52000AR0021

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Proposal for a Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European cooperation in quality evaluation in school education"

(2000/C 317/18)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European cooperation in quality evaluation in school education [COM(1999) 709 final - 2000/0022 (COD)];

having regard to the decision by the Council on 29 February 2000, under Articles 149 and 150 and the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee of the Regions on the matter;

having regard to the decision by its Bureau on 2 June 1999 to direct Commission 7 - Education, vocational training, culture, youth, sport and citizens' rights - to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to its opinion of 16 January 1997 on The role of local and regional authorities in linking education and training establishments to enterprises (CdR 346/1996 fin)(1);

having regard to its opinion of 19 November 1997 on the Proposal for a Council recommendation on European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education (CdR 285/1997 fin)(2);

having regard to its opinion (CdR 21/2000 rev.) adopted by Commission 7 on 5 May 2000 (rapporteur: Ms Else Købstrup, DK/ELDR);

WHEREAS

article 149 of the EC Treaty states that the Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity. There is therefore no question of any form of standardisation of national laws or administrative provisions;

quality in school education is a priority in the Member States. The Council has highlighted its importance at several meetings, and most recently on 20 November 1997 in Brussels;

the Commission has conducted a pilot project, in conjunction with the relevant authorities in the Member States and in Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein, to assess the quality of school education over the period 1997-1998. The purpose of this pilot project was to increase awareness that self-evaluation of education is a vital component in boosting quality. The pilot project also aimed to improve existing national procedures and to give the evaluation a European dimension. It highlighted a number of methods of self-evaluation and facilitated cross-border exchanges of experiences between schools;

the final report on this Commission pilot project showed that the majority of project participants had developed new self-evaluation methods and that both these new evaluation methods and cross-border exchanges of experiences between schools encouraged development and learning;

the Ministers of Education decided at their conference in Prague in June 1998 to call on the Commission to set up a working group of national experts with the task of identifying a number of quality indicators to underpin and assist in framing national evaluations. The group of experts has now drawn up a list of 16 quality indicators based on three criteria: political relevance, comparability and reliability of data;

on the basis of the above list of indicators, a European Report on Quality of Education has been prepared and will be submitted to the Ministers of Education in Bucharest in June 2000,

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 34th plenary session on 14 and 15 June 2000 (meeting of 15 June).

1. The Committee of the Regions position

1.1. By way of introduction the Committee wishes to make it clear that the aim of evaluation work is to enhance the potential of schools for innovation, development and learning. Hence the basic principle underlying evaluation is that it is a vital prerequisite for development and learning, that forward-looking results presuppose that those involved are stakeholders and that trust and security, as opposed to fear of control, can be fostered through openness and dialogue.

1.2. The Committee generally welcomes the Commission's proposal for a recommendation to reinforce European cooperation on the evaluation of quality in school education. The Committee feels that the European dimension of evaluation can consist of drawing on the diversity of national, regional and local authorities and hence boosting development and learning. A European voice on this subject at international level could also help to break the US, Canadian and Japanese dominance in the evaluation sphere.

1.3. The Committee would stress that in most EU Member States school education falls within the area of responsibility of local and regional authorities. These authorities play a decisive role at the primary and elementary school stage and in youth training. Developments have brought greater decentralisation in their wake and, in some Member States, the users of the system exert direct influence through user councils. Further, a number of school authorities focus on the encouragement of partnerships; for instance, local businesses may contribute to, and feel a responsibility for, improving the quality of school education. The quality of education must therefore be developed and defined from the grassroots level upwards (by parents, teachers and school managers, local and regional authorities and other local and regional players).

1.4. The Committee would stress that methods for measuring the quality of education cannot be standardised since they will depend on the fixed educational goals. These goals are dictated entirely by the differing circumstances and conditions in the individual Member States and the regional and local authorities. The aims of school policy are defined at national and at regional and local level. The Committee insists that this diversity must be respected.

1.5. The Committee is in favour of benchmarking for both teaching and resources, provided that the comparisons are used to boost the efforts being made by local authorities and schools to develop and learn. For evaluation to succeed and make the desired impact on the learning and development process, all experience shows that the parties involved must have a stake in this process through a bottom-up, as opposed to top-down, approach.

1.6. The Committee would stress that the aim of evaluation must at all times be to improve the quality of education, and hence the quality of schools. It is therefore vital that schools learn to translate the results of evaluation into forward-looking action. The results must not be used to draw up a ranking order or criticise individual schools as that would destroy the essential trust between the parties concerned. Schools can use evaluation as a tool to optimise the use of resources as well as to develop and learn. Evaluation also provides a sound basis for framing strategies to tailor schools more closely to local, regional, national and international developments and changes.

1.7. Since businesses require both hard and soft skills, pupils must acquire both. Methods therefore need to be devised to evaluate both sets of skills.

1.8. When local policies are framed, which includes fixing quality targets and the details of evaluation, the schools' stakeholders (in particular parents, but also local youth training courses, local businesses, etc.) should be involved. Openness and transparency must be observed throughout the process. There must be no question about the end purpose of the results, who "owns" the results and the conditions and scale of their publication. Further, in the Committee's experience, control-oriented evaluations do not serve to promote development and learning. Quite the contrary.

1.9. The Committee stresses that the purpose of quality evaluation in schools is to promote progress towards improving quality in education and foster awareness of how resources can be used efficiently. The Committee welcomes the creation of cross-border networks between localities and regions so that the partners can inspire and learn from each other.

1.10. The Committee would point out that, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, the Community can only intervene to the extent that the aims of the action envisaged cannot be adequately achieved by the individual Member States. Following on the views expressed above on the development and organisation of school education, the Committee is not in favour of expanding or stepping up the EU's role in the sphere of school education.

1.11. The Committee would point out that the evaluation will have to take into consideration the adaptation of the school environment to the new technologies and the training in them which pupils are being offered.

2. The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

(The references below to 1(a), 1(b) etc. relate to the numbering in the proposal.)

2.1. The recommendations to the Member States

2.1.1. The Committee would make it clear that the implementation of transparent evaluation systems is in practice only the first step. The next stage must be for schools to learn how to apply the evaluation results, as intended, for purposes of learning and developing.

2.1.2. 1(a) "To safeguard the quality of school education" should be amplified to include "and improve the quality of education". Quality systems must promote the capacity to boost quality. Quality can be improved, among other things, by giving greater publicity to experiences from other European countries.

2.1.3. 1(b) The correct balance between self-evaluation and external evaluation is important. The Committee therefore welcomes the apposite reference in the recommendation External evaluation can be used as a ploy whereas self-evaluation is a means of looking in the mirror and keeping to the right track. Constructive external partners in evaluation stimulate further development.

2.1.4. 1(c) In the Committee's view, it is primordial that all players should be clear about the purpose and conditions of evaluation. In this connection, the keywords are openness, trust and clearcut targets.

2.1.5. 2(a) and 2(b) The Committee would highlight the substantial differences between the Member States' school systems; it is therefore opposed to any idea of the Commission recommending the framing of national standards. The Committee feels that this matter should be determined by the school authorities in the individual Member States, depending on how responsibility and competence for school education are allocated. The extent to which the introduction of national standards and quality indicators is the best way of boosting quality in schools must therefore be a matter of political debate among the local, regional and national authorities. In point 2(a) the Committee advocates the deletion of the word "monitor", since that would seem to smack too much of inappropriate control.

2.1.6. 3 The Committee feels that it important to involve external players and local businesses so as to foster a sense of co-responsibility for improving schools. For instance, businesses can make an effective contribution by making a sufficient number of suitable traineeships available to pupils, particularly those of ethnic origin. This would have the not insignificant effect of bringing school closer to the world of work and thus smoothing the European citizen's passage from the one to the other.

2.1.7. 4(a) The Committee is particularly pleased to see that school managers are mentioned as key stakeholders in the evaluation process. They do not merely act as catalysts but also as watchdogs in guaranteeing the implementation of an effective process and credible results, conducive to learning and quality development. The Committee therefore supports the stress on employers' responsibilities in connection with the in-service training of school managers, with particular reference to evaluation expertise and the capacity to inspire colleagues and take charge of practical evaluations in schools.

2.1.8. 4(b) The Committee supports the formation of networks, both at local level and on an inter-regional and crossborder basis. Learning from one's own and others' experiences lays the foundations for an enriching activity. Similarly, in connection with point 5(b), the Committee urges the Commission to consider granting financial assistance for networks and other future local and regional pilot projects.

2.1.9. 5(a) In the Danish version, "fastlægge" should be replaced by "finde" or "identificere" (English version: "to identify" good practices).

2.1.10. 6(b) The Committee urges caution in connection with the development of comparable data, indicators and benchmarks. If the aim is to root evaluation work in a local and regional process, with a view to developing innovation and learning, national standards are not always the most appropriate method. The Committee is sceptical regarding the framing and exchange of specific indicators. In the first instance, this involves a lot of administration and paperwork and, secondly, the statistics produced by such indicators can be used for the undesirable purpose of ranking school authorities' work at local, regional and national level. The Committee is prepared to support broad, relevant key criteria for national educational systems with a view to exchanging experiences of good practices.

2.1.11. 6(c) The Committee notes with satisfaction that European expertise is to be made available in the Member States. In this connection, it would advocate that national participants in the European network should be appointed on the basis of their practical experience and day-to-day contact with evaluation work in school education. In most cases that will mean local and regional authority representatives, including experts from organisations representing the local and regional level.

2.2. The recommendations addressed to the Commission

a) General comments on points II 1, 2 and 3

2.2.1. In connection with the recommendations to the Commission on close cooperation with the Member States and on the establishment of a database and presentation of a triennial report on progress in the development of evaluation systems, the Committee generally takes a positive stand on cooperation and exchanges of experiences in quality improvement. Here the Committee feels that it is constructive to collect useful examples of best practices, to be accessible on the Internet. It also supports documentation by the Member States, under reasonable and accessible conditions, of the development of various evaluation models.

b) Specific comments on points II (1), (2) and (3)

2.2.2. II(1) The Committee would point out that local and regional authorities in many Member States have extensive powers in the field of education and hence possess the necessary experience of both quality evaluation and quality assurance. The Committee therefore suggests that local and regional authority representatives be involved in closer cooperation on the networking referred to in point II(1). As mentioned above, a bottom-up approach is a prerequisite if the evaluation process is to succeed in stimulating innovation and learning. Here the Committee would stress that evaluation work must support development at local and regional level.

2.2.3. II(2) The Committee proposes that the database referred to in point II(2) should be confined to examples of self-evaluation models and of best practice in school/self-evaluation. The database should consist of non-commercial models and experiences made directly available to schools; schools should also be able to enter their own experiences directly. Here the Committee would point to the value of collecting different evaluation models which can serve as inspiration to schools and local and regional authorities. It would also stress that top-down quality indicators, in which local and regional players have no stake, are undesirable.

2.2.4. II(3) The Committee would suggest that the triennial report referred to in point II(3) should only contain data on the progress in quality evaluation systems in the Member States and on cooperation activities at European level in this area. The report should not list results measured in relation to selected European quality indicators.

Brussels, 15 June 2000.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos Chabert

(1) OJ C 116, 14.4.1997, p. 98.

(2) OJ C 64, 27.2.1998, p. 76.