. In any case, the decision must be made unanimously
35
29
https://luxtimes.lu/luxembourg/36646-european-school-plans-to-improve-contracts-to-attract-teachers
30
https://www.politico.eu/article/european-schools-european-problems/
31
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2014-01-D-23-en-2.pdf, p. 40
32
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2018-10-D-17-en-2.pdf, p.1 Annex 1 (latest mechanism)
33
http://gudee.eu/Finance/2013-07-D-18-en-5.docx: „For example: A Member State with a shortfall of ten
posts in December 2014 would be requested to contribute for the 2015 budget either a sum equivalent to two
times national average salary, or otherwise it should second two additional teachers.”
34
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2015-01-D-70-en-2.pdf, p. 45 and
http://gudee.eu/Finance/Munichmodel.doc (Feb 2012, the Munich Model, « Even allowing for the fact that
some Member States have made it clear that they would not be willing to make a financial contribution, this
should be a sufficient basis to start the project.”)
35
1994 Convention Article 25.1 and “At the December Board of Governors’ meeting, each Member State is
requested to take a position on the creation of new posts. If the Member State prefers to second teachers, it
can indicate this at the meeting.” (https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2018-01-D-58-en-2.pdf, p. 48).
6
and in fact all decisions concerning the Statute and decisions concerning cost-sharing must be
accepted anonymously
36
. According to available data from the 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-
2017 scholastic years, most Member States kept their promises as far as increasing the number of
their seconded teachers, but the United Kingdom was still over-seconding teachers with no financial
compensation
37
, and the global number of seconded teachers started decreasing. As the years went
by and the contracts of the United Kingdom seconded staff expired, the number of seconded staff in
the United Kingdom went down. In 2014-2015, the United Kingdom was still seconding 53.84 more
staff than it needed to. By 2016-2017, this number had decreased to 9.8, while at the same time, in a
large part due to the exit of the United Kingdom, the European Schools experienced a sure but
gradual increase in locally recruited teachers – simply put, the system was not working as intended.
The reason for this is that it had an accidental or intentional logical fallacy built in. In essence, the
system counted the number seconded staff in post by each Member State and used it as one of the
variables when determining the amount needed. This means that each year as the number of
seconded teachers (the whole pie) went down due to other factors, the quota also went down with
it, which began a vicious cycle; the pie became the size to fit the Member State contribution and not
the other way around
38
. While it did achieve an increase in seconded teachers for countries that
were already behind the quota, most of those countries stayed behind the quota
39
. Overall
secondments (Figure 3) decreased as the student population of the European Schools increased
(Figure 2), and as a result more locally recruited staff were hired.
Figure 2: Data taken from https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2017-10-D-31-en-2.pdf, p.2 and
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2018-10-D-17-en-2.pdf, p.3. Data graphed with Excel. All research data can be found at
https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-Plea-of-the-Locally-Recruited-Teachers-–-A-Study-on-the-Failure-of-
Cost-Sharing-within-the-European-Schools_DATA.xlsx .
36
https://www.eursc.eu/BasicTexts/SW1_21994A0817-en.pdf, Article 9
37
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2015-01-D-70-en-2.pdf, p. 46 and
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2016-01-D-50-en-2.pdf, p. 49 and https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2017-
01-D-10-en-2.pdf, p. 48
38
See document 2013-07-D-18-EN-5 (http://gudee.eu/Finance/2013-07-D-18-en-5.docx) for a detailed
explanation on the 2014 quota system (“Cost Sharing - the Structural Model”). For example:
If in the first year there were 100 posts, and Hungary owed 5%, they owed 5 teachers.
if only 80 posts were filled, the next year, the total was counted as 80 posts, and Hungary only owed 4
teachers—all other things being equal.
Thus, the total requirement actually spiraled down as the number of students continued to increase.
39
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2018-01-D-58-en-2.pdf, p. 52
7
Figure 3: Data taken from https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2017-10-D-31-en-2.pdf, p. 19 and
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2018-10-D-17-en-2.pdf, p.24. Data graphed with Excel. All research data can be found at
https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-Plea-of-the-Locally-Recruited-Teachers-–-A-Study-on-the-Failure-of-
Cost-Sharing-within-the-European-Schools_DATA.xlsx .
By 2016-2017, the situation became clear. For whatever reason, the Member States were refusing to
send teachers. It can be speculated that the reasons for this includes a variety of problems, and
according to issues raised by Member States at meetings of the Board of Governors are
40
; budgetary
cuts and lack of interest, unavailability of applicable posts to fill for certain states, the inherent
logical fallacy of the cost sharing solution, and the unwillingness of national schools to release their
teachers for a nine-year secondment. Most important was that there was an unavailability of
applicable posts to fill, due to the language issue – the proposal to have non-native teachers met
many roadblocks. If it worked, it would have more-or-less assured that each Member State could
send the required number of teachers for the quota. Without it, countries like the United Kingdom,
France and Germany would still have to send more seconded staff over their threshold to supplant
the lack of qualified English, French and German teachers in other countries. The 2017 Report of the
Secretary-General to the Board of Governors states in plain English that the Member States are not
willing to fill these types of posts: “Delegations have announced their intention of filling only a small
proportion of these posts, meaning that an increasing number of full-time teaching posts will remain
covered by teachers recruited locally,”
41
. An explanation for this is that the Member States were not
willing to, or not competent enough to test the language skills of the teachers they second (the
burden of testing the language skills of seconded teachers was pushed onto the Member States).
Another way of looking at it is that there is a shortage of non-native qualified teachers in Member
States, and that due to the budget cuts of 2011-2012 the conditions for hiring and retaining these
teachers is not competitive. All of this resulted in the increase seen in Figure 1 in locally recruited
teachers and the decrease in seconded teachers throughout the years. Unfortunately, this also
meant the structural problem morphed into a financial problem, and then transformed into a
political issue.
To understand the issue, let us recall that the European Schools are essentially based on the
contribution of the Member States and the European Commission. There is bitter struggle over the
budget each year, as the different agendas of these entities clash. After the 2012-2013 budget cut,
40
http://gudee.eu/Finance/costsharing_pres1.ppt
41
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2018-01-D-58-en-2.pdf, p. 57
8
there was short bout of crisis for the 2013-2014 budget. Yet again, due to austerity measures, the
European Commission wanted to limit their contribution to the budget to 164 million euro (1 million
euro less than the year before), however they backed out of this at the last minute and increased
their contribution to 174 million euros
42
. However, as each year, the budget provided to address the
challenges faced by the European School system was not adequate. Even the increased budget of
174 million euros caused certain cutbacks across the European School system
43
. The foremost issue
was the paying of the locally recruited teachers as the number of seconded teachers started
decreasing in 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and beyond. These would have to be paid for by the
contribution of the European Commission, which they were not happy about, but did make certain
(arguably not enough) adaptations to the budget. As such, the financial contribution of the Member
States decreased, and the contribution of the European Commission increased through the years.
This is key to understanding our dilemma.
Figure 4: Data taken from https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2018-01-D-58-en-2.pdf (to 2017-2018) and
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2018-01-D-58-en-2.pdf (to 2017-2018) and (2007-2008). Graph made with Excel. All
research data can be found at https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/The-Plea-of-the-Locally-Recruited-
Teachers-–-A-Study-on-the-Failure-of-Cost-Sharing-within-the-European-Schools_DATA.xlsx .
42
https://u4unity.eu/ecolx_arch1.htm#bud2013
43
https://u4unity.eu/ecolx_arch1.htm#bud2013
9
Figure 5: Combining both commitment and payment appropriations from
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/2018/financial-report_en.pdf, p.18
andhttps://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2018-01-D-58-en-2.pdf, p. 25. Data graphed with Excel. This is what the issue is
about - 0.064% of the budget of the European Commission. All research data can be found at https://13stars.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/The-Plea-of-the-Locally-Recruited-Teachers-–-A-Study-on-the-Failure-of-Cost-Sharing-within-the-
European-Schools_DATA.xlsx .
As can be seen in Figure 4, the contribution of the European Commission to the budget of the
European Schools increased by over 36.9 percent from 2008-2009 to 2017-2018 (the ratio of total
contribution increased by 5%). For a numerical perspective, the contribution of the European
Commission was around 138 million euros for the scholastic year 2008-2009, while for last year that
same figure (2017-2018) stands at 189 million euros. This annoys the European Commission for two
reasons. The first reason is that they are forced to contribute much more of their general budget to
the European Schools. The second is that the European School system (of which they are
stakeholders with voting rights at the Board of Governors together with the Member States) is
threatened by the Member States’ failure to second teachers, since the European Commission is
beginning to finance more and more expenses, while the Member States are not fulfilling their
obligations. The European Commission cannot finance everything - while they increase their budget
contribution, the actual amount of progress in the European Schools that can be made in a year
stagnates, due to the lack of member-state secondment; new schools need to be opened (e.g. The
5th European School in Brussels), the number of pupils increases (leading to overcrowding), support
structures need to be updated (i.e. ICT budget), and in short, the European Schools are expanding. In
the end, these factors lead to less spending per-pupil within the European Schools. In 2010-2011,
there were 17396 students overall at the European Schools
44
– today, for the 2018-2019 scholastic
year, there are 27176 students enrolled
45
. This is an increase of 56.2 percent. Yet, there was no one
to truly fund this expansion
46
, and in addition the European Commission is forced to pay a significant
amount of money to cover the declining contribution of the Member States. It is against this
44
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2011-10-D-30-en-2.pdf p. 5
45
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2018-10-D-17-en-2.pdf p. 12
46
The total budget increased only 11.8% from 2011-2012 to 2017-2018:
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2012-01-D-55-en-2.pdf p.18 and https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2018-
01-D-58-en-2.pdf p.25
10
background that we can examine the recent decision of the Board of Governors, which was lobbied
for by the European Commission.
Figure 6: https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2016-01-D-50-en-2.pdf, p. 23 and https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2018-01-
D-58-en-2.pdf, p. 24. Data graphed with Excel. All research data can be found at https://13stars.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/The-Plea-of-the-Locally-Recruited-Teachers-–-A-Study-on-the-Failure-of-Cost-Sharing-within-the-
European-Schools_DATA.xlsx .
3. POLITICAL PRESSURE BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
It is mostly with regret that we say that the European Commission has managed to pressure the
Board of Governors into taking a utilitarian step in the wrong direction to solve this issue once and
for all. The agreed upon date for achieving the plans of the quota system was the scholastic year
2019-2020
47
. And as such, due to the failures of the 2014 plan of action, at the December 2018
meeting
48
of the Board of Governors a new procedure that is aimed at dealing with the
disproportionate number of locally recruited teachers was passed
49
. In addition to this new
procedure, a proposal harmonizing the language qualifications for non-native teachers (both LRT and
seconded) was also passed at the 2018 April meeting
50
. It states: “the appointment of a non-native
speaker should remain a pragmatic and exceptional answer to a scarcity situation,“ This would be by
default good, since the failures of the current cost-sharing model and possible problems with hiring
non-native teachers are now recognized. However, the new procedure for dealing with the issue at
hand has certain uncomfortable strings attached to it. As part of the 2014 cost-sharing solution, the
documents that the European Schools used to keep, among these a list of posts for which
secondments are needed (and which were either empty or filled by LRTs), were thrown out. Since
the number of secondments that were required of the Member States could be exactly calculated,
there was no use for such a list anymore, though it also served to hide the logical fallacy of the cost-
47
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2018-01-D-58-en-2.pdf p. 48
48
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2018-12-D-8-en-3.pdf p. 8 and https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2018-
04-D-11-en-3.pdf p. 13
49
Creation and suppression of seconded posts in the
nursery, primary and secondary cycles – 2019-2020 (*)
school year: https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2018-10-D-20-en-4.pdf
50
Control of the level of linguistic competence as
part of the procedure for recruitment of nonnative speaker teaching and educational
support staff: https://www.eursc.eu/BasicTexts/2018-01-D-65-en-3.pdf
11
sharing solution (the list would have shown the actual number of teachers needed). It was generally
known that a certain number of posts would be filled by secondment, and the other posts would be
filled by LRTs, since the Member States could not provide and were not required to provide all the
secondments simply based on their quotas. Essentially what was a temporary solution (LRTs)
became permanent over the years. Today, our LRTs are extremely valuable to our European School
community, and we no longer make a distinction between them. In earlier times, an LRT may have
expected to leave a European School after a short stay, and provisions would be made for him/her
(e.g. no S6 and S7 classes to avoid a change of teacher from S6 to S7) – they were on the “available
for secondment” list. However, as the ratio of locally recruited teachers slowly equalized with that of
the seconded teachers, locally recruited teachers became permanent and were continuously re-
hired by the individual European School (LRTs can be hired indefinitely, seconded teachers are hired
for 9 years
51
). But suddenly, the European Commission has requested this to be reversed. In simple
terms, the European Commission wishes to reverse the decline in funding from the Member States.
To that end, they requested and lobbied for a directive (at the Board of Governors, and their
lobbying was successful) that every European School start compiling again the “available for
secondment” list, with all the current positions that are either empty or filled by LRTs, in order to
start replacing them with secondments. The European Schools were informed of this at the
Administrative Board meetings in September-October of the 2017-2018 scholastic year. To be clear,
this was a mandatory request that needed to be completed – previously, each European School
could choose which posts that were at that time empty or filled by LRTs to keep and which to give
up
52
: “At the Administrative Board meetings in September-October 2018 the Directors were
requested to list all posts currently hold [held] by Locally Recruited Teachers which do fulfil the
requirements for the creation of a seconded post (full time table and likelihood that the post will be
needed over the coming nine years). These lists had to include also information as to whether the
posts could be filled by non-native speaker teachers in accordance with the language policy of the
European Schools”.
53
Now, the jobs of all those teachers and staff, even those of native speakers,
some of them part of our community for a long time, are suddenly up for grabs, and local hires are
to be laid off.
This list would be used to request secondments from Member States (so increased quotas) by
incorporation into the “Creation and Suppression of Posts” document, and to achieve the
cooperation of the Member States the European Commission is applying political pressure, which
seems to be working, seeing that the Board of Governors has already received a considerable
number of notices from the Member States who have agreed to second teachers
54
. As such, we can
expect quite a large number of locally recruited staff to be laid off for the 2019-2020 scholastic year.
The timeline of the events are as follows: In March 2018, the European Commission wrote a letter to
Mr. Marcheggiano, Secretary-General of the European Schools, asking for concrete data on the
issue, citing that “the founding principle of the ES [European School] system is based on secondment
or assignment of teachers by Member States.”
55
. The European Commission asked for data such as
the profile of teachers that the European Schools are having difficulty attracting, in order to be able
to make an informed opinion about the way forward. In December 2018, at the Board of Governors
51
https://www.eursc.eu/BasicTexts/2011-04-D-14-en-9.pdf p. 22
52
EEB4 CdE’s Informal Report: https://www.facebook.com/eeb4cde/posts/2536831996358574
53
Creation and suppression of seconded posts in the
nursery, primary and secondary cycles – 2019-2020 (*)
school year: https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2018-10-D-20-en-4.pdf, p. 1
54
EEB4 CdE’s Informal Report: https://www.facebook.com/eeb4cde/posts/2536831996358574
55
http://gudee.eu/DOC2016/2018-03-D-7-en-2.pdf, p. 14
12
meeting a document titled “Draft proposals to increase the attractiveness of the European Schools
for teaching staff”
56
was discussed, with the aim to facilitate the acquisition of new teachers into the
European School system (e.g. higher salaries with a monthly “European renumeration”). At the same
meeting, a new cost-sharing model was discussed, where the Board of Governors set a target of 70%
of seconded teachers and only 30% locally recruited for the 2019-2020 scholastic year
57
, by
increasing the quota of each Member State and with the help of the European Commission’s
pressure. If the Member State seconds a teacher and passes the evaluation, the European School
must accept him/her and must lay off the locally recruited teacher
5859
. The proposal has not yet
passed and is scheduled to be discussed in April at the next Board of Governors, but the Board of
Governors has already asked the European Schools to compile this list of positions that need to be
seconded and that are either empty or currently held by locally recruited staff. This is why they
asked for the list – to be able to use it to meet this threshold of 70%. This list was compiled at the
beginning of the year by the each of the European Schools and was also presented at this meeting in
2018 December: “The Board of Governors took note of the table listing the courses taught by locally
recruited teachers, which contained the information used as a basis to produce the list of posts to be
created.”
60
. This list is central to the issue.
4. SCANDAL AT EEB4
Up to this point, this may have been a structural, financial and lately a political issue. However, this
list is the turning point. What once had been talked of directly – the teachers, students, and parents
of our community – moved away into a numerical representation thereof into the distant upper-
levels of a bureaucratic institution. The more the decision-making process of an organization is
estranged from the human aspect within the organization the more the sustaining of the institution
becomes its ultimate goal. The original impetus of representation turns abstract. Yet, with the power
of the brewing storm the abstract reverts to its former state, striking up a blizzard from the lower
strata of the organization. This transformation begets humanity in its purest form, detaching itself
from the material confines of the institution. Already, due to their precarious situation described
beforehand, the locally recruited teachers often felt discriminated vis-à-vis their seconded
counterparts
61
. It was only in 2016 that they negotiated a new contract which introduced more job
56
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2018-12-D-8-en-3.pdf, p. 6
57
http://www.uccleparents.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/BoG-DEC-2018.pdf, p. 3
58
“At the Administrative Board meetings in September-October 2018 the Directors were requested to list all
posts currently hold by Locally Recruited Teachers which do fulfil the requirements for the creation of a
seconded post (full time table and likelihood that the post will be needed over the coming nine years). These
lists had to include also information as to whether the posts could be filled by non-native speaker teachers in
accordance with the language policy of the European Schools.”,Creation and suppression of seconded posts in
the
nursery, primary and secondary cycles – 2019-2020 (*)
school year: https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2018-10-D-20-en-4.pdf, p. 1
59
EEB4 CdE’s Informal Report: https://www.facebook.com/eeb4cde/posts/2536831996358574
60
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2018-12-D-8-en-3.pdf, p. 7
61
https://www.politico.eu/article/teachers-complain-of-unfair-treatment-at-european-schools/ and
https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LRT-1-Point-10_Plea-from-Locally-Hired-
Teachers_Redacted.pdf, p. 1. Additionally, even the current contract negotiated in 2016 has the following
paragraph (Article 25): “Locally recruited teachers shall perform their duties and conduct themselves solely
in the interests of the School, in accordance, in particular, with the instructions laid down in the General
Rules of the European Schools and with the school rules,” which can be used to intimidate.
13
security, a more transparent pay scale, formal representation and inspection
62
. And now, suddenly,
with locally recruited teachers holding 46.5% of all European School posts, the European Schools are
asked to lay off 16.5% to reduce that number to 30%. This came as a shock to everyone in the
European School community, and also affected each school differently. In a document known as the
“Locally Recruited Teachers’ Plea”
63
, all the staff representatives from the European Schools wrote a
joint letter of appeal to the Secretary-General Mr. Giancarlo Marcheggiano and European
Commissioner in charge of the Budget and Human Resources Mr. Oettinger, asking to freeze this
proposal: “It will have long-lasting and irrevocable effects at both school and individual levels
throughout the European School system, for both locally recruited and especially those seconded
staff wanting to continue as LRT after secondment.”. According to them, this would mean (provided
that the Member States agree to provide secondments) a potential loss of up to 45% of teaching
staff at one of the European Schools (more than 60% counting the EEB1 Berkendael temporary site
that opened in 2016-2017 as a separate school
64
) and would also result in a significant collective loss
across all the European Schools. They cite, amongst other things, loss of continuity, loss of native
speakers (the Member States would send more non-natives to account for the increased quota), loss
of adapted teachers, the difficulty of locally recruited teachers to return to the national system, a
“fractured team-spirit”, loss of expertise and continued instability of the system. For locally recruited
teachers, it was unimaginably stressful to have their names on the list of secondable posts, which
implies that they are discardable, all the while this could not be further from the truth. The CoSup
(umbrella organization of all the Pupils’ Committees within the European Schools) is also worried
about this, especially about the loss of continuity and good quality teaching (non-natives and the
inspection issue)
65
in S6 and S7, as discussed at their meeting on the 1st of December 2018
66
, the 9th
of February 2019
67
and the 23nd of March 2019
68
, and at the latest one proposed the solution of
having a fifty-fifty ratio instead of a seventy-thirty. In some European Schools, the percentage of
seconded teachers is much lower than the average, with the locally recruited teachers taking their
place. For example, the European School of Brussels I has 62% seconded teachers, while the
European School of Brussels IV has only 53.7%
69
. Another example is the temporary Berkendael site
which is an annex to EEB1 (opened in 2016-2017
70
), which has 73.7% locally recruited teachers and
only 26.3% seconded teachers. As such, some European Schools are more affected than others. An
additional reason coefficient of the situation is the attitude of the Directors of the European Schools.
When the Directors of the European Schools received the request to compile the list, they had two
62
http://www.gudee.eu/DOC2016/2017-01-D-51-en-3.docx and https://www.eursc.eu/BasicTexts/2016-05-D-
11-en-4.pdf
63
https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LRT-1-Point-10_Plea-from-Locally-Hired-
Teachers_Redacted.pdf
64
http://www.gudee.eu/DOC2016/2017-10-D-54-en-3.docx (1.2)
65
Another issue is the inspections; as originally intended, the Member States send their own national
inspectors (e.g. A Hungarian sent to teach Hungarian). But when non-natives are sent to teach languages in
other subject, the inspectors are lost, since they have been trained to inspect teaching as in their own country.
(e.g. A Hungarian teacher is sent to teach English). Locally recruited teachers are inspected by the individual
European School. See the 1994 Convention, Chapter 2: https://www.eursc.eu/BasicTexts/SW1_21994A0817-
en.pdf .
66
https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Notes-of-EEB1.pdf and https://13stars.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/1819-CSUP-006-4-Meeting-2-Agenda-Draft-4.docx
67
https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/CoSup-report-final-draft.docx and https://13stars.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/1819-CSUP-015-Agenda-Meeting-3-Lux.docx
68
https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/3rd-Meeting-report-public.docx (CoSup said that they will
try to suggest 50-50 instead of 70-30 at the upcoming Board of Governors on the 9th-12th April 2019)
69
https://www.eursc.eu/Documents/2018-10-D-17-en-2.pdf, p. 19
70
http://www.gudee.eu/DOC2016/2017-10-D-54-en-3.docx (1.2)
14
choices – either go about the issue transparently or compile the list in secret
71
. Finally, there were
also some exemptions for the posts to be put up to secondment that the Directors could use to
skillfully avert a crisis situation – native English LRTs teaching Math, Chemistry and English (L2 and
L3), and generally all English mother-tongue teachers could be kept by the Director if he or she so
decided
7273
.
In this respect, EEB4 was a series of unfortunate events. With this new directive in place, and already
predisposed to issues with a high percentage of locally recruited teachers, a crisis situation has
gradually developed and recently exploded with the student demonstration of the 12th March at the
fourth European School in Brussels (Figure 7), which is situated in Laeken. On the Monday of 4th of
March, the Pupils’ Committee (Comité Des Eleves, the CdE) published on their Facebook site a post
detailing the situation after a class representative meeting with the Director of EEB4, Mr. Bordoy
74
.
According to EEB4’s CdE with the confirmation of other sources (parents and the administration),
EEB4 was forced to put up 137 posts for secondment, which was every single LRT position. Usually,
says the post, “barely any posts are filled (18/50 posts were filled two years ago”, but “due to recent
pressure from the European Commission, countries have increased their secondments”. Out of the
137 posts for secondment, current estimates say that EEB4 will be receiving 25 to 32 seconded
teachers if the Member States fulfill their notices (their notice of wishing to send a seconded
teacher) – all 25 to 32 of these seconded teachers will be replacing locally recruited teachers
currently in place. The CdE of EEB4 transmits the message of the administration: “next year will not
be any different than from the last […] the only change this year is that nearly all of them will be LR”
in reference to the fact that each year some teachers leave the European Schools, and some arrive
as per their contracts. Apparently, “retention criteria” were put in place to make the transition more
humane, and “the LRT are recruited knowing that at any year they could be replaced as they are a
temporary solution to a missing secondment”. Furthermore, the administration of EEB4 says,
according to the post of EEB4’s CdE, that the affected teachers were warned early and helped; they
asked countries to withdraw their notices, asked other schools to transfer their teachers, made
references and allowed for absences due to job interviews. However, a comment on the post of the
EEB4’s CdE says
75
: “The teachers where only warned early because the list was sent out to all of them
by mistake. If it hadn’t been sent out they still wouldn’t know” (referring to the list the European
Schools were asked to compile at the beginning of the year) – this, it must be mentioned, is a rumor.
At this meeting after which the post was made, the class representatives were also promised that
the administration is trying its best to not disrupt the S6 to S7 cycle. “We are saddened that the
school cannot change this situation and can only stand in solidarity with the teachers that will lose
71
Instagram of the EEB4’s CdE (eeb4cde), March 5th, comment by “giulianalocchi” and other credible, but
unnamed sources.
72
“In the light of the BREXIT the
Administrative Board were permitted to exempt posts requiring English native speakers.”,
https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2018-10-D-20-en-4.pdf
73
https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LRT_Open-letter-March-2019.pdf and
https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LRT_Roundcube-Webmail-__-Fw_-Note-to-Mr-Oettinger_-
The-Situation-at-the-European-School-of-Laeken-EEB-IV_Redacted.pdf: “In addition, in view of Brexit, native
LRTs teaching Math, Chemistry and English
(L2 and L3) could have been exempted from the posts opened up for secondment, but this exemption was not
used at EEB IV” and “Administrative Boards (…) not [to] mention the posts needing teachers whose native (or
first) language is English (p. 3 of document 2019-02-D-14-en-2 Posts of seconded teachers envisaged for the
2019-2020 school year)” as per the open letter of the APEEE of EEB4 (with the support of the APEEE of Brussels
I, II, III and Interparents).
74
EEB4 CdE’s Informal Report: https://www.facebook.com/eeb4cde/posts/2536831996358574
75
Instagram of the EEB4’s CdE (eeb4cde), March 5th, comment by “giulianalocchi”.
15
their jobs, and we ask you to appreciate them in these unsteady times”, finishes the post by the CdE
of EEB4
76
. Soon after the publication of this explanatory post, in a heroic and more than likely
historic move, the students of EEB4 decided to set up a strike in a show of solidarity with the
teachers (“we have decided that this year, departing teachers would get the recognition they
deserve.”). This strike was planned for the March 12th from 11:00 AM to 4:00 PM
77
. In response, the
administration, via an email on the 7th of March, convened a meeting for the 11th of March 13:30
with the school director Mr. Bordoy the deputy director of the secondary school Mrs. Vewilghen and
the class representatives. The perceived objective of this meeting was to convince the students to
call off the protest. The APEEE of EEB4 wrote to the administration in support of this movement,
citing the students’ right to freedom of expression and assembly
7879
, and also asked to be included in
the meeting, which the administration accepted. In the end, the participants included the
administration, the students, the representative of the teachers and the surprise guest, Mr.
Beckmann, who is the Deputy Secretary General of the European Schools. The action-packed
meeting started at 13:30 with the Director justifying his acceptance of the secondment proposals
because, as he said, he was following the regulations. Shortly thereafter, he shared the
administration’s version of the Facts and Figures for EEB4 document, which was based off the annual
statistical report of the Office of the Secretary-General for 2018-2019 scholastic year
80
. It cited 33
dismissals. The APEEE of EEB4 in its report contested this version of the facts; “2019-02-DD-14-en-2
81
of the Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools appears to indicate a total of 43.” but
said that due to the uncertainty of the system nothing can be known for sure yet
82
. The Director
then explained that he was not informed of the above-mentioned exemptions for English mother-
tongue teachers et al
83
. Another important moment was when the S6 to S7 situation concerning
continuity was developed; at EEB4, 4 out of the 25 LRTs teach S7 according to the Director – in
response, the students expressed their fears of change from S6 to S7 at the meeting. During the
meeting, the administration continually encouraged the students to debate rather than to strike,
and Mr. Beckmann explained the situation with the Member States and the European Commission.
A student replied “Maybe nobody can do anything, but we want to express our disquiet, we want to
76
EEB4 CdE’s Informal Report: https://www.facebook.com/eeb4cde/posts/2536831996358574
77
https://www.facebook.com/events/258608185032357/?active_tab=discussion
78
Informal report of the APEEE of EEB4 and a parent sent out on the 12th of March after the meeting, with the
subject “: URGENT: student strike on Tuesday 12 March (TODAY)”. The original informal report is not intended
for public dissemination, and as such it is not linked. The official report can be found at https://13stars.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/APEEE-Letter-to-the-EEB-IV-Community-and-Call-for-Meeting-1-April-2019.docx .
79
As enshrined in Article 11 and Article 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT&from=EN
80
https://www.eursc.eu/en/Office/reports-statistics
81
Posts document 2019-02-DD-14-en-2 (Posts of seconded teachers envisaged for the 2019-2020 school year
with statistics, concrete posts and rules/exemptions) is confidential currently.
82
Informal report of the APEEE of EEB4 and a parent sent out on the 12th of March after the meeting, with the
subject “: URGENT: student strike on Tuesday 12 March (TODAY)”. The original informal report is not intended
for public dissemination, and as such it is not linked. The official report can be found at https://13stars.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/APEEE-Letter-to-the-EEB-IV-Community-and-Call-for-Meeting-1-April-2019.docx .
83
This is supported by the parents.
“Specifically, the school’s administrative board was never made aware of the permission granted to
“Administrative Boards (…) not [to] mention the posts needing teachers whose native (or first) language is
English” (p. 3 of document 2019-02-D[D]-14-en-2 Posts of seconded teachers envisaged for the 2019-2020
school year).
This omission has potentially led to native English speaking locally recruited teachers being replaced with non-
native English speaking secondments.”, https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LRT_Open-letter-
March-2019.pdf
16
make sure we're heard by those who CAN change the system”, and another student referenced the
Whole School Inspection taking place this week at EEB4, by saying that the administration wanted to
silence the protest for fear of impact on the inspectors (this was contested by the administration).
The students then declared that they protested not only for themselves and their teachers, but also
for students of future generations. The administration expressed their wishes to supervise the event
– which provoked strong reaction from students, and the following reply of a young class delegate:
“by saying that, you are telling us that you do not trust us”. Consensus was reached by a student
delegate confirming the time and place of the strike as asked to do so by the administration to
“warn teachers and elementary students”, and in return the administration assured the students
that no one would be punished for participating. In the end, the debate was very civilized and
cultivated healthy discussion, says the report of the APEEE of EEB4
84
. It must be pointed out that it
was not only the students of EEB4 who showed such healthy fighting spirit; other stakeholders have
heard the pleas of the locally recruited teachers and are also fighting against the crisis at EEB4 and
beyond. According to worker’s unions and the APEEE of EEB4 (with the support of the APEEE of
Brussels I, II, III and Interparents), the administration neglected to take care of its locally recruited
teachers and could have done more to prevent the current situation, even in face of this directive
from the Board of Governors. And the Board of Governors is accused of taking a harsh step without
much thought to the human implications. In an email titled “Note to Mr Oettinger: The Situation at
the European School of Laeken (EEB IV)”
85
, 7 trade unions
86
wrote a joint letter to Mr. Oettinger in
light of this situation. The unions argue that out of the 33 locally recruited teachers who are to be
dismissed, some are natives. In other words, some native teachers will be replaced by non-natives;
this is at odds with the rule of “the appointment of a non-native speaker should remain a pragmatic
and exceptional answer to a scarcity situation” as per the official document passed by the Board of
Governors.
87
In addition, none of the exemptions that were available for use (mentioned above)
were employed, and there are problems with the qualifications of the seconded teachers
88
– in
reply to the non-usage of the exemptions, the administration has claimed that they were not
informed of the possibility, a claim which the APEEE of EEB4 has backed up. According to the letter
of the unions, this violates the principle of equal treatment in European law: “Often, LRTs are
discriminated against because they are considered 'second-class' teachers, easily dispensable and
sorely undervalued, in spite of the fact that they have shown tremendous skill, dedication and
commitment in their efforts to help build reputable European schools where European values are
cherished and embraced by children of all ages. We have heard that, among the teachers proposed
for redundancy, there is a teacher of African origin (the only one in the school), a pregnant teacher, a
couple with young children, and two teachers close to retirement”. All teachers, regardless of their
contract type, should be treated equally. In an open letter by the APEEE of EEB4, in addition to
supporting many of the arguments by the workers’ unions, it is said that this new directive of the
Board Of Governors to meet the quota of 70% seconded teachers has led, at least in EEB4, to the
84
Informal report of the APEEE of EEB4 and a parent sent out on the 12th of March after the meeting, with the
subject “: URGENT: student strike on Tuesday 12 March (TODAY)”. The original informal report is not intended
for public dissemination, and as such it is not linked. The official report can be found at https://13stars.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/APEEE-Letter-to-the-EEB-IV-Community-and-Call-for-Meeting-1-April-2019.docx .
85
https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LRT_Roundcube-Webmail-__-Fw_-Note-to-Mr-Oettinger_-
The-Situation-at-the-European-School-of-Laeken-EEB-IV_Redacted.pdf
86
R&D, TAO-AFI, SFE, CONF-CISL, USL, SE/R&D, Save Europea
87
https://www.eursc.eu/BasicTexts/2018-01-D-65-en-3.pdf,
88
https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LRT_Open-letter-March-2019.pdf and
https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LRT_Roundcube-Webmail-__-Fw_-Note-to-Mr-Oettinger_-
The-Situation-at-the-European-School-of-Laeken-EEB-IV_Redacted.pdf
17
administration laying off locally recruited French teachers in favor of seconded and mostly non-
native French teachers. This is illogical, since there is no shortage of native French teachers in
Belgium, and the locally recruited posts are attractive to native French teachers in Belgium
89
.
Figure 7: The students of EEB4 protest in defence of their LRT teachers on the 12th of March. Source:
https://www.rtbf.be/info/regions/bruxelles/detail_les-eleves-de-l-ecole-europeenne-iv-a-laeken-manifestent-pour-garder-
leurs-professeurs?id=10168041
5. THE POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
This is only one case study, for one of the European Schools. This new directive paves the way for
similar incidents across the European Schools and the loss of a significant number of locally recruited
teachers, who are crucial to the well-functioning of our community. Of course, It does not have to be
this way. If we dare to reform the system from the ground-up, we can avoid this sustained crisis and
we can recover from the collective failure of leadership of the Board of Governors. With the looming
89
“In particular, the secondment of non-native French speaking teachers to Brussels to teach in French, in
primary or secondary, defies common sense, since there is no scarcity of native French speaking teachers in
Belgium. Moreover, European School salaries are slightly above those of the local Belgian schools, which
means that its French speaking teaching positions are likely to be very attractive to domestic native French
speaking teachers.” (Open letter to the National Inspectors for the European School system of the APEEE
March 2019)
18
Brexit, the situation could deteriorate even more
90
. In all of these complaints, starting from the
European Parliament, to the United Kingdom, to the sustained crisis of the decline in the
contribution of the Member States, the pleas of teachers, of students (e.g. CdEs and the CoSup), of
workers’ unions, and of parents, concrete proposals have been formulated by the different
stakeholders
91
. Some are radical, others are moderate, and a few, in recent times, are aimed at fixing
the problems with language qualifications and the humane way of balancing of LRTs to the seconded
teachers. In 2011, when it was clear that the 2009 reforms were not working, multiple solutions
were proposed and debated. One of these was the implementation of a pro-rata financial system.
This could have taken the form of each Member State paying the national average cost per pupil to
the European Schools, or the host country in which the European School is situated in paying the
cost. It could have taken the form of a GNP-based (Gross National Product) system, where the
distribution of the costs of the European Schools would be proportional to the GNP of each Member
State. Another form of this would have been a pro-rata model based on the number of pupils from
each nationality enrolled across all the European Schools. All this would have meant that the
Member States continue seconding their teachers, but while not going above their thresholds. If a
Member State fails to meet the threshold, it would have to pay for the cost of secondments from
other Member States based on one of these calculation system. The Host Country Language
measure would have tried to counter the rise of SWALS, that is Students Without A Language
Section, which resulted in a larger need for French, English and German teachers from Member
States and would have tried to better balance the distribution of students and seconded teachers by
creating new language sections and more L2 options (e.g. Lithuanian L1, L2 Spanish and L2 Italian),
since with more language sections, more Member States can meet their quotas and there is less of a
need for the highly-demanded English et al. secondments. This was rejected
92
due to its ineffectivity
and the cost of creating these new sections. An increase of fees for pupils (either Category I,
Category II or III) to compensate for the general deficit in the budget of the European Schools was
proposed, but the study of the Budgetary Committee found that this would not generate enough
revenue. Ideas which would have needed a modification to the Convention of 1994 were also
discussed; no further secondments happen, and the vacancies are filled by the individual European
School advertising in all Member States, and funding would come “on a pro rata basis, according to
the number of their pupils, representing the average cost per pupil”. The 2011 delegation of the
United Kingdom to the Board of Governors proposed firstly that (as per Article 25.1 of the 1994
Convention) the Member States make a further financial contribution to cover their lack of seconded
staff – this contribution would be based on the number of pupils enrolled at the European Schools
(Option 1), and secondly the delegation proposed a quota system which allows for the employment
non-native speakers (the latter, Option 2 was adopted to some extent, but was ineffective). More
radical ideas were also proposed by the 2011 United Kingdom delegation and other entities. The
extension of the Munich Model across all European Schools was brought up, which would imply a
90
https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/OFFSEN-Letter-of-OSGES-FINAL-clean.pdf, 30th January
2019: “[The United Kingdom has]
today written to all our seconded teachers to inform them that in the event of a no deal exit, their
employment as a United Kingdom seconded teacher to the European School system is likely to be ended in
2019 unless we can reach an arrangement with the European Schools system 2019 for the United Kingdom to
continue its contribution until 31 August 2020.”
91
For all the solutions proposed: http://gudee.eu/Finance/costsharing_pres1.ppt and
http://www.gudee.eu/Finance/Cost-sharing-Presentation.pdf and http://gudee.eu/Finance/2011-07-D-8-en-
3.doc and http://gudee.eu/Finance/Munichmodel.doc (Munich Model)
92
It must be however pointed out that with the renewed impetus of dealing with the issue of cost-sharing, all
these options are on the table again.
19
change to the 1994 Convention. The European School of Munich uses a completely different cost-
sharing system to the rest of the European Schools
93
– firstly, the budget that is needed by the
European School of Munich after other contributions (e.g. Member States) is provided fully by the
European Patent Office. The European Patent Office is in Munich – in other words, the European
Institution benefiting from the European School in its vicinity, as was the goal of the European
Schools as per the 1994 Convention
94
(the children of the staff of the EPO receive their education at
European School of Munich) is the one who has the responsibility to provide funds for the different
between the school’s total expenditure and total income. Furthermore, according to the Munich
Model, the European Commission also makes a payment to the European School in Munich based on
the number of students at the school from European Institutions (with a formula that takes into
account the cost per-pupil at European School of Munich, which is made to be the same as the cost
per-pupil of the EPO). Thirdly, the European School of Munich fully reimburses to the Member States
the salaries that they paid to their seconded teachers. This is radically different than the rest of the
European Schools. In this case, the European Schools would not receive a financial contribution from
the Member States, only the teachers. The question is who would pay for the rest – In 2011, the
figure for the deficit this would create was 55 million euros
95
. In practice, it would have been the
European Commission who would have paid (understandably, the European Commission did not find
this model appropriate). Building on the Munich Model, a modified version of the model appeared in
February 2012 – simply put, the Member States would contribute pro rata to the number of their
nationals in the European Schools (and possibly other criteria, such as the contribution of the
Member States to the European Union’s budget), but the European Schools would also pay back the
Member State for the cost of secondment. So, country “A” seconds a number of teachers as per the
quota and contributes financially based on its nationals enrolled at the European Schools. Country
“B” does the same, but it contributes more because more nationals of that country are enrolled at
the European Schools. In the end, all the costs of the Member States are paid back except for their
financial contribution based on the percentage of nationals enrolled. Based on this, and in the same
document, a “pragmatic approach” was proposed, since the aforementioned system “would not
seem to offer a solution in the short term”. It referenced the United Kingdom proposal, Option 2,
namely the objective of bringing the ratio of secondments of the Member States into closer balance
with the percentage of nationals enrolled, and yet again the possibility of the Member States paying
a financial contributions if they do not meet their thresholds – in the words of the United Kingdom
delegation: “This option would mean the abandonment of the custom in the European Schools that
all teachers should be ‘native speakers’, unless other Member States were prepared to reimburse the
costs of providing such teachers.”. This pragmatic approach, which seems to be a complete proposal,
could have offered a viable solution to the problem. It consisted of the following procedure. Firstly,
Member States who second a disproportionate number of teachers (e.g. the United Kingdom) would
be free to reduce its secondment to its threshold. Following the Munich Model, for the vacant
post(s) created by this, the salary would be paid back by the European School. The fund for paying
these vacant posts back would be taken from a collective fund created from the financial
contributions of all the Member States who are below the threshold of seconded teachers. If the
Member State would have difficulty paying into the fund, the Board of Governors would be tasked
with identifying all possible posts where those Member States could second non-native speakers
teachers – if despite the willingness of the Member States to second no suitable post can be
93
Different history and a different agreement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Schools, “The Spread
of the European Schools”
94
“for the education together of children of the staff of the European
Communities”, https://www.eursc.eu/BasicTexts/SW1_21994A0817-en.pdf
95
http://gudee.eu/Finance/Munichmodel.doc (Munich Model)
20
identified, no financial contribution would be required. The number of posts reimbursed by the
European Schools would be limited by the collective fund, or alternatively the amount of money
required to reimburse all the seconded posts would be provided for by the European Commission.
Looking at this proposal retrospectively, it would have led to the slow but gradual rebalancing of the
percentage of locally recruited vs seconded teachers and would have certainly prevented the flip of
the ratio after the exit of the United Kingdom from the system in April 2013. As such, a radical shake-
up of the teaching staff would have only needed to happen once, or never, seeing that the United
Kingdom may not have exited from the system were this system in place. We can only speculate that
this proposal did not pass due to the unwillingness of the Member States to second; as stated in the
original proposal document: “Even allowing for the fact that some Member States have made it clear
that they would not be willing to make a financial contribution, this should be a sufficient basis to
start the project.”. Instead of this reasonable solution, a meek solution was passed. The cost-sharing
proposal still in force that passed on the 3rd of June 2014, in theory bound the Member States to fill
their quotas. However, in practice the system has not worked out, its logic had shortfalls, and there
were no safeguards in place to ensure the Member States fulfill their obligations. As mentioned
before, the Member States needed to promise whether to send more teachers, or if they were
aware that they could not, needed to promise to make a financial contribution. Each year, they
promised to send more teachers, and the Board of Governors, due to political reasons, never once
used its powers to formally ask or demand for a financial contribution as per Article 25.1 of the 1994
Convention. While the Member States made an effort to increase their secondments, with the exit
of the United Kingdom (due to the failure of the system) and other reasons, the global number of
seconded teachers decreased. This is how the ratio of locally recruited teachers to seconded
teachers spectacularly flipped from 2007-2008, where 75% of all teachers were seconded, to 2018-
2019, where only 53.5% are seconded. This resulted in a permanent change in the system – the
failure of the cost-sharing solution could not be considered a full failure. The human elements of the
European Schools adapted. Locally recruited teachers became permanent, not just in their
continuously renewing contracts, but in the hearts of students, staff, parents and the administration
alike.
And now, the oligarchy of a few suits who sit on the Board of Governors and in the European
Commission want to ruin it all, for purely political and financial reasons, by indirectly removing the
locally recruited teachers from their beloved communities in which they are themselves beloved.
The time for fixing the problem as the 2012 February proposal would have is gone. Today, the
solution is an all-encompassing reform of the cost-sharing system, perhaps with elements of the
2012 February proposal, but which at the same time guarantees the indispensability of the locally
recruited teachers. In short, a solution which accepts the human adaptations of the European
Schools system in response to the failures of the 2014 April reforms, and one which does not try to
uproot it all. Let us be remined that this proposal has not yet passed, and there is still time to let our
voices be heard – it will be decided at the Board of Governors meeting on the 9th-12th April 2019. All
that is the result of history hitherto is nothing more than the result of impulses so strong, so
powerful, that their very existences proceed to temporarily overpower the existing status quo(s),
and in the gap that appears are able to instill a new status quo. As such, as we stand at an impasse
that will decide the future of the European Schools, I call upon our community to assemble, to
convene as a united front and to resist the directive recently proposed by the Board of Governors.
Only through this can we secure our right place in the momentum of history of the European
Schools, only through this can we ensure the continued democracy and humanity of the European
Schools for the future and it is only through this that we can effect real change in our system.
21
Finally, in the words of Dylan Thomas
96
, the Welsh poet, as quoted by the original Locally Recruited
Teacher's Plea
97
:
The hand that signed the paper felled a city;
Five sovereign fingers taxed the breath,
Doubled the globe of dead and halved a country;
These five kings did a king to death.
March 2019
Laszlo Molnarfi
96
https://www.internal.org/Dylan_Thomas/The_Hand_that_Signed_the_Paper_Felled_a_City
97
https://13stars.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/LRT-1-Point-10_Plea-from-Locally-Hired-
Teachers_Redacted.pdf, p. 5