Implementing European Union Education and Training Policy: A Comparative Study of Issues in Four Member States

IMPLEMENTING EUROPEAN UNION EDUCATION AND TRAINING POLICY This page intentionally left blank Implementing European ...

Author: D. Phillips | H. Ertl

23 downloads 819 Views 5MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

IMPLEMENTING EUROPEAN UNION EDUCATION AND TRAINING POLICY

This page intentionally left blank

Implementing European Union Education and Training Policy A Comparative Study of Issues in Four Member States

Edited by

David Phillips Department of Educational Studies, University of Oxford, U.K.

and

Hubert Ertl Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftspädagogik, Universität Paderborn, Germany

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS NEW YORK, BOSTON, DORDRECHT, LONDON, MOSCOW

eBook ISBN: Print ISBN:

0-306-48077-8 1-4020-1292-6

©2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow Print ©2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht All rights reserved No part of this eBook may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise, without written consent from the Publisher Created in the United States of America Visit Kluwer Online at: and Kluwer's eBookstore at:

http://kluweronline.com http://ebooks.kluweronline.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

vii

ix

Acknowledgements

INTRODUCTION Hubert Ertl and David Phillips – The PRESTiGE Network: Contexts for Research in EU Education and Training Policies

1

1. Hubert Ertl – The European Union and Education and Training: An Overview of Policies and Initiatives 13 2. António Nóvoa and William deJong-Lambert – Educating Europe: An Analysis of EU Educational Policies 41 3. David Phillips – Interpreting EU Education and Training Policy: Thoughts from the English Perspective

73

4. Bettina Dahl – Tensions Between the European and the Nordic Dimension in 87 Education, with Particular Reference to Sweden 5. Anastasia Economou – A Comparative Study of the European Dimension in 117 Education in England, Scotland, and Wales 6. Nicola Savvides – The European Dimension and the National Curriculum for 143 England 7. Hubert Ertl – European Policies and Transition Processes: The Influence of 161 EU Training Programmes in Eastern Germany 8. Bettina Dahl – The Impact of EU Education and Training Policies in Sweden

189

9. Hubert Ertl – EU Programmes in Education and Training: Development and 213 Implementation in Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom

v

10. Jake Murdoch – Standardisation and Differentiation in the Levels of Diplomas in Higher Education Systems in Europe

265

11. Paula Branco da Cunha – Higher Education Student Mobility and the Interpretation of European Union Educational Policies in France

277

CONCLUSIONS David Phillips and Hubert Ertl – Standardisation and Expansion in EU Education and Training Policy: Prospects and Problems

305

APPENDIX Wenke Siedersleben and Bettina Dahl – Chronology of Education and Training Policy Within the European Union 319

Notes on Contributors

331

vi

PREFACE The papers which make up this volume have for the most part emerged from the work of a team of young researchers based for varying periods at the Department of Educational Studies of the University of Oxford as part of an international network funded by the European Union. The network, known as PRESTiGE (Problems of Educational Standardisation and Transition in a Global Environment), involves teams at six European universities, each of which can only employ young researchers from Member States other than that in which it is situated. The Oxford part of PRESTiGE has been concerned with the interpretation, transmission and implementation of European Union education and training policy in four Member States: France, Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom. As the leader of the Oxford team I had the good fortune to work with young researchers from Denmark, Germany, Greece, Sweden and Portugal. Their work is included here. So too are contributions from Jake Murdoch (a member of the Dijon team, based at the Université de Bourgogne) and Professor António Nóvoa, the leader of the Lisbon team. Together the papers (which we have allowed to overlap to some extent, so that each one can be read independently) represent a genuinely international collaborative effort to understand the intentions and the effects of EU education and training policy, and we hope that they will contribute to further discussion of the important issues that those with an interest in European co-operation and development will wish to pursue. David Phillips Oxford, January 2003

vii


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS During the course of the investigations which form the subject of this book a number of young researchers spent time at the University of Oxford as part of the TMR (Training and Mobility of Researchers) project known as PRESTiGE (Problems of Educational Standardisation and Transition in a Golobal Environment). Dr Hubert Ertl, now at the University of Paderborn, has provided continuity throughout the project and is a major contributor to the present work. Particular thanks are due to him for the thoroughness of his research and his ability to conceptualise issues and master details. Anastasia Economou’s work on the European dimension for her Oxford doctorate provided much of the original stimulus for the Oxford part of PRESTiGE, and she has also been a mainstay throughout our research. We benefited too from the presence in Oxford for varying periods of Bettina Dahl, Paula Branco da Cunha and Wenke Siedersleben. Thanks go to Solange Taylor, who helped with interviews of officials in Paris and with the collection of data on education and training in France, and to Nicola Savvides, who assisted us with textual amendments. Our regular PRESTiGE Network meetings in Stockholm, Berlin, Madrid, Lisbon, Dijon and Oxford were always enlivened by the cheerful presence of Dr Mina O’Dowd, who acted as the Network administrator and mastered the interpretation of EU regulations. Our co-ordinator, Professor Ingemar Fägerlind, ran our meetings with characteristic good humour and patience. To the other team leaders, Professor Jürgen Schriewer (Berlin), Professor António Nóvoa (Lisbon), Professor François Orivel (Dijon) and Professor Joaquín Abellán we also extend our gratitude for many stimulating discussions and much practical help since the early beginnings of the project. We have been fortunate as well in our regular contact with young researchers from all over Europe who have participated in the Network and contributed to our work as it has developed. Our appreciation goes too to our interviewees in Berlin, Bonn, Paris, Stockholm and elsewhere who have given generously of their time and contributed much useful information. During the final stages of the Oxford project we had the invaluable help of Andreas Arlt of the University of Paderborn, who produced properly formatted versions of all the texts. Finally we extend our grateful appreciation to the European Commission for granting us the funding which made the work of PRESTiGE possible.

David Phillips

ix


HUBERT ERTL & DAVID PHILLIPS

INTRODUCTION The PRESTiGE Network: Contexts for Research in EU Education and Training Policies

In 1997 the Commission of the European Union granted the Centre for Comparative Studies in Education in Oxford funding as participant in a four-year EU Training and Mobility of Researchers (TMR) Network, involving Oxford (Centre for Comparative Studies in Education), Berlin (Humboldt University), Stockholm (Institute for International Education, University of Stockholm), Dijon (Université de Bourgogne), Madrid (Universidad Complutense) and Lisbon University. This project (PRESTiGE: Problems of Educational Standardisation and Transition in a Global Environment) was among twelve successful applications that year (out of a total of 97) and was the only award in the field of education. The Oxford part of the project is concerned with detailed analysis of the interpretation and implementation of European Union (EU) education and training policies in four Member States: France (as an exemplar of a centralised education system), Germany (as an exemplar of a federalised education system), Sweden (as a comparatively new EU Member State, representing the Scandinavian educational tradition), and the United Kingdom (as an exemplar of a traditionally decentralised education system) (cf. Phillips & Economou, 1999, p. 305). This volume presents the main findings of the Oxford PRESTiGE team. The aim of the Oxford project has been to examine the processes of transmission of EU policies from supranational to national, regional and local levels. The explanations for the dichotomy between the acceptance of EU education and training policy in the four Member States and its actual implementation are investigated, and an attempt is made to explain differences in the interpretation and implementation of the policies in the four countries. One major focus of the project is the different ways in which the two main EU programmes for education and training, SOCRATES and LEONARDO DA VINCI, are implemented. In a situation in which the sovereignty of individual Member States concerning their educational affairs is protected to a high degree by EU Treaties (especially in Articles 126 and 127 of the Maastricht Treaty), EU programmes are bound to affect national education systems in very different ways. The Oxford team has examined the aspects which affect implementation. In order to test the possibilities for in erpretation and implementation of the spirit of EU policy as outlined in the Maastricht Treaty, the Oxford team explores questions in the following two main areas: 1 David Phillips & Hubert Ertl (eds.), Implementing European Union Education and Training Policy: A Comparative Study of Issues in Four Member States, 1—11. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

2


1. How far is EU policy in education and training being dealt with largely outside of the realm of direct government (i.e. ministry) intervention? There are advantages to be seen in the reduction of dependence on national ministries of education, especially in higher education, where there might as a result be greater impetus for change (Field, 1998, p. 109). To what extent does this conflict with the competences and authorities of ministries? Where agencies exist within countries to facilitate EU programmes like SOCRATES and LEONARDO DA VINCI (both launched on the basis of the Maastricht Treaty) how have these agencies come into existence or developed competences? Have they been established by ministries as a ‘European branch’ of themselves, or have they sprung up de facto in response to the reality that the EU is funding the programmes in question? How far have sub-national authorities and agencies ‘started to develop effective transnational coalitions and alliances ... [which] may be helping to destabilise existing relationships and balances of power?’ (Field, 1998, p. 191). 2. Could more active involvement at the top level of government by ministries and agencies accelerate the process of integration? Koch (1998) argues that there has been a tendency since the mid-1980s of increased integration in the area of education, stimulated by the bottom-up approach of educational programmes which spread ‘best practice’ solutions to common challenges throughout the Member States. There is at present an absence of mechanisms to help institutions learn from the experience of ‘bypassing’ or ‘contracting-out’ (Field, 1998, p. 112). What mechanisms might be devised to assess such procedures and what combination of actors could most effectively develop such mechanisms? Hantrais (1995, pp. 56ff.) contends that there is a limited and uneven impact of EU programmes for education and training because national ministries and/or agencies have reacted to programme directives differently. How can the relationship between ministries, local authorities and agencies be redefined to reverse this situation? Research Hypotheses As well as questions about the implementation and interpretation of the two framework programmes SOCRATES and LEONARDO, the main policy issue investigated is the concept of a ‘European dimension’ in education and training. This frequently mentioned concept plays an important role as an interpretative framework for the investigation of the programmes. The Oxford team attempts to identify and explain differences in the interpretation of the concept in selected Member States. The European dimension in education and training is given prominence in EU legislation, for example in Article 126 of the Maastricht Treaty, and is further specified in EU policy documents, such as the Green Paper of the Commission of the European Communities (1993). This concept provides a powerful example of the

INTRODUCTION

3

relative effectiveness of policy interpretation and transmission in the Member States. Research on the European dimension in the UK and elsewhere, however, shows that effective awareness and implementation in this area is very patchy (Ryba, 1992, 1995, 1997; Hörner, 1997). Comparative research within the UK (comprising analysis of England, Wales and Scotland) demonstrates wide diversity (Phillips & Economou, 1999 and Economou, Savvides, in this present volume). This research suggests that such diversity has to do with various combinations of the following: cultural traditions (including what some comparativists have called ‘national character') and national political will will significantly affect interpretation; vested interests at all (political and administrative) levels will affect transmission and implementation by creating resistances; commitment of ‘significant actors’ contributes to effective implementation at various levels of the transmission of policy; institutional ignorance will impede all processes of interpretation, transmission and implementation; processes of reception of policy will inevitably result in a transformation (distortion) of the original policy as conceived at supranational level; and standardisation of policy within the Member States is likely to prove unrealistic in theory and unworkable in practice (Phillips & Economou, 1999, pp. 305f.). Methodological Considerations The hypotheses are tested through an analysis of the organisation and competence of ministries and agencies in the four countries covered by the project as well as their interaction with EU institutions. The main research methods applied are analysis of documents and relevant literature and semi-structured interviews at education ministries and national agencies involved in the implementation of EU policies and programmes in the field of education and training in the four countries. The findings of the analysis of relevant literature and documents provides the background for the identification of the topics for the interviews. During the interviews conducted at ministries and agencies in Paris, Bonn, Berlin, Munich, London and Stockholm questions on three interrelated areas of interest were asked: 1. The perception of the European dimension in education and training and its potential inclusion in school and training provision (curricula, training programmes, teacher training); 2. The implementation and administration of the two EU framework programmes for education and training in the national context as well as the impact of the programmes on the national provisions; and 3. The role and status of government and (semi-)private agencies in the implementation of EU policies in the field. Following the interviews, the data have been systematically evaluated and compared with the results of the documentary and literature analysis.

4


The establishment of close contacts with officials and practitioners has been seen as an objective throughout all stages of the study. Current developments are also taken into account as they influence the emphases in the ongoing research process. An example of such an event that influencedthe study was the vote of no confidence in and the subsequent resignation of the EU Commission in 1999. A further instance was the implementation of the new generation of EU programmes in education and training, SOCRATES and LEONARDO, at the beginning of the year 2000. A number of specific case studies extends and deepens the research project of the Oxford team. These case studies include a comparison of the interpretation of the European dimension in education within the United Kingdom (cf. Phillips & Economou, 1999 and Economou, 2001), an investigation of the role of EU programmes in the transition of vocational training in eastern Germany (Ertl, 1999a, 2000b and 2000d), a discussion of the structures and functions of secondary and prevocational education in Germany (Ertl & Phillips, 2000 and Ertl, 2001b), a comparison of modular structures in vocational education in a number of EU countries (Ertl, 2000a and 200la), and an investigation of the Nordic dimension in education and its impact on EU educational policies (Dahl, in this present volume). TMR Networks The work reported in this present volume has been undertaken within the framework of an international research project that determines the general research interest, research questions and scientific orientation. The TMR framework holds the work of the individual researchers together. A TMR network is a group of researchers. There must be at least five research teams from at least three countries who develop a common research and training proposal. The primary objective of a TMR network is to provide training-throughresearch, especially for young researchers, at both doctoral and post-doctoral level, within the framework of a transnational collaborative research project. The young researchers must be 35 years of age or younger. They must be willing to move to another EU country, since they cannot be employed in their country of origin or in a foreign country if they have already lived there for more than twelve months during the two years preceding their appointment (Commission, 2001a). Each TMR network starts formally with the establishment of a contract between the network participants and the European Commission. A network co-ordinator acts as the link between the network participants and the Commission and is required to prepare a number of reports on the progress of the network (Commission, 2001b). In 1990, the EU initiated the predecessors of TMR networks in its Third Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development within the action ‘Human Capital and Mobility’ (HCM). In the Fourth Framework Programme the title ‘Training and Mobility of Researchers’ was introduced. The first networks that received funding on the basis of the Fourth Framework Programme began in 1996. The TMR network described in this paper was funded by the Fourth Framework Programme. The last of the approximately 250 networks under the

INTRODUCTION

5

Fourth Framework Programme reached the end of their contract with the European Commission in 2002. In the Fifth Framework Programme this kind of network is called a ‘Research Training Network’. This Framework includes a ‘Human Potential Programme’ which co-ordinates and supports activities concerning the improvement of human research potential throughout the Fifth Framework Programme (Commission, 2000, p. 3). Therefore, the funding of research training networks by the EU has been expanded: Between 2000 and 2006 the European Commission expects to fund approximately 340 networks under the Fifth Framework Programme.1 The EU supports networks from a wide range of disciplines (Commission, 1998). In the Fifth Framework Programme, for instance, networks cover areas including chemistry, economics, social and human sciences, engineering, environmental science and geosciences, life sciences, mathematics, information technology, and physics (Commission, 2001c). TMR networks are funded for up to four years and normally receive a maximum of EURO 1.5 million. Funding for TMR networks is primarily provided for the appointment and employment of young researchers in each research team and also for overheads and certain direct costs (Commission, 2001d). While the specific emphasis of TMR networks has shifted in the course of the three Framework Programmes, the main aims of the European Commission regarding TMR networks have remained the same. They can be summarised as follows:2 to create linkages between research institutions in Europe, to reduce the fragmentation of research potential, to build up research resources in order to maximise the competitiveness of research and learning generated in Europe in the global context, to train young European researchers to the highest standard, to contribute to the development of a ‘European research community’, and to integrate young researches into this research community. The research topics are chosen by the researchers themselves and the European Commission does not impose research priorities (bottom-up approach). This differs from so-called ‘Key Action Research Programmes’ in which the subjects to be funded are chosen in advance by the European Commission and proposals are invited only on those topics (top-down approach). While for TMR networks the training of young researchers is central, Key Action Research Projects provide financial support for established researchers.

1

Email correspondence with the Chief Network Supervisor at the European Commission, March 2001.

2

Email correspondence with the Chief Network Supervisor at the European Commission, March 2001.

6


Structure of TMR networks In order to systematise the work of TMR networks it is necessary to define the role of the actors involved in such networks and the way they co-operate with each other. The systematisation given in this section uses a model developed by Sloane (1992) for the investigation and evaluation of pilot schemes in vocational training in Germany.3 This model assumes that the actors in a pilot scheme are part of institutions that regulate the way in which the actors co-operate with each other. In other words the regulations and rules set by institutions determine the relations between the actors at different institutions. However, as part of an institution the actors have the opportunity to influence the rules and regulations. Following this model, the actors and institutions involved in TMR networks in general and in the PRESTiGE network in particular can be illustrated as follows:

The primary aim of TMR networks is the training of young researchers. Therefore, these researchers are the starting point of the illustration. However, the training these young researchers receive and the research they undertake are not divorced from the outside world. The TMR young researchers are part of a number of institutions that can be allocated to at least four institutional levels. The young researchers are part of a TMR research team which undertakes a research project defined by the network. Each TMR research team is headed by a team leader. The research teams are based at research institutes which are, in turn, 3

Sloane, in turn, uses models developed by Grochla (1978) in the theory of organisations in the area of business administration. 4

The illustration used here is an adaptation of a model developed by Sloane (1992, p. 124).

INTRODUCTION

7

embedded in a wider academic environment. Again, this environment is institutionalised, for example in universities and research organisations. At this level, the young researchers are not only members of the research institution in the host country but also maintain contacts with their home universities and in many cases with the wider research environment of their countries of origin. The TMR research teams in their respective institutional affiliations are held together by the TMR network which determines the overall research topic. Formally, it is the TMR network rather than the individual research team that is funded by the European Commission. One team leader normally acts as network coordinator, represents the network and is responsible for reporting to the Commission. The research and training efforts of a TMR network do not exist independently and do not reach the young researchers directly. Rather, the training and research efforts are transmitted through and interpreted and adapted by the institutional structures. The institutions at the different levels interact with each other following certain mechanisms and rules. These mechanisms are represented as arrows between the institutional levels in Figure 1. From the perspective of systems theory, the organisation of TMR networks represents the structure of and workings within a complex system. This complex system is determined by a structure of subsystems and the relationships between the subsystems. The subsystems of a TMR network exist not only in relation with other subsystems of the network, but also with other complex systems which are not directly involved in the TMR network (Rohpol, 1978). For instance, at the level of the research institution, the network members are not only part of a specific university but are also integrated in the research community of a country. In an international perspective, the TMR network is part of the wider research community. * * * * The structure of the present volume reflects the core of our research endeavour in the PRESTiGE project: The introduction provides a general contextual setting; this is followed by a series of papers which focus on EU education and training policy in four Member States and include accounts of specific but related areas of interest, together with the findings of our research proper; the conclusions provide a wider horizon. The study represents a collaborative effort by researchers from different countries who are all working on questions of European integration in the field of education and training. TMR networks bring together researchers with varying degrees of experience and at different stages of their academic careers. The present volume includes work by the young researchers whose careers the TMR programme is designed to encourage and that of established researchers, including team leaders in the PRESTiGE network. The different views of people from different European countries mirror the perceptions and values that shape the discussion of terms such as harmonisation, recognition, convergence and subsidiarity in the educational sphere. The intention is to provide insight into the complex processes involved in the interpretation, transmission and implementation of EU education and training

8


policy in four Member States with interesting similarities and important differences in their approach to the questions which result from that policy. In the first paper, Hubert Ertl investigates the development of EU education and training policies and initiatives, ranging from the provisions in the Treaty of Rome to the latest policies in the areas of new information and communication technology and mobility. The paper traces the main directions of the growing EU influence on education and training in Europe and summarises the main critical aspects of EU expansion in the field of education and training (e.g. the role of the European Court of Justice, the debate surrounding the Maastricht Treaty, and the different treatment of general education and vocational training in the EU treaties). António Nóvoa and William deJong-Lambert introduce the concept of ‘unionisation’as a descriptive notion of the activities of the European Union in the area of social policy and most prominently in education and training. ‘Unionisation’ describes a multitude of processes that not only influence the development of national education and training systems in the EU countries, but also ensure that the direction of the developments is the same. In this context, the authors analyse and interpret current European policy making and governance. The concept of ‘unionisation’ provides an interpretative structure for the evaluation of the findings of the research project in the conclusions. With the paper by David Phillips, the investigation of individual EU countries begins. In his account he describes the particular relationship of England with the European Union. He outlines the provisions made in Article 126 and 127 of the Maastricht Treaty and the particularities of the English education system. On this basis he demonstrates how the European dimension in education is interpreted in the English context and makes reference to the English National Curriculum. In Bettina Dahl’s first contribution tensions between the European and a Nordic dimension in education are identified. In terms of education, the Swedish system is described in some detail and the potential of a Nordic dimension in education is hinted at. Finally, the aims of the European and the Nordic dimension in education are compared, certain areas of conflict are identified, and some suggestions regarding for the solution of the conflicts are outlined. The European dimension in education and its influence on one of the Member States are also the focus of the next paper. Anastasia Economou reviews the initiatives of the European Union on the one hand and of the relevant actors in England, Wales and Scotland on the other. In a comparative analysis she investigates the interpretation and implementation of the European dimension in the three UK countries. In line with Phillips’s earlier comments, English reservations regarding the European integration process are also reflected at the school level. Some of the particular problems in this area are explained and a number of tentative ways of solving these problems are suggested. Nicola Savvides investigates the interpretation of the European dimension in education in the English National Curriculum. She introduces the National Curriculum in its revised form and traces contents that imply learning about Europe in the different subject areas. A particular emphasis is put on the newly introduced subject of citizenship education.

INTRODUCTION

9

Hubert Ertl moves the focus away from the European dimension and looks in detail at the ways EU policies have influenced the transition of the training sector in eastern Germany. Firstly, he provides an overview of the transition of training in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Then he reviews the role of EU programmes and funding in the reconstruction process of vocational training in eastern Germany. In conclusion, the paper suggests ways of reforming programme and implementation structures in order to maximise the impact of EU programmes for the imminent enlargement of the European Union. In her second contribution Bettina Dahl focuses on the influence of EU education policies in Sweden. For this investigation she looks at the role of Sweden in the EU and the emphasis of Swedish educational policies in recent years. The paper assesses the contribution of EU education policies in Sweden as merely quantitatively important but not qualitatively influential. In a further contribution, Hubert Ertl provides a comprehensive account of the EU framework programmes SOCRATES (school and higher education) and LEONARDO da VINCI (vocational training) and their implementation in Sweden, Germany and the UK. He identifies converging implementation patterns in the countries examined and provides reasons for this convergence, suggesting ways in which the impact and effectiveness of the programmes could be enhanced. The last two contributions in the main body of the text focus on European issues in higher education. Jake Murdoch uses the European model of diplomas as suggested by the Attali Report as the starting point of an investigation into the higher education structures of eleven European countries. He examines to what extent the current structures resemble the model suggested in the Report and analyses the differentiations found in the eleven countries. Paula Branco da Cunha investigates student mobility in Europe and interprets the impact of exchanges on the higher education landscape in France. In particular the impact of the Erasmus programme is examined and put into the context of the discussion surrounding the concept of a European dimension in higher education. It is concluded that the figures for France indicate a substantial expansion of student mobility in Europe. Even if the overwhelming majority of students are not funded by the EU, the European dimension, i. e. the understanding that mobility enhances the development of a European identity, seems particularly strong in the sector of higher education. In an appendix, Wenke Siedersleben and Bettina Dahl provide a chronological account of major events regarding the policy area of education and training in the European Union. They also give an overview of the main EU institutions and their role in decision-making and administration concerning matters of education. These contributions are brought together in the concluding part by drawing common conclusions from the papers using the concept of ‘unionisation’ as introduced in the paper by António Nóvoa and William deJong-Lambert. The findings from the individual papers are evaluated in terms of their contribution to the process of unionisation. In the light of the imminent enlargement of the European Union, issues and problems for further research in this field of education and training are identified.

10


References Commission of the European Communities (1993): Green Paper on the European Dimension of Education (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities). Commission (1998): T raining and Mobility of Researchers (TMR) 1994 –1998: Work Programm Edition 1996-97 (Brussels: Commission). Commission (2000): Annual Report on the Socio-economic Dimension in the Fifth Framework Programme (Brussels: Commission). Commission (2001a): Research Training Networks, in: http://cordis.lu/imporving/networks/home.htm (08/03/2001). Commission (2001b): Research Training Networks, in: http://cordis.lu/imporving/networks/coodinators.htm (08/03/2001). Commission (2001c): Research Training Networks, in: http://improving-rtn.sti.jrc.it//network/ (08/03/2001). Commission (2001d): Research Training Networks: Guided Tour, in: http://cordis.lu/imporving/ networks/tour1.htm (06/03/2001). Economou, Anastasia (2001): UK Initiatives on the European Dimension in Schooling (unpublished working paper presented at the PRESTiGE workshop in Oxford, 6 - 9 January 2001). Ertl, Hubert (1998a): The Provisions of the European Union in the Field of Vocational Education and Training (München: IWS). Ertl, Hubert (1999a): The Transitions of Vocational Training in the Eastern Part of Germany: Some Notes on the Structural Duality of Training Provisions (München: IWS). Ertl, Hubert (2000a): Modularisation of Vocational Education in Europe: NVQs and GNVQs as a Model for the Reform of Initial Training Provisions in Germany? (Wallingford: Symposium Books). Ertl, Hubert (2000b): The Transitions of Vocational Education in the Eastern Part of Germany: Some Notes on the Role of European Union Programmes, in: Comparative Education Review, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 464-492. Ertl, Hubert (2000c): Die Arbeit des internationalen Forschungsnetzwerkes PRESTiGE, in: Fägerlind & O’Dowd (2000), pp. 3-15. Ertl, Hubert (2000d): Vocational Education and Training in Eastern Germany: Some Reasons and Explanations for Current Problems, in: Phillips (2000), pp. 125-151. Ertl, Hubert (2001a): Modularisation in Vocational Education and Training: Coceptualisations and Approaches in European Union Countries. Series: Cadernos PRESTiGE (Lisbon: Educa). Ertl, Hubert (2001b): Pre-vocational Education in Compulsory Schooling: Some Examples from Germany, in: Qualification and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (ed.) (2001): Vocationalism within General Education Programmes: a Comparative Perspective (London: QCA). Ertl, Hubert & Phillips, David (2000): The Enduring Nature of the Tripartite System of Secondary Schooling in Germany: Some Historical Explanations, in: British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.48, No. 4, pp. 391-412. Field, John (1998): European Dimensions: Education, Training and the European Union (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers). Grochla, Erwin (1978): Einführung in die Organisationstheorie. Series: Sammlung Poeschel, Vol. 93 (Stuttgart: Poeschel). Hantrais, Linda (1995): Social Policy in the European Union (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan). Hörner, Wolfgang (1997): 'Europa' als Herausforderung für die Vergleichende Erziehungswissenschaft Reflexionen über die politische Funktion einer pädagogischen Disziplin, in: Kodron et al. (1997), pp. 65-80. Koch, Richard (1998b): Harmonisierung oder Wettbewerb der Berufsbildungssysteme? Integrationskonzepte der Europäischen Gemeinschaft in der beruflichen Bildung, in: Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, Vol. 94, No. 4, pp. 505-518. Phillips, David & Economou, Anastasia (1999): Conducting Research into EU Education and Training Policy: Some Theoretical and Methodological Considerations, in: Compare, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 303-316. Rohpohl, G. (1978): ‘Einführung in die allgemeine Systemtheorie’, in: Lenk, Hans & Ropohl, G. (eds.) (1978): Systemtheorie als Wissenschaftsprogramm (Königsstein im Taunus: Athenäum-Verlag).

INTRODUCTION

11

Ryba, Raymond (1992): Towards a European Dimension in Education. Intention and Reality in European Community Policy and Practice, in: Comparative Education Review, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 10-24. Ryba, Raymond (1995): Is Progress Towards the Development of the European Dimension Satisfactory?, in: Phillips (1995a), pp. 63-76. Ryba, Raymond (1997): Developing the European Dimension in Practice: The Contribution of the Council of Europe's European Dimension Pedagogical Materials Programme, in: Kodron et al. (1997), pp. 262-271. Sloane, Peter F. E. (1992): Modellversuchsforschung. Überlegungen zu einem wirtschaftspädagogischen Forschungsansatz. Series: Wirtschafts-, Berufs- und Sozialpädagogische Texte, Vol. 18, (Köln: Müller Botermann).


HUBERT ERTL

THE EUROPEAN UNION AND EDUCATION AND TRAINING: AN OVERVIEW OF POLICIES AND INITIATIVES 1. INTRODUCTION The European Union1 is a relative newcomer as an actor in the field of education and vocational training. Vocational training featured in the Treaty of Rome of 1957, where it was closely bound to the basic aims of creating a common market for goods, services and capital. Over time, the Union’s remit has strayed well beyond these relatively narrow economic boundaries to encompass a broad range of social, cultural and security policies (Hantrais, 2000). This development is characterised by a sequence of steps in which the competence of the EU in the field of education and training has developed. The range of EU interests and activities has changed from one period to another. Further, influences on the educational agenda often originated in areas other than the educational field. For example, in the 1980s the sharp rise in youth unemployment shifted the emphasis considerably towards education for and in the world of work. At the beginning of the 1990s, the political and economic decision to establish monetary union necessitated closer co-operation in social affairs and education. The aim of this paper is to trace the changing emphases of the European Union in the field of vocational education and training and to identify the main reasons for these developments. Therefore, it can be seen as an attempt to ‘[...] understand the interaction of education and society by analyzing the historical forces [...] that had shaped both’ (Noah & Eckstein, 1969, p. 6); an approach which was the predominant modus operandi in comparative education at the turn of this century. The advocates of this approach used the conclusions of their historical analyses to influence educational reform and the future shape of society (Noah & Eckstein, 1969, pp. 40-57). Considering the ongoing process of European integration and the

1 The terms used to refer to what has become known as the European Union have developed gradually. They can be somewhat confusing and are also used interchangeably at times in the relevant literature. This study uses European Union, EU or Union to refer to the supranational actor under investigation. It was founded as the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957, changed its name to European Community (EC) in 1967 and formally became the European Union (EU) in 1993. This paper attempts to use the appropriate term for the respective periods under discussion. The language usage in this study, therefore, follows the pattern in other publications, most importantly in Richardson (1996) and Field (1998).

13 David Phillips & Hubert Ertl (eds.), Implementing European Union Education and Training Policy: A Comparative Study of Issues in Four Member States, 13—39. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

14

HUBERT ERTL

often very short-term view taken in proposals made for the future of this process, it seems to be more than justified to take the historical dimension into account. The EU has enjoyed continuous appeal, resulting in growing membership in recent decades and the strong wish of many countries in central and eastern Europe to become a part of the Union (cf. Anderson, 1997. pp. 27-36). Further, unlike other international bodies such as the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation), or the Council of Europe, the European Union rests on a juridical base which can provide for legislation that is binding on Member States, and enforceable by sanctions (Schink, 1993, p. 11). Although these means of enforcement are rarely used in most areas of co-operation, their existence gives the Union a much broader scope for potential action compared to other supranational organisations (Rego, 1997, pp. 7-12; Neave, 1984, pp. 5-7).2 Therefore, the concentration on the European Union is dictated by the political and socio-economic realities in Europe. The development of provision in the field of education and training will be presented in a chronological account and in five distinct phases to provide a clear picture of different emphases of EU education and training policies at different times. It is inevitable that the identification of historical periods and phases of time is affected by the individual knowledge-base and attitudes of the researcher.3 Although there were initially mostly informal attempts at co-operation in education and training between European countries immediately after the end of World War II (cf. Moon, 1993), this account starts with the first formal agreements laid down in the founding Treaties of the European Economic Community. 2. INITIATION PHASE (1951 – 1963): THE TREATIES OF PARIS AND ROME AND THEIR IMPACT ON EDUCATION AND TRAINING The legal basis of the original European Community rests upon three treaties: the Treaty of Paris (1951), which set up the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), and the two Treaties of Rome (1957) which set up the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Committee (Euratom).4 None of the Treaties included substantial provision for general education. Despite the fact that the preamble of the Treaty of Rome declared the will of the six Member States 2

For a detailed account on the differences in the legislative powers of the European Union and the Council of Europe in the field of education and training see Ryba (2000, pp. 246ff.). 3

For the pitfalls of historical periodisation in comparative education see Phillips (1994). For a different periodisation of EU competences in education and training see, for instance, Müller-Solger et al. (1993) and Hingel (2001). 4

In the relevant literature, the two latter Treaties are almost exclusively referred to as the ‘Treaty of Rome’. This paper will follow this convention. For the text of the three Treaties mentioned in this section see Beutler et al., 1993.

THE EUROPEAN UNION AND EDUCATION AND TRAINING

15

‘[...] to lay the foundations for an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’, clear references were made only to vocational education. As a consequence, no subsequent legislation gave the Community any supranational powers concerning schools, colleges and universities, and it was not until the mid-1970s that actions in the field of general education developed progressively on the basis of resolutions (Commission, 1993, Annex B). Article 56 of the ECSC Treaty included the task for the Community to finance the retraining of employees. Articles 7 and 9 of the Euratom Treaty provided for training programmes and the establishment of a European university for the training of skilled workers. In the EEC Treaty there were several articles dealing with training matters: Article 41 envisaged inter alia effective co-ordination of activities in the fields of vocational training and research; Article 50 proposed exchange programmes for young people and employees; Article 57 provided for the mutual recognition of diplomas and qualifications in the context of the free movement of persons and the right of establishment, and Article 118 entrusted the Commission with ‘[...]the task of promoting close co-operation between Member States [...]’ in a variety of social questions, particularly in ‘[...] basic and advanced vocational training [...]’.5 The most important provision for vocational education, however, can be found in Article 128 of the EEC Treaty, in which the Community agreed to create principles for a common policy in this field: The Council shall, acting on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, lay down general principles for implementing a common vocational training policy capable of contributing to the harmonious development both of the national economies and of the common market.

The different approaches towards general and vocational education in the founding Treaties can be identified in the commitment to free movement of labour across the Community (Art. 48; see McLean, 1995, pp. 29f.), which played a dominant role from the beginning together with other economic objectives, laid down in the Treaty of Rome. Vocational education was seen as an instrument for enhancing economic integration. Article 128 is included as the very last article in the chapter ‘Social Fund’, and its few brief lines do not give a sufficient basis to identify clearly the responsibilities given to Community institutions. There seems to be a contradiction between the aim of ‘a common vocational training policy’ on the one hand and ‘general principles’ as the basis of such a common policy on the other. The formulation of Article 128 did not fit into the system of policy instruments and decision-making procedures as provided in the Treaty.6 This and other uncertainties justify the view of Fahle (1989, p. 83) who holds that 5 For lists of all the articles in the EEC, ESCS and the Euratom Treaty which refer to the different sectors of education and training see Fahle (1989, p. 20) and Moschonas (1998, pp. 12f.). For a discussion of the impact of these articles see for example Cludius (1995), Nowoczyn (1996) and Walkenhorst (1997). 6 The system of policy instruments set up in the Treaty of Rome were very similar to those still in place today. Article 189 TEU lists Regulations, Directives, Decisions, Recommendations and Opinions as the

16

HUBERT ERTL The interpretation of Article 128 is amongst the most difficult areas of EC law. Whereas the EC-Commission interprets it generously (and the European Court of Justice partly supports this broadminded interpretation), the Member States interpret Article 128 restrictively and grant the EC only limited competences in this area.

In 1985, the European Court of Justice expressed its view on the question of competences in the field of education and training.7 The Court emphasised that a common policy should be developed gradually and that the enforcement of general principles, as well as the co-operation of the Member States, should be the main priorities (Gravier case, see Oppermann, 1991, p. 716; Lane, 1993, pp. 947f.; Delgado & Losa, 1997, pp. 133f.). In 1989, the Court stated in the ‘Erasmus-verdict’ that the Community has the right to pass statutes which introduce Community joint actions in the field of vocational education and training and which entail corresponding obligations for the Member States (Oppermann, 1991, pp. 717f.; Barnard, 1992 and 1995). The ruling of the European Court of Justice is highly controversial. From a German point of view, for instance, there have been two main criticisms. Firstly, critics argue that the verdicts neglect the consequences of their interpretation. In Germany, for example, observers considered that the cultural sovereignty of the federal states had been challenged by the Court.8 Secondly, the ruling of the Court ignored the fact that the political will to take action in this area had been absent in the European Council, the Commission and the Parliament for most of their existence. In the view of the Deutscher Bildungsrat (German Council for Education) the verdicts of the Court could not substitute the formulation of political demands and objectives by the other European institutions (Rothe, 1995, p. 5). As a result of this controversy, Community institutions were delayed in their attempt to act according to the tasks set out in the Treaty of Rome. 3. FOUNDATION PHASE (1963 – 1976): GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING AND THE EDUCATION ACTION PROGRAMME The European Council apparently carried out the instruction stated in Article 128 (EEC Treaty) in 1963 when it agreed on ten general principles for setting up a common policy for vocational education and training (Decision 63/226 of 2 April policy instruments of the three main EU institutions (Parliament, Council, Commission) and regulates their respective legal status. However, the ‘general principles’ are not covered by Article 189. 7

In the Forcheri case of 1982 (concerning the right of a foreign worker from a Community country to an educational grant in a different Member State), the Court had already applied the principle of nondiscrimination in relation to vocational education (Delgado & Losa, 1997, pp. 132ff.). 8 Ingo Hochbaum argues that the Court disregarded the internal structure of the Member States, for instance the principle of federalism in Germany (Hochbaum, 1989, pp. 175ff). Similar reservations concerning the potential conflict between EU education policies and the cultural autonomy of the Lander in Germany were expressed in a report published by the Federal Ministry for Education and Research in 1991 (Baur et al., 1991, p. 92).


17

1963). Most importantly, the principles contained the commitment to give all people the opportunity to receive adequate training in order to be able to exercise free choice of occupation and place of work, and to reach new and higher levels of employment. The second principle set out the objective of a common policy which would guarantee adequate training for all. However, the legal status of these guidelines has been questioned (Flynn, 1988). Although they were laid down by the Council as a ‘Decision’, the principles were not regarded as legally binding by most of the Member States.9 As a consequence, the subsequent actions in this field took place at an intergovernmental, rather than at a supranational level (Barnard, 1995, p. 14f.). Similar problems in the Member States were primarily discussed at the national level and initiatives were developed in isolation from other countries rather than in co-operation. As most Member States did not consider the ten general principles of 1963 legally binding, joint action in the field of vocational education and training was very limited. This trend was reinforced by the fact that training did not have a high priority in the six Member States. The Community Directorate General V (Social Affairs), which was responsible for vocational training from 1963 to 1976, followed the traditional dichotomy between general and vocational education, as did most systems of education in Europe at that time (Neave, 1988, pp. 100-104). From this point of view, vocational education was principally determined by economic considerations. As the Community was primarily regarded as an economic entity, vocational training policy was seen as a mere instrument for encouraging the mobility of workers. Some observers have described the EC from its beginning up to the mid1970s as the ‘Europe of traders’ or the ‘Europe of merchants’ (Rubio, 1997, pp. 72ff.). Rubio argues that the ‘Europe of Education’ started in 1974-76, when the Education Committee was created. This new body was composed of the Member States’ Ministers of Education and of the European Commission. It initiated several programmes of permanent action and co-operation in the field of general education. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that during the economic boom of the 1960s staff and financial resources inside the European Commission were limited in matters concerning education (Ryba, 1992, p. 12). It was not until the early 1970s that the situation changed. This was due to a number of interrelated reasons. There were two main rationales for the increased interest in education and training at the time. Firstly, a number of politicians of the generation who had experienced crises and war in Europe saw education as a means to create the ‘new European citizen of the future’ (Leibfried & Pierson, 1996, p. 186). The influence of this idea may be best illustrated by the developments concerning the establishment of the European University Institute (EUI). The postwar idea of a university that would promote common citizenship among young Europeans had been mooted in the mid-1950s. It was not until 1972 that nine states agreed on such an institution, which was established in the form of the EUI in Florence four years later (Fritsch, 1998, pp. 24ff.). However, the Institute has been 9

Barnard suggests an inaccurate translation into English and that the principles are not a Decision sui generis (Barnard, 1995, pp. 14, 24).

18

HUBERT ERTL

limited to social sciences and humanities as a research centre and does not have the status of an EU institution (Kreher, 1996). This obscure status is due to the aforementioned disputed legal position of education in the Treaty of Rome. The EUI was created outside the Community’s institutional framework by intergovernmental agreement (cf. Field, 1998, p. 28). This represents an example of intergovernmental rather than supranational co-operation of the Member States in educational matters. The second and more tangible reason for the increased interest in education and training at the beginning of the 1970s was the difficult economic situation. Youth unemployment rose all over Europe due to the severe depression, initially caused by the oil crisis of 1973. The recognition of the fact that many young people entered the labour market with no qualifications after leaving school at the age of 16 or less caused a reconsideration of the role of education and training, not only at the national, but also at the Community level. But, once again, training was seen as a means to economic ends. In a Council Resolution in 1974, the Community agreed on a Social Action Programme in which the development of full employment was the main priority. In this context, vocational training was considered to be a crucial element of a strategy for economic recovery. It was the economic pressure of the time that made a new relationship between general and vocational education possible. For Neave (1988, pp. 102ff.), the concept of vocationalisation began to determine the agenda of education policy at the Commission level. He identified two directions of vocationalisation: One approach advocated the extension of vocational elements in compulsory education; the other aimed to see elements of general education strengthened in vocational training.10 The new relationship between general and vocational education was stipulated for the first time by the Janne Report (1973, named after Henri Janne, the former Minister of Education in Belgium, who was asked by the Commission to investigate the basis for a Community policy in education) (McMahon, 1995, pp. 4f). The Report, entitled For a Community Policy in Education, influenced the discussion in the field of education because it stated clearly that the division of general and vocational education was a major obstacle to a common policy in both fields: [...] there is no longer any good vocational training that does not comprise a sound general training at all levels, and there is no longer any good general training which is not linked with concrete practice, and, in principle, with real work (Janne, 1973, p. 18f.).

Furthermore, the findings of the Report contributed significantly to the Education Action Programme passed by the Council of Ministers in 1976 (Brock & Tulasiewicz, 1994, p. 7; McMahon, 1995, pp. 4ff.). This Action Programme was adopted by the Member States’ Ministers of Education who met more or less

10 Neave (1984, pp. 60-65; 1988, pp. 100-105) elaborates on these different policy approaches which were held by different European General Directorates – a situation that contributed to the uncertainty within the Commission at that time. He also briefly describes the underlying forces of these two approaches, which can be seen to have similar consequences.


19

regularly within the Council of Ministers from 1974 onwards.11 The Education Ministers established an Education Committee. The Committee and the Action Programme of 1976 represent the real foundation of co-operation in general education (Commission, 1993, p. 17; Brock & Tulasiewicz, 2000, p. 26.). The establishment of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Education (CEDEFOP) in West Berlin in 1975 (it was transferred to Thessaloniki, Greece, in 1995) was central to new initiatives. The Centre saw its role in the analysis of systems of vocational education, in the development and recognition of qualifications and in the co-ordination of information and communication between Member States (CEDEFOP, 1997b, p. 7). In retrospect, it can be said that CEDEFOP substantially increased the research capacity in the field by disseminating publications, running a documentation centre and funding research groups. Furthermore, it provided a focus for exploring various policy options, a function which can be seen as decisive for the Commission’s policy in the late 1970s and 1980s (Preston, 1991, pp. 51f.). 4. EXPANSION PHASE (1976 – 1992): THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAMMES AND THE CONCEPT OF A EUROPEAN DIMENSION IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING The 1976 Action Programme for Education entrusted the Commission with the organisation of exchanges of educational expertise and with the initiation of pilot projects that investigated ways to facilitate the transition from school to the world of work. The significance of the 1976 Action Programme lies not so much in these comparatively modest aims, but in the fact that education was legitimised as an area of policy by the Council of Ministers for the first time. The Programme triggered off an increasing number of related initiatives and projects that can be seen as the forerunners of today’s EU framework programmes in education and training (Field, 1998, p. 32). However, the Action Programme of 1976 and all subsequent Community actions in general education up to the 1980s were undertaken by virtue of ‘implicit competence’ because no explicit legal basis in this field was yet in place (Delgado & Losa, 1997, pp. 131ff.).12 In the absence of a clear legal basis, the European Court of Justice interpreted Article 128 of the Treaty of Rome in some verdicts and decisions in a way that indicated that the Community institutions had the right to adopt legislation in the field of vocational education and training which was binding on the Member States. Moreover, the Court interpreted higher education as part of vocational education 11 Strictly speaking, regular meetings of the Member States’ Ministers of Education started from 1980 when they met for the second time to receive a report on the Action Programme of 1976 (Bardong, 1994, p. 64). However, the creation of the Education Committee in 1974 signalled that the Member States acknowledged education as an issue for Community intervention. 12

Lenaerts refers to ‘implied powers’ with regard to legislative powers given to the Community by the Member States in cases in which the Treaty rules alone do not suffice to attain a soundly working common market (Lenaerts, 1994, p. 11).

20

HUBERT ERTL

and, therefore, extended the scope of Community actions substantially (Milner, 1998, p. 161). The Court’s decisions encouraged the Commission and the Council to organise a new wave of projects and programmes in all areas of education from the mid-1980s onwards. In addition, the challenges of information technology and the consistently high levels of youth unemployment, no longer seen as a temporary problem as had been the case in the 1970s, were the main reasons for the creation of action programmes in the following years.13 The first of these new programmes was Comett (European Community Action Programme in Education and Training for Technology), established in 1986. In the field of higher education, the basis for Erasmus (European Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students) was established in 1987. A number of programmes in the context of vocational education were also developed, providing a wide range of opportunities for institutions and individuals. The most important programme in the field of vocational education and training was Petra, launched in 1988. Petra supported the Member States in providing the opportunity for all young people to attend vocational training for at least one year after compulsory schooling. The validity of Petra was challenged by several Member States (including the UK and Germany) on the grounds that it permitted the European Commission to supplement the activities of the Member States to promote a common vocational training policy (Lonbay, 1989, p. 368). The European Court of Justice once more ruled in favour of the Commission. In the opinion of the Court the general principles on vocational education and training of 1963 gave the Commission the mandate for such a programme (Sellin, 1999, p. 19). Further Community actions in education and training around the mid-1980s included the introduction of five Community-wide levels of vocational qualifications and certificates (EC Decision 85/386 of June 1985). These levels constitute the framework for mutual recognition and transparency of qualifications in the Member States (Zimmermann, 1993, p. 338; Wiegand, 1996b, pp. 262ff.). In order to make the system operable, CEDEFOP initiated a comparability exercise which resulted in SEDOC (Register of Occupations and Professions in International Exchange), a register of more than 200 comparable occupational activities. CEDEFOP developed SEDOC in co-operation with experts from all Member States. The register contains descriptions of occupational profiles and the basic requirements of occupations for the award of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of qualifications recognised by the respective Member States (Sellin, 1996, pp. 21ff.). In 1993, 209 occupational profiles were unanimously agreed upon by the EU Member States in co-operation with the associations of the social partners at European level. Descriptions of the occupational profiles and comparative tables outlining training paths and qualifications have been published in the Official Journal of the EU. For a list of these profiles see Piehl & Sellin (1995, p. 213).

13 There are a variety of publications dealing with European educational projects and programmes initiated from the mid-1980s onwards, e.g. Funnell & Müller (1991, chapter 4), Preston (1991), Kirby & Lamb (1997).


21

SEDOC was further developed in the EC Programme Comparability of Vocational Training Qualifications (Sellin, 1992).14 In the field of general education, the concept of a European dimension in education was widely discussed. This concept is frequently proposed as a way forward with regard to the discussions about the integration process in Europe. Although the term first appeared in the Janne Report (Janne, 1973) and the EC Education Action Programme of 1976 (Ryba, 1992, p. 11), the concept of a European dimension was not further specified until 1988, when the Council of Ministers agreed on a formal definition (Resolution 88/C177/02 of 24 May 1988: Enhancing the European Dimension of Education) (cf. Appendix). The general aims of this concept are to enhance young people’s awareness of their European identity and to prepare them to take part in the economic and social development of the Community, to create awareness of the advantages of and challenges to the Community, to improve knowledge of the Community as well as of the individual Member States, and to emphasise to them the importance of co-operation with the wider international community. This concept found its way into the Treaty of Maastricht (Art. 126(2)) and was further developed in the 1993 Green Paper on the European Dimension of Education (Commission, 1993).15 As a preparation for the Single European Market, which was agreed on in the Single European Act (SEA) of 1986 and came into effect on 1 January 1993, the aforementioned education and training programmes were reorganised and restructured. The primary aim of the SEA was to complete the internal market, an objective which had already been present in the Treaty of Rome.16 The Single European Act does not explicitly refer to education. However, it was broadly agreed upon at the time that the challenges of an internal market as a space without internal frontiers also had to be faced in the field of education. In fact, there was wideranging discussion among EU institutions and European educationists about the consequences of the Act for the educational sector:17 [...] the removal of barriers has led to an interest in education together with training within the economic, financial, social, political and technological processes of internal market change which are under way (Brock & Tulasiewicz, 1994, p. 8).

14 For the reasons for the limited success of the SEDOC Register in the Member States and later developments in the question of recognition and comparability see Scheerer (1998), Bjørnåvold & Sellin (1998) and Blitz (1999). 15 For details about the development of the idea of a European dimension in education in the European movement before and after 1976 (including not only the European Community but also the Council of Europe and other institutions) see Haigh (1970), Neave (1984), Ryba (1992, 1995, 1997, 2000), Lagner (1997) and Desmet (1994). 16 Not surprisingly, the main discussion of the time was concerned with the anticipated economic consequences of the Single European Market. (See for example the predictions of PROGNOS, a Swiss forecasting company mentioned in Hancock (1991) pp. 39f.). 17

In their introductory chapter, Brock & Tulasiewicz (1994) give an overview of the measures planned and/or taken by Community institutions at the time.

22

HUBERT ERTL

Milner (1998, p. 160) identified four main streams of thinking as the reasons for the increased interest of EC policy-makers in education and training. First, economic competitiveness was increasingly seen as dependent on the optimum use of skills and qualifications. Second, the principle of worker mobility (one of the main aims of the SEA) was seen to require transnational elements in education and training provision, thus justifying more far-reaching Community co-ordination of national policies in these fields. Third, the SEA caused calls for measures to ensure a ‘level playing field’ in economic terms. As a consequence the establishment of comparable conditions for training and education in the EC Member States was demanded. Fourth, it became clear that the aim of social cohesion in the Community required compensatory measures (for instance in the form of employment and retraining initiatives) initiated by the EC institutions. All these developments connected with the SEA not only ‘[...] provided the justification for increased Community action’ but also ‘[...] allowed the Commission to develop a Community policy which went beyond previous competence [by setting up] a policy network which to some extent bypassed national government’ (Milner, 1998, p. 160). One of the consequences of this was that the Commission set up a ‘Task Force’ in 1985 as a separate policy unit for initiating policies in the training sector. Further, the four aforementioned EC programmes were amended and extended in the time between the passing (1986) and implementation (1993) of the SEA: Erasmus II and Comett II started in 1990; the agreement on Petra was amended in 1991, and as a result Petra II began in 1992; and Force, a programme promoting continuing vocational education, began in 1990 (Funnell & Müller, 1991, p. 75; Europäische Kommission, 1996, p. 89). The updated programmes were designed to promote competitiveness through the encouragement of labour mobility and to complement the competitiveness agenda through the creation of a ‘citizen’s Europe’ (Field, 1997. p. 98; Schink, 1993, p. 175). A further incentive for the extension of EU activities in the fields of higher education and training was the fall of the ‘Iron Curtain’ in October 1989. In 1990, the EU launched a new programme specifically designed to support co-operation between EU Member States and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Teichler, 1996 and Field, 1998, pp. 95-101). This programme was called Tempus (Trans-European Mobility Scheme for University Studies) and has been renewed twice since 1990 (Tempus II from 1994 to 2000 and Tempus III from 2000 to 2006). Tempus has gradually extended to 28 countries, including the associated countries in central and eastern Europe, the new independent states of the former Soviet Union, and countries in south-east Europe (Commission, 2001e). Generally speaking, the projects and programmes enhance transnational learning opportunities within the institutional framework of the EU, and also represent a step towards the development of a ‘People’s Europe’18. By the beginning of the 1990s, a

18

The development of a ‘People’s Europe’ was initiated at the European Summit Meetings of 1984 and 1985 in Fontainebleau and Milan respectively and aimed at greater consideration of ordinary citizens’ concerns (Ryba, 1992, p. 12).

THE EUROPEAN UNION

AND

EDUCATION

AND

TRAINING

23

range of Community programmes in the field of education and training were well established. The programmes must be regarded as closely linked to the Community’s commitment to the principle of converging working conditions and workers’ living conditions throughout all Member States, set out in the 1989 Social Charter.19 Although the Charter is not legally binding, Article 15 specifies that ‘Every worker [...] must be able to have access to vocational training and to benefit therefrom throughout his working life’ (quoted in Barnard, 1995, p. 21). Considering this clearly formulated commitment towards vocational education for all and the discussion on the Single European Act and its consequences for education, it can be said that the next major changes in the field, introduced by the Treaty on European Union, were made in a favourable climate (Sellin, 1995b, p. 187). 5. CONSOLIDATION PHASE (FROM 1992): THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION (MAASTRICHT TREATY) AND ITS CONSEQUENCES The expansion of competencies and responsibilities of the Community in the field of education throughout the 1970s and 1980s caused the need for a more precise and unambiguous legal basis in Community law. The aforementioned uncertainties about the provision for education and training in the Treaty of Rome made the Community’s actions in the field increasingly vulnerable to diverging interpretations of the Articles in question: Between 1957 and 1992, every Commission proposal was faced with assertions of sovereignty by the member states, usually acting through the Council but sometimes resorting individually to legal challenges to the Union’s proposals (Field, 1997, p. 97).

These uncertainties led to a strong reliance on intergovernmental rather than supranational co-operation in matters of education and training. Some commentators argue that new and clearly defined competencies in the field of general schooling were necessary because the recognition of vocational qualifications had an increasing influence on courses, leaving certificates, and diplomas in general education (Rothe, 1995, p. 5). Therefore, the Treaty on European Union (TEU, also called ‘Maastricht Treaty’) dealt with vocational education and training (Art. 127, which replaced Art. 128 of the Treaty of Rome) and, in an explicit way for the first time, with general education (Art. 126). Both Articles are included in the new chapter 3 of the Treaty, entitled ‘Education, Vocational Training and Youth’, under Title VIII (‘Social, Education, Vocational Training and Youth Policies’). In the field of general education, the role of the Community is limited to supporting and supplementing the actions of, and encouraging co-operation between, Member States:

19

The Social Charter was adopted by all Member States except the UK. (Commission, 1996, p. 7).

24

HUBERT ERTL The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging co-operation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action [...] (Art. 126(1) TEU).

In contrast, the Community’s competencies in vocational education go further: The Community shall implement a vocational training policy which shall support and 20 supplement the action of the Member States [...] (Art. 127(1) TEU).

It can be argued that the competencies of the Community were substantially extended by the TEU. General education was neither explicitly considered in the 1957 Treaty of Rome nor in the SEA of 1986. For vocational education, Article 128 in the EEC Treaty gave the Council the right to ‘[...] lay down general principles [...]’, but Article 127 TEU entitled the Community to ‘[...] adopt measures to contribute to the achievement of the objectives [...]’ (Art. 127(4); author’s emphases) specified in the Article. These measures can be interpreted as ‘[...] legally-binding regulations, directives and decisions, or non-binding recommendations and options’ (Barnard, 1995, p. 20). The EU policy in vocational education enjoys a strengthened position as a result of its changed Treaty status (Bardong, 1994, p. 74; Cram, 1997, p. 43). The fourth paragraph of Article 127 refers the procedures of the Council to Article 189C. This means in essence that simple majority voting in matters of vocational training was replaced by qualified majority voting and that the European Parliament has a more important role in the procedures of decision making. Before the Maastricht Treaty clarified this matter, there was much debate about whether Article 128 in the Treaty of Rome (allowed majority voting) was a sufficient basis for Council Decisions concerning vocational training, or whether it needed to be supplemented by Article 235 (required unanimity) (Delgado & Losa, 1997, p. 136).21 In spite of the different treatment of general and vocational education in Articles 126 and 127 of the TEU, both Articles are similarly structured and extremely cautiously formulated. They explicitly exclude ‘[...] any harmonization of the laws and regulations of the Member States’ (Art. 126(4), Art. 127(4) TEU) and both state that the Community ‘[...] fully [respects] the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems’ [‘of vocational training’] (Art. 126(1), [127(1)]). These clauses mirror the principles of subsidiarity (as established in the Maastricht Treaty and reinforced in the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997) and cultural autonomy as laid down in the TEU and apply them to education. According to the principle of subsidiarity, the Community’s competences are strictly limited to areas in which the Treaty explicitly authorises such actions and in which the intended aims cannot be attained sufficiently by Member States independently:

20 21

For the full text of the Articles see Rudden & Wyatt, 1999.

For a detailed explanation of the relevant voting procedure see Sellin (1993, pp. 2ff.); and for the negotiations prior to the Maastricht Treaty concerning the reform of EU voting procedures see Lankowski (1998, pp. 41ff.).


25

[...] the Community shall take action [...] only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, [...] be better achieved by the Community (Art. 3b TEU).

Cultural autonomy, mainly referred to in Article 128(1) TEU, explicitly emphasises the Community’s contribution ‘[...] to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity [...]’ (see also Rubio, 1997, pp. 86ff.; Delgado & Losa, 1997, pp. 149-158). The Treaty itself and its consequencies for education and training were discussed and interpreted by experts in the field as well as debated in Community institutions.22 Some writers argued that Articles 126 and 127 of the TEU merely underpin the status quo of competences increasingly assumed by the Commission and Council in the 1970s and 1980s (Sprokkereef, 1995, pp. 345f.; Delgado & Losa, 1997, pp. 142f.,167; Hörner, 1997, p. 67) and that an opportunity was missed to create a European framework for education and training (Geissler, 1994, pp. 323f.). It appears that the explicit reference to non-harmonisation was the price paid for including education in the Treaty, as several Member States were very concerned about the possible effects of its incorporation. Germany and the UK especially feared a gradual expansion of the EC powers at the expense of national or regional competences if education was covered by the Treaty (Sprokkereef, 1995, p. 345).

Field (1998, p. 62) argues that the Maastricht Treaty reinforces the boundaries between education and vocational training since it uses two separate articles to cover the two sectors. A different line of argumentation, however, emphasises the combined effects of the Treaty’s provisions which make exchange of information and mobility of labour possible on a wider scale and promote the compatibility of national systems (Bardong, 1994, pp. 71ff.; ETUCE, 1995, pp. 18f.). The inclusion of a Treaty article on education establishes that general education is viewed as distinct from vocational training. This is an important example of the institutionalisation of existing actions on the part of the Commission (Cram, 1997, p. 45). Further, the Treaty widens the objectives of education and vocational training. For instance, it is made clear for the first time that Union actions cover both initial and continuing training, and that vocational training is seen as a means of helping businesses to adapt to change (Milner, 1998, p. 163). The Union’s main stimulation for the processes made possible by the new Treaty are the programmes SOCRATES and LEONARDO DA VINCI, both launched in 1995 on the basis of Articles 126 and 127 respectively. SOCRATES was established by Council and Parliament Decision 95/819/EC for the five-year period between 1995 and 1999. In 1998, Council and Parliament Decision 98/576/EC extended the programme to the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Cyprus and increased the financial framework from ECU 850 million (Art. 7, Decision 95/819/EC) to ECU 920 million. The programme comprised a collection of 22

Cf. for example Piehl & Sellin (1993), ETUCE (1995), CEDEFOP (1995a), Sellin (1996), Europäische Kommission (1996), Delgado & Losa (1997), Rubio (1997), Hörner (1997), Führ (1997).

26

HUBERT ERTL

programmes which had existed before 1995 (Erasmus, Lingua and Arion in particular) as well as a new small-scale programme for school partnerships introduced in 1995 (Comenius).23 LEONARDO DA VINCI was established by Council Decision 94/819/EC (Council, 1994) for the same five-year period as SOCRATES, funded with ECU 620 million [Art. 5 of Council (1994)]. It represented a new framework for extended EU activities, formerly supported by the programmes Petra, Force, Eurotecnet, and parts of Lingua, Iris and Comett.24 After an initial period of time devoted to developing bilateral exchange programmes and information networks, the emphasis of the programmes then shifted to multilateral actions considered beneficial for the education and training sector of the whole Union and with the aim of integrating initial and further education (Fahle, 1995, pp. 26f.; Bender, 1995, pp. 21-24). Both programmes were extended for the seven-year period between 2000 and 2006 with similar contents and administrative structures (cf. Council, 1999a and Council, 2000a). Both programmes continued the successful activities of the first generation. Moreover, they supplemented those activities by including particular foci on lifelong learning and multimedia use. SOCRATES II includes two new subprogrammes: Grundtvig for adult education and other educational pathways, and Minerva for open and distance learning and information and communication technology in education (Art. 3 and Annexes of Council, 2000a). LEONARDO II is characterised by a substantially streamlined structure. Instead of a multitude of aims, as in LEONARDO I, the new programme concentrates on a few overarching priorities such as the promotion of the European dimension and the quality of innovation in the three main areas of vocational education (initial training, further training and competitiveness) (BIBB, 2000a). Application procedures were simplified and implementation was decentralised (BIBB, 2000b). Both new programmes emphasise more than hitherto joint actions between the programmes and also joint actions within the framework of the action programme ‘Youth’ (in particular, the urge for the consistency of the programmes is laid down in Art. 9 of Council, 2000a and Art. 6 of Council, 1999a). The extension of the programmes and the fact that the funding for them was increased to EUR 1,850 million for SOCRATES (Art. 10 of Council, 2000a ) and to EUR 1,150 million for LEONARDO (Art. 12 of Council, 1999a) show that they are regarded more than ever as a major contribution in the Union’s drive against youth unemployment, a policy also mirrored in the objectives of the European Social Fund (Barnard, 1995, p. 21). An overarching aim of LEONARDO and SOCRATES has been the development of a European dimension in education and training. In this respect the programmes

23

For the particular importance of the Comenius programme for the development of the European dimension in schools see Ryba (2000, p. 255).

24

For a description of the functions and duration of the programmes see for example Field (1998) and chapter 9 in this present volume.


27

follow the Maastricht Treaty which takes up the European dimension for general education, setting the aim of [...] developing the European dimension in education, particularly through the teaching and dissemination of the languages of the Member States [...] (Art. 126(2) TEU).

The Treaty does not, however, specify the precise meaning of the concept of the European dimension, nor does it suggest ways in which it could be put into practice (Lagner, 1997, p. 26f.). This absence of operationalised objectives is at the root of the failure of the concept to influence educational practices in the Member States by introducing a European dimension to national provision. Ryba (1992, p. 22ff.) compared official national views regarding the incorporation of the European dimension in education with the opinions of nonofficial but expert commentators in the countries concerned. His findings emphasise an enormous gulf between realities perceived by policy-makers and educational practitioners. He concluded that fundamentally different time-scales and an emphasis on project-type activities instead of the creation of self-sustained programmes are the main reasons for the relative failure of the implementation of the European dimension in education. Lagner (1997, pp. 29f.) identifies the main obstacles for a more efficient introduction of the concept in German schools as the lack of cohesive strategies on a national level, subject-based methods of teaching, and the lack of appropriate teaching materials. The latter obstacle was tackled by the Council of Europe’s European Dimension Pedagogical Materials Programme (EDPM Programme) (Ryba, 1997 and 2000). As well as these obstacles there are also indications of a lack of political will by the Member States to introduce the European dimension on a significant scale. For example, Morrell (1996, pp. 1f.) argues that ‘The European dimension has been virtually excluded from the National Curriculum Orders’ in England, a policy that ‘[...] has never been publicly justified’ but represented ‘[...] the wishes of sections of the Conservative Party in Parliament.’25 The 1993 European Commission’s Green Paper on the European Dimension of Education elaborates primarily on aspects of contributing to European citizenship, improving the quality of education and integrating young people into society and working life (Commission, 1993, pp. 6f.). However, the suggestions for achieving these goals (for instance, learning languages, transnational projects, socialisation of young people in a European context, co-operation of schools, partnership networks) remain rather vague. Most importantly, the principle of subsidiarity rules out a more concrete conceptualisation of the European dimension and leaves it to the highly diverse implementation approaches of the Member States (Ryba, 1992, pp. 18ff.; Lagner, 1997, p. 30).

25

For accounts of the development of the concept of the European dimension see Field (1998) and Ryba (2000).

28

HUBERT ERTL 6. BEYOND THE MAASTRICHT TREATY

The question whether Articles 126 and 127 of the Maastricht Treaty should be regarded as the ‘last word’ of the European Union in the field of education and training has been a matter of extensive discussion. The issue as to whether or not the Union should assume more competencies in the field is highly controversial. Can the fact that the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 does not give the Union further competencies in training and education be interpreted as an indication for the determination of the Member States to keep education firmly under their control? However these questions are answered, the need for increased compatibility of vocational qualifications and more transparent educational systems is widely acknowledged. Two main reasons for this necessity can be identified. Consequences of economic convergence It has been argued that social policy in general, and educational policy in particular, have been primarily regarded as a means of attaining the economic aims of the EU (cf. for example Rubio, 1997, pp. 72ff.) – a fact which was not changed by the Maastricht Treaty (Münk, 1995, pp. 31-34; Feuchthofen, 1993, pp. 74f.). The envisaged unrestricted mobility of goods, services and capital within the European Monetary Union requires a mobile workforce.26 As a consequence, the qualification and education systems in the Member States will be more in competition with each other than ever before. Moreover, standardisation and harmonisation will be required for vocational qualifications, in a manner similar to that which was imposed on production methods within export markets a long time ago. The creation of equivalent educational standards, the EU-wide recognition of national qualifications, and the introduction of European qualification levels which facilitate the classification of foreign vocational certificates mirror this need for comparability.27 The latest proposals of the European Commission to streamline and simplify the procedures of recognising professional qualifications show the commitment in this matter. The proposed Directive aims to replace fifteen existing Directives in the field of the recognition of professional qualifications. Over the years the legal environment for the recognition of professional qualifications has become more and

26

For a list of motives, expressed by employers in the Union, for the employment of mobile workers see Scheerer (1998, p. 20). 27

For accounts of these three strategies to fulfil the need for comparable qualifications in the EU see for instance CEDEFOP (1993), Zimmermann (1993), Feuchthofen (1993), Münk (1995, pp. 36-39), Sellin (1996), Müller-Solger (1997). For the developments in this question see the CEDEFOP publications Bjørnåvold & Sellin (1998) and Scheerer (1998). A different approach to create transparency between qualifications in different EU countries is described by Jens Schmidt (1997). In an Irish-German co-operation project Irish electricians and motor mechanics sat the corresponding German initial training examinations. As they achieved similar or even slightly better results than their German counterparts it might be concluded that the training standards of both countries in these fields are comparable.


29

more complex. In order to clarify the rules, the Stockholm European Council asked the Commission to put forward a more transparent and flexible system. Under the system for the recognition of qualifications, the Commission's proposal would introduce a more flexible and automatic procedure based on common platforms established by professional associations at European level, stemming from increased co-operation between the public and private sectors (Commission, 2002a). As a spin-off of EU initiatives to create a regulatory framework for mutual recognition of qualifications, reforms of national regulations tend to be orientated towards the European classification of qualifications (Cleve & Kell, 1996, p. 16). The influence of EU policies in education and training on national provisions is undeniable. Comparable challenges to national economies as a result of the ever more closely linked global markets increase the likelihood that similar strategies will be applied to modernise training provisions (Georg, 1997, p. 313). Political will of EU bodies to converge national systems Despite the clear exclusion of any harmonisation of national educational provision in the Maastricht Treaty (Art. 127(4), 126(4)), the Council of the EU demanded that general and vocational education systems within the Union undergo a process of farreaching convergence.28 This demand seems to be incompatible with the principle of subsidiarity (Art. 3b); nevertheless, a move towards a more flexible interpretation of subsidiarity by the European Commission can be seen to have emerged even before the Maastricht Treaty was passed. In the Memorandum of Vocational Training in the EC in the 1990s the flexible attitude towards subsidiarity was represented by the aim of combining national and supranational policies (Commission, 1991, p. 13, para. 48). Based on Article 5 (Maastricht Treaty), which requires the Member States to orientate national measures towards the objectives of the Union, this line of argumentation justifies the involvement of the EU institutions to a much wider extent (Koch, 1994, p. 28). As a consequence, Resolutions, Decisions and Directives of EU bodies and most importantly of the Commission, could assert convergence pressure on national systems of vocational education and training. The proposals for new methods of transnational validation of competencies in the 1996 White Paper on Education and Training: Teaching and Learning and in the 1997 Green Paper on The Obstacles of Transnational Mobility may be seen as an outcome of this policy (Commission, 1996, pp. 53-56; Beckers, 1997, pp. 217f.). Both documents represent the flexible interpretation of subsidiarity by the Commission which allows steps towards more convergent systems of education and training in the Member States. In spite of this pressure to achieve comparable systems of education in the EU, the Member States seem to be extremely reluctant to give up their autonomy to regulate training provision. Clear evidence for this reluctance can be identified in the

28

Conclusion of the European Council in Florence, June 1996; quoted in Münk (1997, p. 6). Münk (1997, pp. 6f.) identifies further evidence for the increasing convergence pressure on national systems. Cf. also Cleve & Kell (1996), pp. 16f.

30

HUBERT ERTL

analysis of the Member States’ statements concerning the aforementioned Memorandum of the Commission for Community policy. This analysis shows that all of the then twelve Member States rejected the assumption of more legislative powers by the Commission. Notably, Denmark, Germany and the UK insisted strongly on the principle of subsidiarity in this question (Lipsmeier & Münk, 1994, pp. 132-175; Commission, 1994). Some commentators stress the danger that the principle of subsidiarity will not only be used for the wholesale rejection of any forms of harmonisation, but also for blocking sensible processes of convergence by adapting best practice in other countries to improve their own national system of vocational education and training (Koch, 1996, p. 6). In this situation, it remains doubtful whether the current EU policies in education and training can fulfil the ambitious commitment to a Union-wide guarantee to provide a place in education and training for every person under the age of 18. Moreover, future developments must be awaited to be able to assess whether the concentration of the Union’s policy on programmes of the LEONARDO and SOCRATES type can justify the Commission’s wide-ranging claim to be leading the way to the ‘knowledge society’ of the future (Europäische Kommission, 1996). However, the grant of financial aid through the Community seems to be the only possible way under the current legal arrangements to encourage a certain convergence in education and training between the Member States (Lenaerts, 1994, p. 35). Outside the two framework programmes, one of the major activities in the field has been the development of the EUROPASS training, which was introduced on the basis of a Council Decision adopted on 21 December 1998 (1999/51/EC; Council, 1999c). It aims to certify a period of training completed by a person undergoing work-linked training as part of their training in another EU Member State, complying with a number of quality criteria. These criteria include the establishment of a partnership between the institution where the person completes her or his training and the host body abroad. Within the framework of the partnership, both partners agree on the content, objectives, duration, methods and monitoring of the training phase abroad. The EUROPASS training serves as an information document for these training phases and this possibility has been available since 1 January 2000 (BMBF, 1999b; Commission, 2000b). The effects of the EUROPASS training on the training practice and on the mobility of workers have yet to be seen (Benner, 1997b; Herz & Jäger, 1998). 7. CONCLUSIONS: CURRENT INITIATIVES AND PROGNOSIS FOR THE FUTURE The current initiatives of the EU in the field of education and training seem to focus on two objectives: the promotion of new technologies in learning processes and the increase of mobility within the EU. The aims of utilizing new information and communication technologies (ICTs) are summarised in the Commission’s eLearning Action Plan, the Council Resolution


31

on e-Learning and the strategy paper on the EU’s response to the information society: the integration of ITCs in education and training systems; the potentials of the use of the internet, multimedia and virtual learning environments for the realisation of lifelong learning and the provision of access to educational and training opportunities for all; the provision of training of teachers in the pedagogical use of ICTs and the provision of equipment and of a quality infrastructure for education and training; the development of high-quality digital teaching and learning materials; the exploitation of communication potentials of ICTs to foster European awareness, exchanges, collaboration, and virtual meeting places; the use of e-learning as a European co-operation platform; and the enhancement of research in e-learning, (Council, 2001r; Commission, 2001r and Europäische Kommission. 2002) The objective of Increased mobility is primarily pursued by the Council Resolution concerning an action plan for mobility. This action plan introduces no fewer than twelve objectives and 37 measures, ranging from general plans such as to improve the guidance on mobility and to increase the number of and resources for exchange activities, to concrete intentions such as to set up summer universities and to introduce a European calendar (Council, 2000r). A further EU initiative to facilitate mobility in education and training is the proposal of a common European format for people’s curricula vitae (CEDEFOP, 2002 and Commission, 2002b). This standardised curriculum vitae is intended to enable European citizens to present their qualifications more effectively, thus easing access to education, training and employment in Europe. And finally, the aforementioned Commission proposal for a directive on the recognition of professional qualifications seems to revive the discussion on the transparency and comparability of the outcomes of education and training systems across the EU (Commission, 2002a). In combination with the ongoing effort to promote the EUROPASS training (Commission, 2000b) the transparency and recognition of vocational and professional qualifications is aimed at reducing the ‘[...] large number of practical obstacles of mobility’ (Viviane Reding, Commissioner for Education and Culture, in: Commission, 2002a). With these initiatives in the fields of ITCs and mobility the EU seems to address the ambivalent situation it finds itself in the field of education and training. This ambivalence is characterised by the pressure for a more harmonised system on the one hand and the insistence of the Member States on national autonomy on the other. By promoting the mobility of European citizens, the EU increases the pressure for education and training systems that allow movement from one national context to another. The convergence of the national systems is a necessary consequence of this strategy. By promoting e-learning at a European level, the EU facilitates the establishment of European education opportunities that are no longer bound exclusively to national provisions but surpass in many ways the direct influence of

32

HUBERT ERTL

the Member States. In more general terms, this phenomenon can also be observed in the co-operation at the European level initiated by the EU programmes for education and training (cf. chapter 9 in this present volume). The trans-national development of European training modules that can be used in more than one country is a further example of gradually establishing provisions for education and training opportunities at the European level that function without direct influence of the Member States (BMUK, 1998; Ertl, 2000a, pp. 39-43).29 It seems likely that the EU institutions will continue to bypass the principle of non-harmonisation in the field of education and training by providing incentives for co-operation of national actors at the European level. This co-operation often causes similar developments of the national education and training systems of different Member States. In this way, the divide between national qualification systems could be bridged and the creation of more cohesive systems and contents of qualifications could be facilitated.

29

Cf. also the efforts of the EU project ‘Euroqualifications’ in which European training modules were developed at a European level and implemented in EU Member States (Sellin, 1991 and 1994b, p. 9 and Wordelmann, 1995).


33

APPENDIX: DEFINITION OF THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION IN EDUCATION30 The purpose of this Resolution is to strengthen the European dimension in education by launching a series of concerted measures for the period 1988 to 1992; these measures could help to: strengthen in young people a sense of European identity and make clear to them the value of European civilisation and of the foundations on which the European peoples intend to base their development today, that is in particular the safe-guarding of the principles of democracy, social justice and respect for human rights (Copenhagen declaration, April 1978), prepare young people to take part in the economic and social development of the Community and in making concrete progress towards European union as stipulated in the Single European Act, make them aware of the advantages which the Community represents, but also of the challenges it involves, in opening up an enlarged economic and social area to them, improve their knowledge of the Community and its Member States in their historical, cultural, economic and social aspects and bring home to them the significance of the co-operation of the Member States of the European Community with other countries of Europe and the world.

30

Cf. Resolution of the Council of Ministers of Education Meeting within the Council on the European Dimension in Education of 24 May 1988, 88/C177/02 (Council, 1988).

34

HUBERT ERTL

References Anderson, Perry (1997): ‘The Europe to Come’, in: Gowan, Peter & Anderson, Perry (1997): The Question of Europe (London: Verso), pp. 13-36. Bardong, Otto (1994): ‘Die Bildungspolitik in den Organen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Zielsetzung und Umsetzung’, in: Schleicher & Bos (1994), pp. 63-77. Bardong, Otto (1994): ‘Die Bildungspolitik in den Organen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Zielsetzung und Umsetzung’, in: Schleicher & Bos (1994), pp. 63-77. Barnard, Catherine (1992): ‘The Maastricht Agreement and Education: One step forward and two steps back’, in: Education and the Law, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 123-34. Barnard, Catherine (1995): ‘The Treaty on European Union, Education and Vocational Training’, in: Phillips (1995a), pp. 13-28. Baur, Rita / Wolff, Heimfrid / Wordelmann, Peter (1991): Herausforderungen des europäischen Binnenmarktes für das Bildungssystem der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Ein Gutachten herausgegeben vom Bundesminister für Bildung und Wissenschaft (Bad Honnef: Bock). Beckers, Hans Joachim (1997): ‘Modularakkreditierung und Personalzertifizierung. Deutsche Aus- und Weiterbildung unter europäischem Druck’, in: Wirtschafts- und Berufserziehung, No. 6, June, pp. 217-224. Bender, Thomas (1995): ‘Leonardo da Vinci – Berufsbildung für Europa’, in: Kuratorium der Deutschen Wirtschaft (1995), pp. 18-24. Benner, Hermann (1997b): ‘Dreisprachige Ausbildungsprofile – neues Mittel zur Transparenz der Qualifikation anerkannter Ausbildungsberufe’, in: Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 39f. Beutler, Bengt et al. (eds.) (1993): Das Recht der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Textsammlung (BadenBaden: Nomos Verl.-Ges.). BIBB (2000a): Start frei für LEONARDO II, in: http://www.bibb.de/leonardo/leonardo2.html (15/02/2000). BIBB (ed.) (2000b): Fördermaßnahmen, Budgetaufteilung und Kompetenzgewichtung zwischen Mitgliedstaaten und Kommission im EU-Berufsbildungsprogramm LEONARDO da VINCI ab dem Jahr 2000 – Eine Übersicht in Stichworten, in: http://www.bibb.de/leonardo/leonardo2.html (15/02/2000). Bjørnåvold, Jens & Sellin, Burkhart (1998): Recognition and Transparency of Vocational Qualification; The Way Forward (Thessaloniki: CEDEFOP). Blitz, Brad K. (1999): ‘Professional Mobility and the Mutual Recognition of Qualifications in the European Union: Two Institutional Approaches’, in: Comparative Education Review, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 311-331. BMBF (ed.) (1999b): Der EUROPASS-Berufsbildung. Bescheinigung von Auslandsaufenthalten (Bonn: BMBF). BMUK (Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur) (1998): Europäische Berufsbildungskonferenz, Wien, am 3./4. Juli 1998, in: http://www.bmuk.gv.at/peuropa/zusamfa.htm (10/09/1998). Brock, Colin & Tulasiewicz, Witold (eds.) (1994): Education in a Single Europe (London: Routledge). Brock, Colin & Tulasiewicz, Witold (eds.) (2000): Education in a Single Europe. Second Edition (London and New York: Routledge). CEDEFOP (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training) (1993): Use of the System of Comparability of Vocational Training Qualifications by Employers and Workers. European Report (Berlin: CEDEFOP). CEDEFOP (1995a): Vocational Education and Training in the Federal Republic of Germany (Berlin: CEDEFOP). CEDEFOP (1997b): Jahresbericht 1996 (Thessaloniki: CEDEFOP). CEDEFOP (2002): Transparency: The European Curriculum Vitae, in http://cedefop.eu.int/transparency/cv.asp (07/03/2002). Cleve, Bernd van & Kell, Adolf (1996): ‘Modularisierung der Berufsbildung’, in: Die berufsbildende Schule, Vol. 48, pp. 15-22.


35

Cludius, Stefan (1995): Die Kompetenzen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft für den Bereich der Bildungspolitik. Series: Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe II, Rechtswissenschaften, Vol. 1772 (Frankfurt a.M., etc.: Peter Lang). Commission (1990): Proposal for a Council Decision Concerning an Action Programme for the Vocational Qualification of Young People and their Preparation for Adult and Working Life (COM (90) 467 final of 9 November). Commission of the European Communities (1991): Memorandum of Vocational Training in the EC in the 1990s (COM (91) 397 final of 12 December). Commission (1993): Green Paper on the European Dimension of Education (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities). Commission (1994): Vocational Training in the European Community: Challenges and Future Outlook: Follow-up of the Commission Memorandum of Vocational Training in the EC in the 1990s (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities). Commission (1996): How is the European Union Meeting Social and Regional Needs? Europe (...) Questions and Answers (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities). Commission (2000b): The EUROPASS Training for the promotion of European pathways in work-linked training, including apprenticeship, in: http://europa.eu.int/education/europass/index-en.html (21/01/2000). Commission (2001e): Welcome to Tempus, in: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/tempus (20/01/2001). Commission (2001r): The eLearning Action Plan: Designing tomorrow’s education. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, (COM (2001) 172 final of 28 March) (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities). Commission (2002a): Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Recognition of Professional Qualifications (COM (2002) 119 final of 7 March) (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities). Commission (2002b): The European Commission proposes a common European format for curriculum vitae, in: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/index_en.html (11/03/2002). Council of Ministers (1988): Resolution of the Council and the Ministers of Education Meeting within the Council on the European Dimension in Education of 24 May 1988, 88/C177/02. Council of the European Union (1994): ‘Council Decision of 6 December 1994 establishing an action programme for the implementation of a European Community vocational training policy (819/94/EC)’, in: Official Journal of the European Communities, L 340 (29/12/94). Council of the European Union and European Parliament (1999a): ‘Council Decision of 26 April 1999 establishing the second phase of the Community vocational training action programme “Leonardo da Vinci” (382/99/EC)’, in: Official Journal of the European Communities, L 146 (11/06/99). Council of the European Union (1999c): ‘Council Decision of 21 December 1998 on the promotion of European pathways in work-linked training, including apprenticeship (51/99/EC)’, in: Official Journal of the European Communities, L 17/45 (22/01/99). Council of the European Union and European Parliament (2000a): ‘Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 January 2000 establishing the second phase of the Community action programme in the field of education “Socrates” (253/2000/EC)’, in: Official Journal of the European Communities, L 28 (03/02/00). Council of the European Union and Representatives of the Governments of the Member States (2000r): ‘Resolution of 14 December 2000 concerning an action plan for mobility (2000/C 371/03)’, in: Official Journal of the European Communities, C 371/4 (23/12/2000). Council of the European Union (2001r): ‘Council Resolution of 13 July 2001 on e-Learning (2001/C 204/02)’, in: Official Journal of the European Communities, C 204/3 (20/07/2001). Cram, Laura (1997): Policy-making in the European Union. Conceptual Lenses and the Integration Process. Series: European Public Policy (London and New York: Routledge). CYRCE (Circle for Youth Research Cooperation in Europe) (ed.) (1995): The Puzzle of Integration. Series: European Yearbook on Youth Policy and Research, Vol. 1/1995 (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter), Delgado, I. Lirola Del & Losa, J. Jueyo (1997): ‘Educational Policy in the European Union and the Principle of Subsidiarity: Legal Aspects and Diverse Areas of Action’, in: Rego (1997), pp. 125-169. Desmet, Paul (1994): ‘Will the Future Dimension of Education be a European One?’, in: Bottery et al. (1994), pp. 306-310.

36

HUBERT ERTL

Ertl, Hubert (2000a): Modularisation of Vocational Education in Europe: NVQs and GNVQs as a Model for the Reform of Initial Training Provisions in Germany? Series: Monographs in International Education, Vol. 2 (Wallingford: Symposium Books). ETUCE (European Trade Union Committee for Education) (1995): Vocational Education in the European Union (Brussels, ETUCE). Europäische Kommission (1996): zur allgemeinen und beruflichen Bildung. Lehren und Lernen – Auf dem Weg zur kognitiven Gesellschaft (Luxembourg: Amt für amtliche Veröffentlichungen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft). Europäische Kommission (Vertretung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland) (2002): eEurope: Die Europäische Union auf dem Weg in die Informationsgesellschaft (Berlin: Vertretung der Europäische Kommission in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland). Fahle, Klaus (1989): Die Politik der EG in den Bereichen Erziehung, Bildung und Wissenschaft. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Series: MTS-Script, Vol. 4 (Frankfurt a.M.: Max-Traeger-Stiftung d. GEW). Fahle, Klaus (1995): ‘Leonardo da Vinci – Berufsbildung für Europa’, in: Kuratorium der Deutschen Wirtschaft (1995), pp. 25-27. Feuchthofen, Jörg (1993): ‘"Gleichwertigkeit" beruflicher Bildungsabschlüsse in Europa’, in: Wirtschaft und Berufserziehung, Vol. 45, pp. 73-79. Field, John (1997): ‘The European Union and the Learning Society: Congested Sovereignty in an Age of Globalisation’, in: Coffield, Frank (ed.) (1997): A National Strategy for Lifelong Learning (Newcastle upon Tyne: Department of Education, University of Newcastle), pp. 95-111. Field, John (1998): European Dimensions. Education, Training and the European Union. Higher Education Policy Series 39 (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers). Flynn, James (1988): ‘Vocational training in community law and practice’, in: Yearbook of European Law, Vol. 8, pp. 55-63. Fritsch, Anke (1998): Europäische Bildungspolitik nach Maastricht – Zwischen Kontinuität und neuen Dimensionen. Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel der Programme Erasmus / Socrates und Leonardo. Series: Europäische Hochschulschriften, Vol. 353 (Frankfurt a.M., etc.: Lang). Funnell, Peter & Müller, Dave (eds.) (1991): Vocational Education and the Challenge of Europe. Responding to the Implications of the Single European Market. Series: New Developments in Vocational Education (London: Kogan Page). Führ, Christoph (1997): Deutsches Bildungswescn seit 1945. Grundzüge und Probleme (Berlin: Luchterhand Verlag). Geissler, Karlheinz (1994): ‘Von der Meisterschaft zur Qualifikations-Collage. Drei Entwicklungen, die die industrielle Berufsausbildung gefährden’, in: Liesering et al. (1994), pp. 328-334. Georg, Walter (1997): ‘Berufliche Bildung zwischen Internationalisierung und nationaler Identität’, in: Kodron et al. (1997), pp. 312-329. Haigh, Anthony (1970): A Ministry of Education for Europe (London: Harrap). Hancock, Colin (1991): ‘The Single European Market – Uncertain Implications and the Vocational Educational Challenge’, in: Funnell & Müller (1991), pp. 39-45. Hantrais, Linda (2000): Social Policy in the European Union. Second Edition (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan). Herz, Gerhard & Jäger, Angelika (1998): ‘Module in der Berufsbildung oder des Kaisers neue Kleider?’, in: Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 14-20. Hingel, Anders (2001). Education policies and European governance. Brussels: European Commission – Directorate-Generale for Education and Culture (http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/areas/ group 12/contribution_education_en.pdf). Hochbaum, Ingo (1989): ‘Das ERASMUS-Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs', in: Mitteilungen des deutschen Hochschulverbandes, Vol. 4, 1989, pp. 156-189. Hörner, Wolfgang (1997): ‘<Europa> als Herausforderung für die Vergleichende Erziehungswissenschaft – Reflexionen über die politische Funktion einer pädagogischen Disziplin’, in: Kodron et al. (1997), pp. 65-80. Janne, Henri (1973): ‘For a Community Policy in Education’, in: Bulletin of the European Communities, Supplement (10/1973). Kirby, Simon & Lamb, Muriel (1997): Travelling, Studying, Working and Living within the European Union. Factsheet (London: Representation of the European Commission in the United Kingdom).


37

Koch, Richard (1994): ‘Grundstrukturen der Mitwirkung der Sozialpartner in den Mitgliedsstaaten und auf der Gemeinschaftsebene’, in: Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 2631. Koch, Richard (1996): ‘BIBB-Positionen zu aktuellen Herausforderungen in der beruflichen Bildung: IV. Verhältnis von EU-Politik und nationaler Berufsbildungspolitik’, in: Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 6f. Kodron, Christoph et al. (1997) (eds.): Vergleichende Erziehungswissenschaft: Herausforderung, Vermittlung, Praxis. Festschrift für Wolfgang Mitter zum 70. Geburtstag (Köln: Böhlau Verlag). Kreher, A. (1996): ‘Forschungsforum seit zwanzig Jahren’, in: Eumagazin, Vol. 10, pp. 28f. Kuratorium der Deutschen Wirtschaft (ed.) (1995): Berufliche Bildung in sich wandelndem betrieblichen Umfeld. Fachtagung 1995 der gewerblich-technischen Ausbilder (Bonn: Kuratorium der Deutschen Wirtschaft). Lagner, Uta B. (1997): ‘Die europäische Dimension im beruflichen Bildungswesen – dargestellt am Modellversuch EUWAS’, in: Kölner Zeitschrift für Wirtschaft und Pädagogik, Vol. 12, No. 23, pp. 19-36. Lane, Robert (1993): ‘New Community Competences under the Maastricht Treaty’, in: Common Market Law Review, Vol. 30, pp. 939-979. Lankowski, Carl (1998): ‘Social Policy: Managing the Transition to EU Ordnungspolitik’, in: Lankowski, Carl (ed.) (1998): Break out, Break down or Break in? Germany and the European Union after Amsterdam. Series: AICGS Research Report, No. 8 (Washington, D.C.: American Institute for Contemporary German Studies), pp. 39-53. Leibfried, Stephan & Pierson, Paul (1996): ‘Social Policy’, in: Wallace & Wallace (1996), pp. 185-207. Lenaerts, Koen (1994): ‘Education in European Community Law After “Maastricht”’, in: Common Market Law Review, Vol. 31, pp. 7-41. Liesering, Sabine / Schober, Karen / Tessaring, Manfred (eds.) (1994): Die Zukunft der dualen Berufsausbildung. Eine Fachtagung der Bundesanstalt für Arbeit. Series: Beiträge zur Arbeitsmarktund Berufsforschung, BeitrAB 186, (Nürnberg: Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung der Bundesanstalt für Arbeit). Lipsmeier, Antonius & Münk, Dieter (1994): Die Berufsbildungspolitik der Gemeinschaft für die 90er Jahre. Analyse der Stellungnahmen der EU-Mitgliedstaaten zum Memorandum der Kommission, (Bonn: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Wissenschaft). McLean, Martin (1995): ‘The European Union and the Curriculum’, in: Phillips (1995a), pp. 29-46. McMahon, Joseph A. (1995): Education and Culture in European Community Law. Series: European Community Law Series, Vol. 8 (London: Athlone Press). Milner, Susan (1998): ‘Training Policy. Steering between Divergent National Logics’, in: Hine, David & Kassim, Hussein (eds.) (1998): Beyond the Market: The EU and National Social Policy (London: Routledge), pp. 156-177. Moon, Bob (1993): ‘Essay 2: Education’, in: Shelly, Monica & Winck, Margaret (1993): What is Europe? Book 2: Aspects of European Cultural Diversity (Milton Keynes: The Open University), pp. 65-120. Morrell, Frances (1996): Continent Isolated. A Study of the European Dimension in the National Curriculum in England. Federal Trust Report (London: Federal Trust for Education and Research). Moschonas, Andreas (1998): Education and Training in the European Union (Aldershot: Ashgate). Müller-Solger, Hermann (1997): ‘Anerkennung, Akkreditierung, Transparenz – Notwendige Begriffsklärungen für die Europäische Union’, in: Kodron et al. (1997), pp. 245-261. Müller-Solger, Hermann / Czysz, Armin / Leonhard, Petra / Pfaff, Ulrich (1993): Bildung und Europa: Die EG-Fördermaßnahmen (Bonn: Economica Verlag). Münk, Dieter (1995): ‘Kein Grand zur Eu(ro)phorie. Anmerkungen zu zentralen berufsbildungspolitischen Kontroversen des "Memorandums der Kommission über die Berufsausbildungspolitik der Gemeinschaft für die 90er Jahre"’, in: Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, Vol. 91, No. 1. pp. 28-45. Münk, Dieter (1997): ‘Berufsausbildung in der EU zwischen Dualität und "Monalität" – eine Alternative ohne Alternative?’, in: Berufsbildung, Vol. 45, pp. 5-8. Neave, Guy (1984): The EEC and Education (Trentham: Trentham books). Neave, Guy (1988): ‘Policy and Response: Changing Perceptions and Priorities in the Vocational Training Policy of the EEC Commission’, in: Lauglo, Jon & Lillis, Kevin (eds.), Vocationalizing Education (Oxford: 1988), pp. 99-114.

38

HUBERT ERTL

Neave, Guy (1988): ‘Policy and Response: Changing Perceptions and Priorities in the Vocational Training Policy of the EEC Commission’, in: Lauglo, Jon & Lillis, Kevin (eds.), Vocationalizing Education (Oxford: 1988), pp. 99-114. Noah, Harold J. & Eckstein, Max A. (1969): Toward a Science of Comparative Education (London: Macmillan). Nowoczyn, Oliver (1996): Bildungspolitische Kompetenzen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft nach Maastricht, Series: Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe II, Rechtswissenschaften, Vol. 1939 (Frankfurt a.M., etc.: Peter Lang). Oppermann, Thomas (1991): Europarecht: Eine Studie. Juristische Kurzlehrbücher (München: Beck). Phillips, David (1994): ‘Periodisation in Historical Approaches to Comparative Education: Some Considerations from the Examples of Germany and England and Wales’, in: British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 261-272. Phillips, David (ed.) (1995a): Aspects of Education and the European Union, Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Wallingford: Triangle). Piehl, Ernst & Sellin, Burkhart (1993): Berufliche Aus- und Weiterbildung in Europa (Thessaloniki: CEDEFOP). Piehl, Ernst & Sellin, Burkhart (1995): ‘Initial and Continuing Vocational Training in Europe’, in: CYRCE (1995), pp. 197-215. Preston, Jill (1991): EC Education Training and Research Programmes. An Action Guide (London: Kogan Page). Rego, Miguel Anxo Santos (1997): Política educativa en la Unión Europea despuétes de Maastricht (Educational policy in the European Union after Maastricht) (Santiago de Compostela: Colección Monograffías). Richardson, Jeremy (ed.) (1996): European Union Power and Policy-Making (London: Routledge). Rothe, Georg (1995): Die Systeme beruflicher Qualifizierung Frankreichs und Deutschlands im Vergleich. Übereinstimmung und Besonderheiten in den Beziehungen zwischen den Bildungs- und Beschäftigungssystemen zweier Kernländer der EU. Series: Beiträge zur Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung, BeitrAB 190, (Nürnberg: Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung der Bundesanstalt für Arbeit). Rubio, Rogelio Medina (1997): ‘The Setting of Competence for Education and Culture in the European Union Treaty’, in: Rego (1997), pp. 71-91. Rudden, Barnard & Wyatt, Derrick (eds.) (1999): Basic Community Laws. Seventh Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Ryba, Raymond (1992): ‘Toward a European Dimension in Education. Intention and Reality in European Community Policy and Practice’, in: Comparative Education Review, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 10-24. Ryba, Raymond (1995): ‘Is Progress Towards Development of the European Dimension in Education Satisfactory?’, in: Phillips (1995a), pp. 63-76. Ryba, Raymond (1997): ‘Developing the European Dimension in Practice: The Contribution of the Council of Europe’s European Dimension Pedagogical Materials Programme’, in: Kodron et al. (1997), pp. 262-271. Ryba, Raymond (2000): ‘Developing the European Dimension in Education: The Roles of the European Union and the Council of Europe’, in: Swing, Elizabeth Sherman / Schriewer, Jürgen / Orivel, François (eds.) (2000): Problems and Prospects in European Education (Westport, CT and London: Praeger), pp. 244-261. Scheerer, Friedrich (1998): Transparenz beruflicher Befähigungsnachweise in Europa. Stand und Entwicklungsperspektiven (Thessaloniki: CEDEFOP). Schink, Gertrud (1993): Kompetenzerweiterung im Handlungssystem der Europäischen Gemeinschaft: Eigendynamik und ,,Policy Entrepreneurs“. Eine Analyse am Beispiel von Bildung und Ausbildung. Series: Nomos Universitätsschriften: Politik, Vol. 48 (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verl.-Ges.). Schlaffke, Winfried & Weiß, Reinhold (eds.) (1996): Das duale System der Berufsausbildung: Leistung, Qualität und Reformbedarf. Series: Kölner Texte & Thesen (Köln: Hundt Druck). Schleicher, Klaus & Bos, Wilfried (eds.) (1994): Realisierung der Bildung in Europa. Europäisches Bewußtsein trotz kultureller Identität? (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). Schmidt, Jens U. (1997): ‘Empirischer Vergleich von irischen und deutschen Ausbildungsstandards’, in: Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 28-34. Sellin, Burkhart (1991): Euroqualifications for All. New EC Approaches and Programmes for the Vocational Training of Young People (Berlin: CEDEFOP).


39

Sellin, Burkhart (1992): The EC Programme ‘Comparability of Vocational Training Qualifications’. Aims, Working Methods, Evaluation (Berlin: CEDEFOP). Sellin, Burkhart (1993): Berufliche Aus- und Weiterbildung in Europa (Thessaloniki: CEDEFOP). Sellin, Burkhart (1994b): Vocational Training in Europe: Towards a Modular Form? (Thessaloniki: CEDEFOP). Sellin, Burkhart (1995b): ‘Structural Conditions for the Education, Training and Employment of Young Europeans’, in: CYRCE (1995), pp. 187-195. Sellin, Burkhart (1996): Do Joint European Vocational Training Standards Stand a Chance? Recognition and Transparency of Qualifications. Discussion Paper (Thessaloniki: CEDEFOP). Sellin, Burkhart (1999): ‘EC and EU Education and Vocational Training Programmes from 1974 to 1999: An Attempt at a Critical and Historical Review’, in: Vocational Training European Journal, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 17-27. Sprokkereef, Annemarie (1995): ‘Developments in European Community Education Policy’, in: Lodge, Juliet (ed.) (1995): The European Community and the Challenge of the Future (London: Pinter Publisher), pp. 340-347. Teichler, Ulrich (1996): ‘The British Involvement in European Higher Education Programmes: finding of evaluation studies on Erasmus, human capital and mobility and Tempus’, in: Society for Research in Higher Education (ed.): The Thirtieth Anniversary Series (London: Society for Research in Higher Education). Walkenhorst, Heiko (1997): Zwischen Harmonisierung und Subsidiaritdt. Der Kompetenzstreit um die EG-Bildungspolitik. Series: Studien und Dokumentationen zur vergleichenden Bildungsforschung, Vol. 75 (Köln: Böhlau). Wallace, Helen & Wallace, William (eds.) (1996): Policy-Making in the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Wiegand, Ulrich (1996b): ‘Reform des Ordnungsrahmens: Modulsysteme oder Flexibilisierung der Ausbildungsordnungen?’, in: Schlaffke & Weiß (1996), pp. 260-276. Wordelmann, Peter (ed.) (1995): Internationale Qualifikationen: Inhalte, Bedarf und Vermittlung. Series: Berichte zur beruflichen Bildung, Vol. 184 (Berlin: BIBB). Zimmermann, Claudia (1993): ‘Die Anerkennung von Berufsabschlüssen in Europa. Keine Klarheit bei der Berücksichtigung sozialer Berufe’, in: Soziale Sicherheit. Zeitschrift für Arbeitsmarkt- und Sozialpolitik, Vol. 42, No. 11, pp. 337-340.


ANTÓNIO NÓVOA & WILLIAM DEJONG-LAMBERT

EDUCATING EUROPE: AN ANALYSIS OF EU EDUCATIONAL POLICIES1 This chapter analyses educational policies in the European Union. Because the unionisation2 process is taking place on so many different levels – ranging from the local to the national, and the national to the global (and vice-versa) – it is possible to undertake this project with reference to any number of dimensions. This task is also complicated by the interconnected processes of Europeanisation and globalisation, as well as the temptation to oppose nation-states to the European Union, “localism” with “cosmopolitanism”, etc. (Bauman, 2001; Breckenridge et al., 2002). The layer which we have chosen intends to build the European Union as the main explanatory level of analysis. In fact, it is necessary to determine the nature of this unprecedented political entity, in order to apprehend its influence in the formulation of educational policies. Adopting this perspective, we hope to displace and replace ourselves in the European political debate, opening the possibility for new questions and understandings. Too often there is a tendency to participate, without pause for critical reflection, in the programmes and initiatives originating from Brussels. Our intention is to consider European educational policies as an object of study, in the general context of political organisation within the European Union. The point of departure is a metaphor, articulated by the EU Spanish Presidency (first half of 2002), that education is to be considered as the fourth pillar of the European construction. Building metaphors are a fixture of the language circulating with reference to EU process – the (re)construction of Europe. Frequent references to “laying foundations” and the idea of a “common house”, are coupled with descriptions of policymakers as “architects” and “masons”, even as Europeans themselves are portrayed as “onlookers” who must “wait” until the process is “completed before they can appreciate its quality” (Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, Yves-Thibault de Silguy, cit. in Shore, 2000, p. 2). We could add other metaphors found throughout EU texts: walls, benchmarks, barriers, as well as various 1 The first draft of this text was written while I was a visiting scholar at the University of Oxford (Michaelmas Term, 2001). The final version was concluded in the year 2002, as a Visiting Professor at Teachers College, Columbia University (New York), a stay which enabled a collaboration with William deJong-Lambert, a PhD student in Comparative Education. I wish to thank my colleagues for an intellectually productive and challenging time, as well as the Fulbright Foundation which granted me a scholarship for my stay in New York (January-June, 2002). 2

We are using the term “unionisation” to refer to the myriad processes involved, at every level, in the creation of the European Union.


42


metaphors of “space” and “circulation” . The popularity of metaphors is obviously related to the fact that the European Union does not have strong political roots and locations, and needs to compensate for this with an appealing rhetoric and mobilising images. Not all metaphors, however, are equally useful or captivating. As Evelyn Keller explains in her work on biology: “The effectiveness of a metaphor, like that of a speech-act, depends on shared social conventions and, perhaps especially, on the authority conventionally granted to those who use it” (1995, pp. xi-xii). The reference to education as a fourth pillar is thus a conceptually meaningful move, signifying an attempt to isolate education policy as primary in the context of EU policy-making. It is this important transitional moment which we will attempt to grasp in our text. We begin in the first section with an introduction to the current state of European affairs, moving from the debates of governance to issues of citizenship and the role played by education. The second section deals with the concept of the European educational space; here we use a metaphor of “states of matter” to describe the evolution of educational policies, particularly postMaastricht Treaty. Finally, in the last section we focus on the Detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems in Europe, approved in 2002, arguing that it establishes a new tempo for European educational policies. The text closes with a coda, advocating the presence of critical thinking in the European space – a thinking which avoids the acceptance of unionisation as inevitable. Such fatalism, together with the feeling that “things” are happening independently of the will of European citizens, can lead to a disenchantment with politics, which could transform reverie into nightmare. 1. THE STATE OF EUROPEAN AFFAIRS This paper starts a process responding to the disenchantment of many of the Union’s citizens. Alienation from politics is not just a European problem, it is global, national and local. But for the Union it represents a particular challenge. Given the deep level of integration already achieved, people have similar expectations for the Union as they have for domestic politics and political institutions. But the Union cannot develop and deliver policy in the same way as a national government (European Governance – A White Paper, 2001, p. 32).

Recent debates on European governance have been characterized by a malaise about the present situation, and a sense of disillusionment with regard to the future of Europe. An “heroic” account of the European past is defined in terms of a longue durée, from which a contemporary heritage is derived, as well as a recent past, originating in post-War prosperity and producing half a century of peace and progress. However, one can still determine a definite alienation from politics and disenchantment with the European project. This juxtaposition of opposing attitudes requires an understanding of the amalgamation of discourses and complexity of networks, operating throughout the European space. The White Paper on European Governance is constructed in terms of openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence; nevertheless we believe that it in fact accentuates the “opacity” of the European Union, namely in terms of the incapacity to understand

EDUCATING EUROPE: AN ANALYSIS OF EU EDUCATIONAL POLICIES

43

the decision-making processes and the role of the different national, sub-national and supra-national institutions. The political crisis with regard to the way in which policy is implemented is also a “crisis” in the intellectual thinking, that is in the way in which Europe is discussed and apprehended. This debate takes place in a language strongly influenced by the media and by an expert-discourse that tends to homogenise “problems” and “solutions” (Nóvoa, 2002). A first tendency is evident in the setting of the political agenda by the media, with a recurrent dramatisation of educational matters, in which the portrayal of problems and the framing of questions is used as a method of imposing solutions. An “instant democracy” is forged according to opinion polls and public surveys, creating the “society of the spectacle”, to use the concept coined by Guy Debord. This latter notion has been characterised by Michael Hardt and Toni Negri as the construction of an artificial coherence, a spectacle which while in fact orderless, “functions as if there were [...] a point of central control” (2000, p. 323). The exposure to “objective” estimators of public opinion transforms politics into public spectacle, negating the possibility for critical discussion. A second tendency, that in part overlaps the previous one, is represented by the figure of the expert, and the circulation of a discourse in a transnational mood. The mobilisation of experts circulates a rootless, location-less, international discourse. We are thus presented with a “new Babel”, consisting of terms including “globalisation”, “flexibility”, “new economy”, “zero tolerance”, “multiculturalism”, etc. (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 2000). Dressed in an impressive “moral conformity”, there is an interesting unanimity in this debate, that recurrently uses terminology such as rigour, efficiency, accountability, responsibility, autonomy, market, choice, and customers, to address educational matters. The diffusion of these concepts necessitates that they be banal enough to be universally accepted as solutions for every problem. As empty rhetoric they create the illusion of a common agenda which, because it belongs to no one, can be described as belonging to everyone. In recent years a large amount has been written on EU issues. This literature has, however, more often been obfuscating than illuminating, not only because the authors become lost among the myriad institutions and levels of decision making, but also because they adopt (implicitly or explicitly) a position pro or contra EU policies. From our perspective it is necessary to move from traditional explanations, embedded in “international relations” or institutionalist approaches, and adopt more sophisticated conceptions underpinned by historical and comparative thinking. Peter Van Ham refers to our present epoch as one in which “geographical entities are less fixed and (most) no longer seem to control their destiny” (2001, pp. 1-2). He therefore criticizes dichotomous conceptions of international relations as incapable of providing us with an understanding of the changing political, social, economic and cultural landscape. We will argue that governance, as the central concept that has been used in current discussions about the EU, cannot be taken for granted and must be critically analyzed. In fact, as Mathias Albert puts it: “It may very well be that it is exactly the advances made in theorizing about governance (without government) that are part of the problem in advancing the theorizing about democracy in the European context, because it has led analysis away from the state too soon, trying to adopt new notions of legitimacy for new forms of governance

44


without taking sufficient account of what can and must be legitimized democratically” (2002, p. 296). The reference to “multi-level governance”, and other related terms, can be understood as a strategy to avoid a political discussion, situating the debate in a diffused level of networks, agreements and partnerships without clear legitimacy. This is why there is a concern with the democratic deficit of the European Union, an issue which we will discuss in relation to governance in the next section of this paper. The European Union is a political system in transformation, a process that is best understood as “experimental” (Wallace, 2001, p. 581). It is obvious that this process cannot be viewed through the lens of traditional politics. Laura Cram makes an important point when she notes that the European Commission has in the past been most effective when it substitutes grandiose claims for quiet and effective action (2001, p. 783). However, this notion of a “banal Europeanism” does not mean we should concede democracy to new forms of power, exercised by unelected bureaucrats and professional experts. The criticism raised by Casey and Rivkin should be taken into consideration, when they point out that the European Commission is the most powerful EU institution: “This unelected and, for all purposes, unaccountable body has embarked on the creation of a unified European state, wherein it is the single most powerful institutional actor. With remarkable candor, the European Commission has admitted [...] that this very lack of accountability has been the secret of its success” (2001, pp. 47-48). A linear account of the EU is not capable of mapping a political space, composed of various policy arenas, levels of decision-making and institutional arrangements. The sophistication required to do so need not imply a further “confusion” of political life, an opacity that functions as an obstacle to participation at the level of citizenship. It is this which causes erosion in the European process, creating distress and resistance towards that which is understood only as inevitable or ineluctable. Thus we must be cautious, and conscious of underlining the importance of “civic participation” and “social movements” in the transformation of Europe. To view them as “anachronistic”, or to perceive opposition to neo-liberalism as “regressive”, can be understood as part of a conservative revolution, which Pierre Bourdieu describes as a “strange revolution that restores the past but presents itself as progressive, transforming regression itself into a form of progress” (2002, p. 65). Governance and the “democratic deficit” Literature on the “democratic deficit” of the EU has been growing in recent years (Decker, 2002; Sweet, Sandholtz & Fligstein, 2001). It is not our intention to insist on this issue, although the claims formulated by Jürgen Habermas (2001) for a “European-wide public sphere” are present in our thinking. We join with Hellen Wallace in proposing that the debate “navigate” between understanding unionisation as “intergovernmentalism” and those who understand it as a process of “fusion”. As she concludes: “A more satisfactory analysis must surely lie in a better understanding of the push-pull between the European and country levels of politics and governance” (Wallace, 2001a, p. 15). Thus we refer to a “process that is itself


45

about processes” - the open method of co-ordination? The open method, as devised at the Lisbon European Council in 2000, relies upon forms of comparative method such as “benchmarking, targets and scorecards, policy audit, and the potential for policy transfers” (Wallace, 2001, p. 591). While it has been constructed through the idea of governance, it is important to understand that its popularity resides precisely in its imprecision and ambiguity: “It has at least six uses, referring to: the minimal state; corporate governance; the new public management; ‘good governance’; sociocybernetic systems; and self-organising networks” (Rhodes, 1996, cit. in Cram, 2001a, pp. 598-599). Our argument is that this method is being implemented in new policy areas, like education, defining a kind of “regulatory state” at the European level (Roberts & Springer, 2001). It is possible to identify two major consequences, related to political discussions and more “technical” issues of decision-making, as we shall explain below. It has been pointed out that a European demos, in the sense of a population that feels itself to be one, is non-existent; thus it seems evident that, as Anthony Giddens has written, we require “democratising of democracy” to avoid the structures of inequity (old-boy networks, racism, sexism, corruption) present in most democratic societies, and also in EU institutions (2002, p. 168). The question should not be raised exclusively in terms of the “constitutional argument”, or with reference to “social contracts”, but in terms of inventing new forms of political affiliation and commitment, not modelled on the institutions of the nation-state (Bellamy & Warleigh, 2001, p. 10). Often the principle of subsidiarity is presented as an example of a strategy to consolidate cohesion and proximity in the process of decision-making. This argument has merit, yet we cannot ignore the counterargument, presented by Lee Casey and David Rivkin who, after quoting the definition of subsidiarity given by Pascal Lamy (European Commissioner for Trade),4 reverse the perspective from which the principle of subsidiarity is intended to be understood, maintaining that it is rather a way of removing from “popular politics” matters that are to be decided at the European level. This is why the political legitimacy of the EU depends as much upon the efficiency of outcomes, as on the process by which those outcomes are achieved. As Mark Kleinman has stated: “More attention will need to be given to the political and constitutional underpinnings of integration – and as a result, politics may re-emerge from the shadow of the economics” (2002, p. 223). Another quite different way of addressing this issue of the “democratic deficit” is through the implementation of strategies of decision-making that rely on a more technical approach. It is necessary to emphasise the implications of the EU’s affinity 3

“The term open method of co-ordination stems from the Lisbon European Council [...]. The emphasis is on consensus-forming with three elements of the economic situation; agreement of the appropriate economic policy response; and acceptance of peer pressure and, where necessary, adjustment of the policies being pursued” (Hodson & Maher, 2001, p. 723). 4

“The principle by which we tackle subjects at the right level which means as close to the man in the street as possible. We should only transfer to a higher, or more general, political body those questions which individuals, families, villages, regions, nations cannot decide for themselves” (cf. Casey & Rivkin, 2001, p. 49).

46

ANTÓNIO NÓVOA & WILLIAM

DEJONG-LAMBERT

for depoliticisation by delegation to policy networks: “When a policy decision point approaches, but clashes between rival advocacy coalitions cause impasse, the EU’s natural propensity is to depoliticise issues and ‘push’ them back to the sub-systemic level for quiet resolution” (Peterson, 2001, p. 309). A diversity of strategies – benchmarking, target-setting, peer review, expert networks, performance indicators, etc. – are mobilized in order to distract discussion from political issues, and reorient them towards the more diffuse level of governance. The “regulatory state” is thus implicated as an “evaluative state” as well, when elements of the market economy are brought into the public sector, and government use of incentives and performance indicators replaces “central planning and detailed regulation” (Van Heffen, Kickert & Thomassen, 2000, p. 5). This transformation has considerable implications for education because the “Europeanisation of education” is based on this method of establishing standards and benchmarks, enforcing the illusion that each country is free to follow its own path. According to the secretary general of the European Round Table of Industrialists, this institution played an important role in promoting benchmarking as a tool for guiding EU policies: “The idea was to establish criteria relevant to competitiveness and then publish figures in a regular and systematic way that would encourage each country to try to catch up with the best practice elsewhere, but without dictating the specific policy measures needed” (cf. Sisson & Marginson, 2001, p. 2). In fact, despite the illusion of autonomy, standards are pervasive mechanisms of governance, guides for how to behave and for judging behaviour (Abbot & Snidal, 2001), which must not be taken for granted. In 1999 the President of the European Commission declared “We are all benchmarkers now”, indicating the degree to which this practice has replaced legal regulation or collective bargaining as the primary engine of Europeanisation (cf. Sisson & Marginson, 2001). Though standards and benchmarks are presented as being based on some neutral, consensual and objective definition of best practice: “Everyone has known for ages what ‘best practice’ is, i.e. some form of semi-autonomous team working, backed up by ‘bundles’ of ‘high commitment management practices’, such as training, extensive two-way communication systems and employment security” (Sisson & Marginson, 2001, p. 3). Nevertheless, the question must be raised: Who marks the bench? (cf. Kastrinos, 2001). From this question we embark on a kind of mystification, leading to a de-politicisation certain to increase the feeling of “inevitability” in European affairs and the lack of “presence” of European citizens. To avoid such a condition we must move beyond rhetoric and the fragmented appeal to participation and active citizenship. Rather we should, as Pierre Bourdieu has contended, strengthen social movements as part of a process of inventing another kind of state, because “contrary to the neoliberal perspective, all social gains have historically come from active struggles” (cf. Grass & Bourdieu, 2002, p. 66). Nation-Europe and Citizenship Since the fall of the Berlin Wall an intense debate has been taking place concerning nation-states and globalisation (Smith, 2000). It is worth referring to two different


47

perspectives in this debate: first, the assertion that “nations do not make states and nationalisms but the other way around” (Hobsbawm, 1990, p. 10); and second, the fact that “a growing cosmopolitanism does not in itself entail the decline of nationalism” (Smith, 1991, p. 176). These two points may inform an analysis of the European Union because it is obvious that we are witnessing an attempt to create supra-national regulations with what we could refer to as a “transnational state” (Robinson, 2001). It is also obvious, however, that as an intergovernmental structure, the EU is contributing to a strengthening of the nation-state (Brubaker, 1996). The ambiguity of this “hybrid form”, existing somewhere between the nation-state and the phenomenon of globalisation, is what makes EU studies so complex. Thus there is the risk of “homogenising” the European space, ignoring cultural, historical and economic differences among individuals and countries, North, South, East, West, centre and periphery. In this instance we end up with a mythical construction of nation-Europe, an entity filled with an “excess of past” and an “excess of future”. Despite theory and the complexity of contemporary politics, there is still the idea of transposing to the European level a nineteenth-century concept of Europe, subliminally present in most debates (Andrew, Crook & Walker, 2000). It is possibly an oversimplification, but one can perhaps identify two different strategies in this regard: a pragmatic approach, related to the “banal Europeanism” referred to above, and an identitarian approach, embedded in a conception of “heroic Europeanism” (Cram, 2001; Nevola, 2001). Though these two strategies are often mixed in programmes and political initiatives, they are still analytically useful in grasping different processes and tendencies. Anthony Smith highlights the “scant justice” done by post-modern analyses of the nation-state and describes the differences between those who believe in the idea of “national identity” and those who have ceased to believe that such a concept is either viable or desirable. In both cases, attempts are made to inspire a sense of “being” and “feeling” European. Is the European Union merely a “condominium of powers” (Smith, 1991, p. 153), or “can love of Europe as patria be engineered” (Shore, 2000, p. 3)? Most important is perhaps Foucault’s question: “What makes a Nation [in this case the so-called Nation-Europe] entitled to ask someone to die for it” (cf. Lotringer, 1996, p. 415). The pragmatic approach tends to emphasise the conditions necessary to integrate the “European idea” into the quotidian details of individual experience: the customs union and the single market, demarcated by the abolition of internal frontiers within which circulates a single currency. The elements defining this approach are in the recent white paper on European Governance, with the implementation of policy orientations towards: use of accessible language; promotion of wider participation; greater clarity and responsibility; greater flexibility and effectiveness; overall policy coherence. As we shall see in the next section, this same orientation also influences education policy. The adoption of “networking” and “benchmarking” tools is part of this process as well, along with the establishment of uniform statistics, the organisation of comparative schemata, the creation of new Euro-symbols and concurrently, the rewriting of history – even if, as Ernest Renan has said, “getting its history wrong is part of being a nation” (cf.

48


Hobsbawm, 1990, p. 12). Thus we demarcate a shared territory with the identitarian approach, which legitimises itself through the definition of a “European heritage”. In fact, the attempts to invent this “heritage”, which characterise the identitarian approach, have proved deceptive and disappointing. As Jürgen Habermas argues, the identity of the European Union should be developed around “civic values”, rather than some elusive “common heritage” (Giddens, 2002, p. 168). This “heritage” is typically constructed around a kind of civilisational thinking, stressing Greco-Roman or Judeo-Christian heritages as the lay foundation of Europe. In this instance the European Union is grounded in an ahistorical, “unitarian past”, which simultaneously suggests a “grandiose future”. Thus the popularity of the strategic goal which the EU has set for itself of becoming “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world”. This intention, articulated during the European Lisbon Council in 2000, has been repeated incessantly ever since. Yet the nation-state has unquestionably remained the primary focus of loyalty in Europe (Andrew, Crook & Waller, 2000), a loyalty which is the cause of a recurrent frustration with the realities of unionisation. It is important to remember, however, that it took centuries to build nations; thus it should be expected that the construction of political Europe is certain to be an extended process as well. However, as Dominique Schnapper argues, creating the conditions for the construction of a “European public space”, would be a more helpful approach than the recurrent and overwhelming rhetoric on the topic of “European identity” (2002, p. 9). The latter will certainly result in claims for education as the location wherein the European citizen may be modelled. European Commissioner for Education and Culture, Viviane Reding, has indicated the probability of this tendency by stating: “If we want to build a living Europe, with a soul, a destination and a world role [...] it is there, in the schools, the universities, the training centers, that Europe can grant itself a soul” (2000, p. 2). Identity, heritage, soul – such terms are invoked to conjure the idea of a European citizenship. We do not intend to enter into discussions already begun (Bellamy & Warleigh, 2001; Cederman, 2001; Eder & Giesen, 2001; Schnapper, 2002) because we feel that such a debate results in an exaggeration of Europe which is unsustainable. As Dipesh Chakrabarty has said, this debate obscures the fact that Europe is “not the centre of the world, but only a small group of nations occupying a small region of the world that has attracted attention to itself during the last few centuries” (cf. Argyrou, 2001, p. 222). One of the more prominent positions in this dialogue emphasises a postnational collective identity to “provide a social basis for transnational institutions” and account for what is “shared” by those contained within the space which those institutions govern (Giesen & Eder, 2001). Gaspare Nevola even goes so far as to describe a “European patriotism of multinational citizenship” (2001, p. 343). Nevertheless, when one considers different theoretical and practical developments, it seems that the model of nation building remains central, and that terms such as multiple and variable geometry are simply evidence of an incapacity to outline a “new form” of citizenship. It is obvious that a dynamic of “inclusion” and “exclusion” must also be factored in, evinced by an increase in racial and social issues: “The institution of European citizenship is an attempt towards defining who is an insider and who is not” (Eder & Giesen, 2001, p. 2). But


49

there are more questions than answers, and the answers have already been suggested are not convincing to most Europeans. Education, Education, Education Historicism contents itself with establishing a causal connection between various moments in history. But no fact that is a cause is for that very reason historical. It became historical posthumously, as it were, through events that may be separated from it by thousands of years. A historian who takes this as his point of departure stops telling the sequence of events like the beads of a rosary. Instead, he grasps the constellation which his own era has formed with a definite earlier one. Thus he establishes a conception of the present at the “time of the now” which is shot through with chips of Messianic time (Benjamin, 1968, p. 263).

Educational systems have been defined as a consequence of events in which they play a role in determining, and of which they are themselves a result. There is in addition a clear connection between comparative research and social and political processes of historical change. Benjamin’s notion of Messianic time refers to the idea that human history is a nearly undetectable fraction of the totality of historical time, coinciding with the fact that the historical present is merely an abridgement of the entire history of humankind. Benjamin thus opens up another possibility for the comparative approach and the history of education. The nineteenth century is often recognised as the period during which the concept of national identity was developed. The consolidation of culture within political boundaries was a process which necessitated the legitimisation of a particular history or literature, not to mention the endowment of certain values with the status of collective ideals. This process has been described as the formation of a “civic religion”, constitutive of a national “self-image” (Bourdieu, 1994). Concomitant with the development of national identity was the rise of mass schooling. The purpose of the educational institution expanded from having simply to do with instruction in academics, to the inculcation of what it meant to be a citizen of a given nation-state. Thus education came to play a role in state building and political unification. National ideology would be challenged during the twentieth century by movements which sought to promote other criteria for identification, such as class or race, but at the beginning of the twenty-first century nationalism at the country level has remained as the dominant form of collective identity. In the context of the nation-state, as a transmitter of national identity, education plays the role of linking the private citizen with the public polity. As the role of the nation has grown and transformed (particularly in terms of the development of the colony into post-colonial status), so has education expanded into a globally recognised institution. As the primary site for the promotion of modernity in terms of intellectual and technological progress, the school has served as the institution most responsible for the integration of the individual into the wider society. European unionisation, however, is an indicator of the fact that the dominant form of political organisation, the nation-state, is open to challenge. Therefore, we are justified in wondering whether we are nearing a period in which the school as well, or at least its role, may be radically transformed. Whatever happens to citizenship in

50


the context of the European Union, it seems clear that education will be subject to the same dynamics. References to a European “collective consciousness” lead to the assertion that this consciousness must be educated. In a certain way, it seems that nineteenth-century processes of identity building are being replicated nowadays in Europe. It is true that several authors try to explain the differences between these two processes. But, when it comes to education, we end up with the same kind of expectations, and even the same kind of words, used more than a century ago: “education and training are not only the engines of growth and of economic innovation, but also the keys for creating a genuine European citizenship” (Reding, 2000, p. 1). It seems that our thinking is “frozen” in a particular historical period, and that nothing else can even be imagined. It would be easy to cite hundreds of works to expand this argument. But we will only use two recent texts, by Elie Barnavi and Lars-Erik Cederman. In the first, a strong case is made to incorporate European identity in the collective consciousness of Europeans: “We have the formula for this [...]. One need only draw from the arsenal of the nation states. This arsenal has a name: education” (2002, pp. 92-93). For Barnavi, promoting European identity means educating Europeans about being European, by showing them what unites them around a common history, common values, mentalities, and lifestyles. Yet from a different perspective, Cederman also asserts that “more than anything else, public education serves a central function not just as a knowledge producer but also as a creator of citizens” (2001, p. 140). It is interesting to analyse these claims, and to use them to understand the demands being put upon education, or better, the “European educational space”. This space is occupied by two approaches towards the achievement of a common European educational system referred to before as the pragmatic and identitarian approaches. The first consists of comparatively modest, logistical concerns such as mobility, recognition of diplomas and credentials, employability and the enhancement of quality. In the case of the latter, on the other hand, the focus is placed on what has been called the “European dimension of education”, encompassing more sensitive issues such as curriculum content and teacher training. These two perspectives are combined, in several ways, in most EU policy orientation, which we will analyse in the next section of this chapter, dedicated to European educational policies. 2. TOWARDS A EUROPEAN EDUCATIONAL SPACE? The [European] Commission believes that no single Member State can accomplish all this alone. Our societies, like our economies, are now too interdependent for this to be realistic. While we must preserve the differences of structure and system which reflect the identities of the countries and regions of Europe, we must also recognise that our main objectives, and the results we all seek, are strikingly similar. We should build on those similarities to learn from each other, to share our successes and failures, and to use education together to advance European citizens and European society into the new millennium (European Commission, The concrete future objectives of education systems, 2001, § 37).


51

Education has been one of the most contested arenas in Europe, not only due to its symbolic value in national imaginaries but also because of public resistance to a “common policy”. The results of the Eurobarometer5 reveal that a majority of European citizens believe that the formulation of educational policies should remain at the level of each Member State. The European Union put forward some measures in education and training, but simultaneously reiterated in their literature, namely in the Treaties, that the formation of educational policies should remain at the national level. The history of educational policies within the European Union is wellestablished (Hingel, 2001; Nóvoa, 2000, 2002). Results of opinion polls determined that education should remain the primary concern of Member States, thus inhibiting the integration of policies at the European level. It has been clear, however, for quite a while that there has been an ongoing effort to inscribe a “European dimension” into national educational policies. The attitude of the European Commission towards the integration of education systems within the Union has been described as a consistent effort to proceed “one step further” (Berggreen-Merkel, 1999, p. 2). This does not necessarily mean, however, that greater unification has in fact taken place in education. A number of studies have shown that there has not been a marked convergence at the institutional or policy levels, or in terms of the structure or practice of education and training (Green, Wolf & Leney, 1999). Yet we cannot ignore the fact that since the middle of the 1980s, and increasingly in recent years, the programmes and guidelines that have been implemented at the European level reflect a consensus of thought about education. Our argument is that Europe functions as a regulatory ideal that tends to influence, if not to organise, national policies. It is obvious that “homogenisation” will not occur, and in fact talk of the “diversity” of national educational systems is almost tautological. Nevertheless, the tendency towards defining common goals, similar strategies – and thus the formulation of identical policies – can be expected to recur. The complexity of this debate requires the adoption of new theoretical tools and approaches. References to traditional distinctions and dichotomies will not enable new understandings. An arithmetical conception of power – less power at the national level meaning more power at the European level, and vice versa – is totally inaccurate. Indeed, one could just as well consider the European Union to be a political form which strengthens the nation-state, acknowledging that among its institutions and the levels of decision-making, it is the Member States and their representatives who are most powerful (Peterson, 2001). It is also important to remember that in most national states the local and regional authorities hold important responsibilities for decisions on education. Thus dualistic and simplistic analyses will not enable us to understand the actual dynamics of what is taking place. An important document issued in March 2001, by the head of the educational policy unit in Brussels does, however, provide us with a clearer picture: Since the very beginning of European cooperation in the field of education, Ministers of Education have underlined the diversity of their systems of education. The very reason 5

The Eurobarometer publishes results from various surveys and research instruments used to measure the “public opinion” on European issues (http://www.europe.eu.int/comm/ public_opinion).

52

ANTÓNIO NÓVOA & WILLIAM DEJONG-LAMBERT why they met was in fact that their systems were diverse. Any mentioning of common denominators was considered of lesser importance and mainly used in national debates. The Lisbon conclusions break with this by asking the Ministers to concentrate their reflection on what is common. [...] The Lisbon conclusions implicitly give the Union the mandate to develop a common interest approach in education going beyond national diversities as can already be seen in the demand to Ministers of Education to debate common objectives of educational systems. This mandate will lead to an increase in the European dimension of national educational policies (Hingel, 2001, pp. 15, 19).

The intent to legitimise a “common approach” to educational policy is clear. Though the statement that most educational matters are still decided at the national level is undeniable the word “still” must be emphasised. This is why the controversy taking place at the end of the 1990s with regard to the so-called “European educational area” seems definitively closed. Going only as far back as 1999, however, it is still possible to find arguments such as that presented by Berggreen-Merkel: “Acknowledging the many actions in the field of education and training [...] justifies the Commission’s assertion that by law and by facts the European Union is aiming for already building on a common European educational area. However [...] one should refrain from using this term. [...] It would be easier to talk about a European area of educational cooperation and mobility” (1999, p. 6). The jurisdictional, cautious nature of this rhetoric seems naïve in the light of recent political developments. Only two years later, the head of the EU education policy unit did not hesitat to reframe this discussion, and move one step further: “What is presently happening in co-operation in the field of education tells us, that not only is a European Space of Education in its making, common principles of education are being agreed upon between Member States, leading logically to a European Model of Education” (Hingel, 2001, p. 4). To develop an understanding of this process, which we interpret as a shift in the construction of EU policy guidelines, is the goal of this chapter. We will focus on the last decade (1992-2002), and argue that the year 2000, particularly during the period of the Portuguese presidency of the European Union, marks a turning point. After several years of working on the possibilities opened up by the Maastricht Treaty, an acceleration and deepening of educational policy at the European level took place. In order to address this decade-long process we will use a metaphor describing different states of matter, that allow us to describe not only the “proprieties” of the matter, but also to understand different ways of occupying “space”. Maastricht (1992): A first turning point The first phase of European co-operation in the field of education can be called the liquid state of politics. The association between schooling and identity formation, not to mention restrictions enforced through various treaties, have limited the potential for policy application on the part of the European Commission in education. The result has been the development of what we may refer to as a “logic of programmes” – i.e. something that is not inscribed in the routine of schools or regular practice of education policies, but rather is formulated as voluntary or temporary agreements. The outcome has been programmes that are described as


53

more successful, particularly with regard to mobility and exchanges. Nevertheless, one should not ignore three other tendencies, which have been present since the initial attempts at co-operation in the educational field. To begin with, a broad interpretation of “vocational training” has allowed the European Commission to intervene in many educational areas, particularly in higher education. This was done through the application of certain provisions related to the “labour market”, transforming the liquidity of politics into the solidity of regulation, in terms of an over-determination of education by the economic context of the job market, and the “necessity” of creating a “qualified” workforce. Secondly, the construction of educational statistics, taking place for the first time at the European level, created the obligation for countries to organise data, based on similar criteria.6 This trend towards the homogenisation of information, justified by the claim that this was the only possible way to compare European educational systems, also led to the solidification of politics. In fact, the invention of “comparable indicators” is as much a way of constructing reality as it is of describing it. A final factor has been the constant, often subliminal, presence of claims concerning the introduction of a European dimension into the curriculum. We refer to this inclination as a vaporisation of politics, because it transforms liquidity into a much vaguer, boundless state. This usually consists of references to European heritage and values. In fact, however, as Lars-Erik Cederman (2001) has noted, most of these attempts have fallen on deaf ears. It is clear that the first phase of European politics was characterised by liquidity (principles of mobility, “voluntary” exchange and communication), though it is possible to detect tendencies towards solidification and vaporisation as well. We will argue that, in various ways, these three states of matter are always present inside the European Union. An important turning point took place in 1992-1993, with the approval of the Maastricht Treaty and the discussion surrounding it. Throughout the 1990s a large body of literature was produced, describing the significance of Maastricht: “By introducing Art. 126 and 127 into the Treaty of Rome, the Treaty of Maastricht had taken into account the fact that in spite of the lack of explicit Community powers to deal with education as a whole, a common educational policy had gradually been established” (Berggreen-Merkel, 1999, p. 1). It is not worth returning to these arguments, so well known by those familiar with European studies (Müller-Solger, 1999). Most of the documents issued after 1992-1993 begin by asserting the need to develop quality education, a catchphrase which served to legitimise European initiatives in this area. This phase is characterised by what we refer to as the vaporous state of politics. The metaphor is used to address the occurrence of strong rhetoric, particularly with reference to the “society of the future”, but also to certain concepts such as “quality education” or “lifelong learning”. Occupying all available space, as only gas or vapour may do, they delegitimise alternative ways of thinking. With reference to the period under discussion (1993-2000), it is possible to distinguish three different approaches, all contributing to a vaporisation of European educational policies. First, there is the recurrent discourse concerning the European 6

See the history of Eurydice, the information network on education in Europe (http://www.eurydice.org).

54


dimension of education. This is condensed in the Green Paper of the same title, issued in 1993. One imagines a “past”, which legitimises current European institutions, yet at the same time invents a “future”, which supports contemporary political decisions. Important groups have been mobilised to fulfil this goal, particularly in the fields of history and literature yet one cannot avoid a sense of irresolution at the level of identity, as citizens become only fragments upon which past and future are inscribed. Second, the emphasis on lifelong learning betrays a desire to find a single solution for a variety of problems. Lifelong learning is not only invoked with reference to education and schooling, but also to the problems of unemployment and preparation for the job market. One may observe how this concept was re-articulated and, to a certain degree, reinvented to address social and economic problems within the European Union. The year 1996 was named as the “European Year of Lifelong Learning”, and since then the term has continued to permeate European policy as a panacea: “As such, lifelong learning plays a central role in promoting social inclusion, in enhancing European competitiveness and in combatting unemployment” (Reding, 2000a, p. 4). Finally, we may refer to a collection of papers and reports, issued and published for the purpose of identifying important issues in the educational field. These documents develop a space for “future politics” with an appealing language: Teaching and Learning: Towards the learning society (1995), Accomplishing Europe through Education and Training (1997), Towards a Europe of Knowledge (1997), Learning for Active Citizenship (1998), etc. Though they have had no immediate political consequences, their rhetoric imposes a way of considering education, delineating vital orientations. They establish a future consisting of that which is “personally or socially desirable, rather than what is objectively likely” (Bennet, 2001, p. 194), even as they produce new memories to fill the space of history they have rewritten. These documents are thus part of a political construction which imposes as natural what is in fact particular. It is important to keep in mind, however, that referring to something metaphorically as vaporous, with the attendant associations of intangibility, does not mean that these policies are insubstantial. The fact that these ways of thinking occupied all available space impeded the emergence of alternative discourses. It is important to recognise how certain ways of discussing come to predominate, even as they de-legitimise other approaches as “old-fashioned” or “unrealistic”, consigning them to the dustbin of “criticism”, “unrealism” or “outdatedness”.7 Meanwhile, some polices during this same period were solidified after entering into contact with certain social or economic realities. This was clearly the case with lifelong learning, once it became instrumental in solving the problem of unemployment and addressing the crisis of the so-called “European social model”. This was also the case with the “prospective discourse” as read against the background of the “new

7

This process may be observed, for example, in the evaluation by the European Commission, and/or by experts nominated by the European Commission, of research proposals in the field of education.


55

technological era”, leading to important changes in the institution of schooling, as well as conceptions of the learning process.8 Lisbon (2000): A Second Turning Point The adoption in 1999 of a “rolling agenda” by the Education Council signalled an increasing integration of European educational policies. The following year in Lisbon two important decisions were made: one, to move towards a knowledgebased economy as the “way forward” towards unionisation, and two, the adoption of an open method of co-ordination, “coupled with a stronger guiding and coordinating role for the European Council to ensure more coherent strategic direction and effective monitoring of progress” (2000, § 7). The means to achieve a “knowledge society” was described in terms of an “investment in people”, by placing education at the forefront of European initiatives. Therefore it is not surprising that the European Council requested that the Education Council “undertake a general reflection on the concrete future objectives of education systems, focusing on common concerns and priorities while respecting national diversity” (2000, § 27). Extending our metaphor, we can mark this as the point of transition to a solid state of politics. This solidity is confirmed by systematic use of benchmarking as a strategy to implement the open method of co-ordination, creating instruments that will allow for monitoring and evaluation of progress achieved. Keeping in mind the association between structure and solidity, it is interesting to note that at the time of the Barcelona European Council (March 2002), the Spanish Minister of Education stated that education should be considered as the “fourth pillar” of the European Union.9 In the last two years (2000-2002) important changes have taken place, reflecting an intention to establish common objectives, as well as common indicators to monitor and assess European educational systems. As noted by Dermot Hodson and Imelda Maher, the open method of co-ordination “is being applied in new areas, such as pension reform and education policy” (2001, p. 725). With this in mind it is worth underlining the significance of the Memorandum on Lifelong Learning (2000) and the European Report on Quality of School Education (2000). As for the former, lifelong learning is broadly defined as “all purposeful learning activity undertaken with the aim of improving knowledge, skills and competence, whether formal – in pre-school, school, higher education, adult education, vocational 8

It is s interesting to note the popularity of the concept of lifelong learning in recent EU documents. An example can be found in the Bulletin EU, with reference to strategies identified in order to implement the Commission communication Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality: “working in partnerships across the learning spectrum, understand demand for learning, facilitating access to learning opportunities, providing adequate resources, creating a learning culture and maximizing the quality of the learning experience itself (n° 11, 2001) (emphasis added). 9

Legally the European Union is organised in terms of three pillars: the European Communities, Common and Foreign Security Policy and Cooperation in Justice and Home Affairs (Dinan, 1999; Moussis, 1997). “Education and Culture” are included in the first pillar; thus this call for education to stand alone as its own pillar is to make the point that it is vital to be subsumed under some other category.

56


training – or informal, in work and leisure environments” (Reding, 2000a, p. 4). Furthermore, lifelong learning is considered to be a key factor in creating an “active employment policy”, as well as being the main strategy for enhancing employability and to “promote quality in employment” (“Annexes to the European Council Conclusions”, Bulletin EU, n° 12, 2000). As for the development of quality education, this entitled the European Commission for the first time, to set up a series of “indicators”, selected by a “working committee of experts”, whose aims were described by Anders Hingel in Le Magazine, where he wrote: “Of course, not all countries are ready to implement the concept of benchmarks. But this report deserves credit for confronting education ministers with the challenges brought to light by the results of the indicators. In what we might call a logic of emulation, they are now endeavoring to learn what the others are doing better” (2001, p. 5). Thus one may clearly understand the central role which the European Commission is being asked to play in the regulation of educational policies. The political rhetoric is characterised by repeated references to principles such as “diversity”, “full responsibility of Member States”, and so on. However these terms are now coupled with references to “common objectives”, “reinforced co-operation”, and “mutual accountability”. This is the new manner of formulating educational policies, at the national and European levels, which has been in the process of being defined in recent years. The report from the Commission, The Concrete Objectives of the Education Systems (2001), expresses this shift. Throughout the document we are presented with a series of “concerns”, “concrete objectives”, “methods for policy implementation” and “evaluation indicators”. In March 2001, the Stockholm European Council confirmed its “top priority to make the Union the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world”, an intent inclusive of an emphasis on education policies and the principle of lifelong learning. This same aim was present one year later when the Barcelona European Council agreed upon a programme to be achieved by 2010, which would focus on education and training systems (Work Programme for 2010). Henceforth it will be impossible to ignore the existence of a European educational space, consisting of two tendencies: one, education policies increasingly formulated at the European level, two, the increasing influence of these developments on national policies. This is not a process which will be accomplished through legislation or compulsion, but rather through emulation, co-operation and participation. It is difficult to imagine a Member State opting out of this game of “freely adhering” to shared guidelines. The outcome of this issuance of guidelines and documents, coming from multiple EU institutions, is illustrated in terms of current political trends in the educational field, reflected in the Work Programme for 2010. This, therefore, is the document we will focus on in the next section.


57

3. THE WORK PROGRAMME FOR 2010: A NEW TEMPO FOR EUROPEAN EDUCATIONAL POLICIES The Council and the Commission request that an Education and Training Area now be explicitly recognised as a key priority domain in the Lisbon strategy. [...] Making the European Union the leading knowledge-based economy in the world will only be possible with the crucial contribution from education and training as factors of economic growth, innovation, sustainable employability and social cohesion (Council of the European Union, Detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems in Europe, 2002, p. 10).

The Work Programme for 2010 clearly establishes a new tempo for European educational policies. Elaborated at the beginning of the year 2002, it builds on events and initiatives that have taken place since the Lisbon European Council, showing “that the development of education and training systems in a lifelong learning and in a worldwide perspective has increasingly been acknowledged as a crucial factor for the future of Europe in the knowledge era” (2002, p. 9).10 The primary purpose of the programme is to organise EU educational standards into a “single comprehensive strategy”, consisting of two types of activity: work on common challenges, and efforts to utilise the potential of transnational activities in education and training (2002, p. 13). The document defines three strategic objectives, broken down into thirteen related objectives and forty-three key issues.11 Implementing the new “open method of coordination”, these issues and objectives are said to be based upon “the identification of shared concerns and objectives, the spreading of good practice and the measurement of progress through agreed instruments, comparing achievements both between European countries and with the rest of the world” ( 2002, p. 6). Without going too much into detail, our analysis of this document will focus on the content of the form and the form of the content – playing on the title of the well-known book by Hayden White (1987). We will first address questions of “method” and “structure”, explaining how they are part of the content of the policies adopted. We will then give attention to the three stated strategic objectives, in order to understand how they imply new conceptions of education, as well as a change in the inter- and intra-relationships of European states.

10 Throughout this section we will be quoting the document Detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems in Europe, which we will refer to as Work Programme for 2010, as it is cited in the conclusions of the European Council. Those familiar with EU materials know that several, slightly different, versions of the same document typically exist. The reason for this has to do with the complexity of European institutions and the fact that the same document must be approved by different bodies. In this chapter we will be referring to document 6365/02 – EDUC 27, approved in 2002 by the Education Council (February 14) and by the Barcelona European Council (March 15-16). 11 On page 12 the document refers to “forty-two” key issues, which is actually incorrect. The mistake itself is irrelevant, except in that it confirms our earlier contention with regard to the “provisional nature” of EU documents.

58


The content of the form: A strategy, a method, a structure The building of a “single comprehensive strateg” implies the obligation to clarify both a method and a structure for educational policies. The Work Programme for 2010 is quite transparent on these issues, emphasising the four verbs quoted above: identify, spread, measure and compare. To identify means to agree on shared objectives and guidelines for educational policies, and to spread refers to the diffusion and transfer of most successful practices from one country to another. To measure is to establish precise benchmarks and to evaluate the performance of each educational system, and to compare means to organise a way of assessing the progress made by each country. It is pointless to restate the overt intention that all of these convergence policies be adopted on a voluntary basis by each Member State, a contention reflected in the document by abundant references to “agreed instruments”, “voluntary participation”, “partnerships” and “decentralised approaches”. The goal of this process is described as “to help Member States to develop their own policies progressively” (2002, p. 12), which we translate as: “to help Member States to develop their own policies progressively, in accordance with the objectives defined at the European level”. The method is to utilise tools “such as indicators and benchmarks as well as comparing best practice, periodic monitoring, evaluation and peer review etc. organised as mutual learning processes” (2002, p. 12). The structure of the document underlines this tendency presenting, after the description of each of the thirteen objectives, the “indicators for measuring progress” and the themes of “exchanging experience”, “good practice” and “peer review”. The new tempo is determined by a will to “solidify” European educational policies, creating the instruments to monitor, evaluate and compare the progress achieved. The four key verbs – identify, spread, measure and compare – serve to construct a “way of thinking” in which the form defines the content of educational policies. This same dynamic can be seen in the table presented at the end of the Work Programme for 2010 – “Model to be used in the follow-up of quantitative indicators to support the implementation of the objectives using the open method of coordination” – shown below (a footnote explains that all decisions will be made by consensus and on a voluntary basis, even if “this process of implementation will require the availability of national statistical data according to the indicators chosen”):


59

It is useful to underline three ideas which contradict the strong rhetoric contained in the statements put forward by EU officials. First, the claim that the purpose of the exercise is “to learn from one another, not to single out the good pupils from the bad” (Le Magazine, No. 14, 2001, p. 5). In fact, the intention is to organise a league table for nations. The comparison made is between the “average (EU)” and the “average of three best performing (EU)”, versus the “rest of the world”. Curiously enough, the entire “rest of the world” is represented only by the United States and Japan. A second idea is related to a policy, defined through “benchmarks”, creating an educational discourse that includes indicators, outcomes, data and knowledge, which functions as a regulating rule, obliging everyone to refer back to it. Cohesion and configuration of policy is not achieved through sanctions, but through a much more sophisticated approach. Voluntary participation by each nation-state, without any compulsory obligation, serves to legitimise these arguments. It is difficult to imagine how a national state could stand outside of this “playing field”. Finally, let us mention the importance of the harmonisation of statistical data. This process is not simply a matter of collecting and organising data; rather it is a process that constructs educational realities as much as it describes them. Through the arrangement of categories and classifications, a definition of the “best system” is proposed, suggesting the policies necessary to proceed in this direction. An analogy can be established according to arguments raised by Peter Miller, with reference to “calculative practices”: “Management accounting seeks to affect the conduct of individuals in such a way that they act freely, yet in accordance with specified economic norms” (2001, p. 380). In fact, the idea of building “comparable indicators” is best understood as a powerful way of formulating educational policies. “We are all comparativists now” Despite increased recognition of the multiple ways in which communities are composed and imagined, the nation-state as an approach to political and social organisation remains predominant (Anderson, 1991). Yet at the same time it is necessary to acknowledge processes of globalisation and reorganisation of the world through interdependencies and political agreements, as in the case of the European Union. The formulation of policy is increasingly subject to pressures which challenge the legitimacy of democratic governments, and it is in this context that comparison has emerged as a method to construct and interpret data. The key term surrounding this process is “benchmarks”, by which one may measure “outcomes” and thus establish “standards”. These terms are part of a discourse, established by experts devising the concepts, methodologies and tools of comparison. The production of these terms is contingent upon the politics of “mutual accountability”, referring to a process by which schools share and participate in a process of comparison. The notion of “mutuality” implies a horizontality, but the result is in fact a vertical hierarchy, with a ranking established on the basis of standards which are assumed to be “natural” or “evident”. Thus comparison can be understood as a mechanism to justify EU interference in local educational issues. The logic of comparison produces a vocabulary consisting

60


of positive terms such as “exchange”, “joint reflection” and “agreement”. Meanwhile, fear of uniformity or homogeneity is negated by an emphasis on “independent” identification of “best practices” within this context of comparison. Reference points are established through comparable criteria which provide the appearance of transferability. What is presented as a strategy to improve education is, however, in actuality a mode of governance. Democracy is circumvented as policy formation is removed from the purview of politicians and citizens, and falls under the control of groups conducting research and organising the data culled from comparison. The form of the content: Quality, access, openness The Work Programme for 2010 returns systematically to the same issues, in a narrative construction that is intentionally circular and redundant. Two terms appear repeatedly, defined and redefined according to context – the first is “quality” and the second is “lifelong learning”. These concepts are useful in addressing the form of the content, found throughout the document: on the one hand, they define a strong tendency towards mechanisms of evaluation, leading to rankings and classifications that consecrate as “inevitable” a particular way of conceiving education and schooling; on the other hand, they introduce a new approach to educational matters, at both the personal and the social level, stressing the responsibility of each individual to constantly update his or her skills so as to enhance and maintain their own employability. With this in mind, we will characterise the three strategic objectives of the Work Programme for 2010, examining critically how they are defined and presented. “Improved Quality”: Andante con moto (tempo misurato) “Improving quality and effectiveness”, is the first strategic objective of the Work Programme for 2010. Besides the usual references to teacher education, new technologies, scientific and technical studies, as well as the best use of resources, the document focuses on key competencies for the so-called “knowledge society”. The identification of these competencies is not very different from the “attainment indicators” chosen in 2000 to evaluate the “quality of school education” (cf. European Report on the Quality of School Education, 2000, p. 7). “Mathematics”, “Reading”, “Science”, and “Foreign Languages” are accompanied by “Information and communication technologies”, and by “Learning to learn”. The former reference to “Civics” is now replaced by “Social skills” and “Entrepreneurship”.12 It is no surprise that the “key competencies” are organised into three groups – scientific, 12

Indicators included in the Quality Report on the Quality of School Education: Mathematics; Reading; Science; Information and communication technologies; Foreign languages; Learning to learn; Civics (2000, p. 7). Key competencies identified in the Work Programme for 2010: Numeracy and literacy (foundational skills); Basic competencies in mathematics, science and technology; Foreign languages; ICT skills and use of technology; Learning to learn; Social skills; Entrepreneurship; General culture (2002, p. 18).


61

communicational and technological. The exclusion of the humanities, in the broader sense of the term, is accompanied by a psycho-sociological and entrepreneurial discourse. This emphasis is very clear with reference to the three “key competencies”: “Learning to learn” is an old pedagogical concept that is redefined by constructivism, but also by the business world, in terms of lifelong learning; “Social skills” contains a perspective that relates to personal relations and networks, as well as to principles of self-responsibility and citizenship; and finally, “Entrepreneurship” signals attention to initiative, management and risk.13 The intent to ensure and to monitor quality education leads, not only to a call for more investment and a reinforcement of public-private partnerships, but also – and this is the point we would like to stress – to the evaluation of progress and achievement through comparable benchmarks and indicators.14 Issues of quality, determined through the politics of comparison, are underpinned by an expertdiscourse that is developed on a global scale, but that is reinforced at the European level by an effort to integrate national policies. One of the main objectives of this policy is to place “less emphasis on the control of input” and “greater emphasis on the control of output”. The practices of audit and accountability seek “to provide policy makers with reference points” by rendering visible their “failures” and “successes” in terms of indicators and standards that have been “commonly” defined and “freely” accepted. In this sense, they are governing principles that construct an educational policy lying in specific forms of knowledge and expertise. The intention is “to create an open and positive climate for dialogue”, and “to provide a strong basis to learn from one another”. We need to understand this “learning from one another” as a process of constructing a way of thinking and acting in the educational field. We can say that “the challenge of data and comparability” (to quote the words of the European Report of the Quality of School Education) establishes a policy without specifically formulating it. And this is the most effective way to change educational systems. At a constant and synchronised speed, slowly but steadily, in tempo misurato, a European educational policy is on the march. “Facilitation of universal access”: Allegro ma non troppo (tempo apiacere) The formulation of the second strategic objective of the Work Programme for 2010 – “Facilitating the access of all” – intentionally emphasises issues related to lifelong learning. It articulates the conventional discourse concerning lifelong learning in European institutions by, on the one hand, redefining “employment” as a learning problem that should be solved by each individual and, on the other hand, creating the illusion that the “crisis of schooling” will be resolved if individuals simply continue to expose themselves to education and training throughout their entire 13

This idea is so important in the framework of the Work Programme for 2010 that it comes back again in the third strategic objective: “Education and training should provide an understanding of the value of enterprise, as well as models of successful entrepreneurship, of the value of risk-taking and of the need for everyone to have a sense of initiative” (2002, p. 36).

14

“This goes for public spending in human resources, spending in private enterprises and investment by each individual” (Work Programme for 2010, 2002, p. 26).

62


lifetime. The uses and abuses of this concept must be understood within the overall framework of providing a “magic solution” for some of the deeper concerns of the European public. Unemployment has been portrayed, particularly by the media, as one of the most important European problems. Therefore, it is no surprise that the European Union places it at the heart of its agenda to eliminate “social exclusion”. It is essential to understand the social relevance of these issues as European states are forced to deal with persistently high levels of unemployment and low rates of job creation. In all of the European guidelines for improving employability, the emphasis is placed on education and training for young people, as well as on lifelong learning. In fact, the concept of employability was recently reinvented as a way to link employment with education, or to interpret unemployment as a problem of “uneducated” people. The mobilisation of this concept in political discourse entailed its transition from the social or economic sphere to the individual sphere. Therefore, it is easy to understand the decision to place lifelong learning at the core of European educational policies, from the “pre-school age to that of postretirement, including the entire spectrum of formal, non-formal and informal learning” (Education and lifelong learning - Council Resolution, 30 May 2002, p. 6). The implication of this emphasis on lifelong learning is that responsibility for resolving the crisis of the Welfare State (and/or the European social model) shifts to citizens who are invited to become responsible for “constantly updating their knowledge” in order to enhance employability and consolidate the process of unionisation. This negation of responsibility at the political level entails a new relationship between the individual, the collective, and the notion of work. This relationship will now be mediated by a “ceaseless” process of “training and retraining, skilling and reskilling, enhancement of credentials and preparation for life of incessant job seeking: life is to become a continuous economic capitalization of the self” (Rose, 1999, p. 161). Consequently, social crisis phenomena such as structural unemployment can be shifted as a burden of risk onto the shoulders of individuals relieving the state of accountability: “The idea of the labour market [...] is replaced by the idea of self-employment: Set up your own business! Your business is your talent! Live and work like an artist! Be a net-worker!” (Beck, 2001, p. 268). Active citizenship, entrepreneurial culture and lifelong learning are part of a process of reconfiguring the self. To understand this it is essential to recognise that economics involves multiple overlapping discourses, based in social, economic and political dimensions. In fact, as Peter Wagner (2001) explains, it would be misleading to discuss the notion of the “entrepreneurial self” only as an economic injunction. Relying on this reformulation, European educational policies are creating new conceptions of the “reasonable” and “responsible” lifelong-learner and, at the same time, constructing an ideology that blames individuals who are unable to take care of their “own life”, that is, their “own education”. The “Open learning environment”, “Making learning more attractive”, and “Supporting active citizenship, equal opportunities and social cohesion”, are goals to be achieved in the context of this objective, in a process played in tempo a piacere – at a high rate of speed... ma non troppo, when encountering issues of employability.


63

“Opening-up to the wider world”: Adagio cantabile (tempo rubato) The third strategic objective – “Opening up education and training systems to the wider world” – takes on issues of strengthening links between education and the workplace, improving foreign language learning, as well as increasing mobility and exchange. It is defined with reference to broad statements (on “cooperation”, “openness”, “sense of initiative”, etc.), but also in terms of precise measures of validation or recognition, quality assurance and accreditation. The goal is to create an open “European area for education” and to promote the “European dimension of teaching and training”. Mobility within the European space is described as not simply movement, but rather as a process which develops awareness of what it means to be a citizen of Europe (Work Programme for 2010, 2002, p. 40). The idea of “experiencing Europe” is concurrent with programmes of mobility and the project of reinforcing European citizenship. As we have already discussed, these issues are quite complex in the European context: on the one hand, the restructuring of memories is a cultural practice, “that forges narratives to instantiate visions of the citizen, the nation, and the new intra-national state of the European Union”; on the other hand, “old images of nation and self are dissociated from the new memories as people re-imagine themselves with a new collective narrative that relates to political projects bound to cultural identities” (Popkewitz, Lindblad & Strandberg, 1999, pp. 52-53). The notion of citizenship is being transferred from the political and social arena to the individual sphere, simultaneously opening up new spaces of affiliation and identity. This is why the documents issued from Brussels combine an attempt to replicate a traditional sense of “nationhood” at the European level, with hybrid discourses permeated by expressions such as “diverse and overlapping values and identities”, “variable geometry”, “complexity and fluidity”, “multiple identities”, “flexible citizenship”, and so on. One should realise that, in this instance, the politics of identity are formulated in terms of qualification and disqualification, leading to the formation of “new educated subjects”, to populate the “knowledge society”. Such a policy in effect exiles all those not endowed with requisite attributes, as well as those simply unable to acquire them. Once again, the concept of mobility is central, because not only does it contain an imaginary of historical journeys and cultural experience, but it also suggests a sense of freedom and openness towards the future. Perhaps “we are witnessing the revenge of nomadism over the principle of territoriality and settlement” (Bauman, 2000, p. 13), but we cannot ignore that “certain travellers are materially privileged, others oppressed” (Clifford, 1997, p. 35). As Ginette Verstraete (2001) argues, the contemporary realignment of European borders, discursively supported by the call for an abstract “right to mobility”, produces at once new forms, as well as new impediments, to the notion of mobility. Even if the “knowledge society” is populated by “mobile people” (Cresswell, 2001), one needs to recognise that little scholarship has been undertaken towards comprehending what might be called the journeys of European integration. And – what is still more relevant – almost no attempt has been made to understand that “the region called Europe has been constantly remade, and traversed, by influences beyond its borders” (Clifford, 1997, p. 3). The Work Programme for 2010 seeks to attract “students,

64


academics and researchers from other world regions”, expecting that European educational institutions will be “recognised world-wide as centres of excellence” (2002, pp. 40 & 43). This objective is formulated against a background in which the United States of America is regarded as the primary competitor in the educational market. Again, the experience of Europe is inseparable from the “others” that live inside and outside European borders, from individual and collective itineraries, from contact-zones and networks where identities are constructed and reconstructed. But, with regard to educational policies, the piece is being played very slowly, and often in a lyrical style – even if, here and there, some decisions seem to disregard the strict value of the established tempo.

What music is being played in the European educational space? By analysing the Work Programme for 2010 it is possible to discern two themes recurring throughout the document. The first has to do with a systematic reference to the “new knowledge-based economy” and to principles of competitiveness and entrepreneurship. As stressed by Willy Wielemans, education is regarded as one of the main instruments “in the struggle against unemployment and in consequence must be better adapted to the requirements of the labour market (which again points to the dominance of the economic sub-system)” (2000, p. 31). The second is the frequent use of psychological concepts, applied to educational situations, which have the effect of reorienting pedagogical methods. This becomes quite obvious if we consider different uses of the concept of “learning” throughout the document: “learner-centred approaches” (p. 20), “making learning more attractive” (p. 30), “a culture of learning” (p. 30), “motivation of learners” (p. 32), “learning organisations” (p. 34), “learning at the work place” (p. 34), “flexible learning times to learners” (p. 29), and most importantly “learning to learn” (p. 18). The combination of these influences situates lifelong learning as central in our understanding of education. It is a way of making education relevant to economics, in terms of “sustainable employability”. This serves the function of explaining to the individual citizen his or her responsibility to perpetuate their own learning. As Zygmunt Bauman remarks, each successive “project” that is undertaken must be seen through and fulfilled to the best of one’s ability, solely in order to demonstrate one’s “capacity of fulfilling projects”, and to secure his or her employability when it comes to the allocation and appropriation of the next batch of projects: “A merrygo-round comes to mind rather than marathon running; a life as a string of rounds, a sequence of new starts, often in unconnected places and unrelated surroundings. Keeping fit for the next, yet unknown round, whatever it may be, is the main achievement, revocable as the rest” (cf. Bauman & Tester, 2001, p. 89). No doubt. The processes that we have just described are not specific to the European context. On the contrary. They are part of broader developments, that have been popularised by the imperfect concept of “globalisation”. But, inside the European Union, they are strengthened by a historic project that tends to integrate national states into a political union. And this fact gives them a new status, builds on new political possibilities. This is the main reason why this “unidentified political


65

object” known as the European Union is such an interesting object of study, both for comparative politics and for the socio-historical analysis of educational policies. CODA: NEW WAYS OF LOOKING TO THE “EUROPEAN EDUCATIONAL SPACE” The “politicization” of initiatives during the last few years in the field of education of injecting, “from the top”, an acceleration and deepening of European co-operation might have been an answer to the more slow and more conservative development of Ministries and National education authorities (Hingel, 2001, pp. 18-19).

The words of Anders Hingel, head of the education policy unit at the European Commission, are worth remarking on for two important reasons. First, they construct an idea of “Europeanisation”, based on a logic of mutual accountability, as developed through an evaluation of, or comparison between, national systems of education, using a series of indicators, outcomes, benchmarks and guidelines. Despite their practical differences in terms of procedure, these concepts are generated as part of the same “discursive formation”. Second, they break down resistance and inertia at the level of national authorities by defining “politicisation” as a reinforcement of decisions “from the top”, that is, directly by Heads of State. Thus the “educational space” is considered as a field of expertise where the main objective is to reach obvious and consensual “outcomes”. It is worth addressing three important issues that influence educational debates in the European Union. First, the increasing “mediatisation” of politics, well explained by G. Mazzoleni in terms of the metaphor of gravity: “Yesterday everything circled around the parties, today everything circles around, and in the space, of the media” (1995, p. 308). This is not to suggest that it floats in a symbolic ether, but rather that the space of politics has been reoriented towards greater visibility in “the public eye” (Schudson, 2002, p. 251). Second, in the context of European politics, this process is accompanied by the increasingly recurrent auditing and estimating of public opinion. These practices, based on the model of consumerism, give rise to forms of “democratic authoritarianism”. This term is invoked by Ulrich Beck, when he points out that the “death of the nation-state” has been greatly exaggerated: “The nationstate is getting even more powerful in the dimensions of control, through information technology, in its regulation and audit of all kinds of areas, and through its power to make alliances with movements (religious, economic, international, regional) which don’t relate to the democratic counter-power structure in modern societies like parliament and unions, and which even directly own the media, and so play a key role in forming and mobilizing popular opinion” (cf. Boyne, 2001, pp. 49-50). Finally, it is important to understand how these two processes are reinforced by a policy based on “the authority of the experts” and on the “recondite knowledge they are trusted to possess” (Bauman, 2001a, p. 25). This refers back to John Peterson’s observation concerning the practice of removing issues to the “expert level” as a means of depoliticising them (2001, p. 309). The conjunction of these different processes results in the formation of networks, where policy is determined (Leonard, 2002, p. 139). There is a tendency to consider the “European educational space” as a field of expertise, in which the main objective

66


is to achieve consensus. Such a perspective is antithetical to the actual practice of education, and educational policies. For this reason it is vital to define the “public sphere”, in the sense described by Jürgen Habermas (2001), as a place providing the possibility for participation in political discussion and decision-making. While we do not deny the necessary role played by the media, networks and experts, their relevancy must not exceed that of democratic practice. Furthermore, as we have argued above, the division between “Europe” and “nation-state” is the inaccurate result of linear or dichotomous accounts of European affairs. We require a more sophisticated perspective, based upon comparative approaches, inspired by theoretical frameworks rather than expert discourses. This is the only way of creating new zones and ways of looking, so as to overcome the “silences” and deconstruct that which seems natural or evident. This condition will fulfil our will to understand. The condition of comparative research As stated earlier, comparability has come to serve as a “mode of governance” within contemporary European debates. It is not significant in terms of any insights obtained, but rather only in terms of a process of “perpetual comparison”, based on indicators, measures, standards and benchmarks. With this in mind, we argue that comparative approaches must be theorised and historicised so as to avoid a circulation of ideas lacking social roots or structural locations – contributing nothing, referring only to itself. The term turn has become increasingly popular to signify rethinking and renewal in the academic world. Thus to the linguistic turn, the pictorial turn and various others we would like to add the comparativist turn as a way to begin overcoming the fragilities and weaknesses of our field (Chryssochoou, 2001). The fragmentation which may be identified in various disciplines using comparative approaches is recognise d by some as implying a sense of “methodological opportunism” (Przeworsky, 1996). The concurrent ambiguity and popularity of our field may be attributed to its flexibility and formability, a plasticity which provokes scholars like ourselves to call for a clarification of the concept of comparability, so as to allow for a better understanding of both the limitations and potentialities of comparative research. This, we argue, is one of the ways to clarify comparison and avoid the “vaporous thinking” which infiltrates research approaches, particularly as they relate to education and European affairs. It is our understanding – as we discuss elsewhere (Nóvoa & Yariv, in press) – that a strengthening of the notion of “comparison in time” is the best approach to take if we wish to rescue comparative studies from being organised as “policy” rather than “research”. Thus we call for a re-conceptualization of space-time relations, so as to build a historical understanding which will allow for a reconciliation between history and comparison. Alexander Stille refers to the idea that the “loss of historical memory” is hardly unique to our age (2002, p. xiii), but we believe it requires an added dimension in the contemporary context, calling for the construction of an interpretative space which is historically grounded. The definition of new zones of looking is, probably, the most important challenge for


67

comparative research in the century. This implies a sophistication of our theories, binding together historical and comparative approaches so as to gather a new understanding of “problems” in the educational field. The word “reflexive” is typically employed to characterise our epoch, but it does not necessarily follow that people lead more conscious lives: “On the contrary, reflexive signifies not an increase of mastery and consciousness, but a heightened awareness that mastery is impossible” (Beck, 2001, p. 267). Paradoxically, consciousness of this impossibility is a precondition for the development of a critical understanding that strives to move beyond the superficiality diffused through media and expert-networks. According to Michel Foucault, the return to history makes sense because “the work of the intellect is to show that what is, does not have to be what it is” (cf. Lotringer, 1996, p. 359). Coinciding with the attempt to create the European Educational Space is the development of a European Research Area: “Now is the time to bring our endeavors together and to build a research and innovation equivalent of the common market for goods and services”15. The rhetoric employed by EU officials is noticeably similar to that advanced to justify the European Educational Space (Banchoff, 2002). The two primary arguments, referring first to a “common heritage”, and second to “unifying processes”, are, in our opinion, flawed approaches to addressing this issue. The former, based in the claim that “Europeans share the same values”, coincides with the identification of language diversity as a point of contention, rather than cohesion: “We cannot do much about languages – there are no plans for a single European language!” (Tent, 2001, pp. 9 & 11). We do, however, find relevant arguments concerning mobility and scientific careers: “Mobility is an effective and well-known way of training researchers and spreading knowledge, [but] it is also true that in Europe today, a researcher’s career unfolds by and large within a national framework” (Tent, 2001, p. 8). And even despite the dialogue surrounding the Bologna and Prague Conferences on the “European Higher Education Area”, the same remains true for academic careers in European universities. Nevertheless, one may expect further development of this Research Area, under two conditions: first, a focus on “interdisciplinary problem areas” in preference to “academic scientific disciplines” (Haller, 2001, p. 377), and second, greater attention given to “comparative research studies” (Kastrinos, 2001). Evolution in these terms will help in building a community of research on the basis of problems and comparative approaches, increasing the potential for critical thinking on the European Union. This will also have implications for the European Educational Space because it is impossible to build new educational perspectives and policies without a “critical mass” that allows for a deeper historical and theoretical understanding. For this, it is necessary to rethink the agenda of social research, so as to avoid what Ulrich Beck refers to as “zombie categories” – “living dead categories which govern our thinking but are not really able to capture the contemporary milieu” (2001a, p. 262). But it is also necessary to redefine historical and comparative methods, allowing for the distinct possibility that “Western forms of universality” will be judged “not only against the strengths of local knowledge 15 Welcome page, entitled “What is the European Research Area?” (http://europa.eu.int/comm/ research/area).

68


systems, but against competing universalisms which are content with a less totalizing reach” (Lai, 2002, p. 13). Two works published at the turn of the millennium are essential in terms of situating “externally” European debates so as to allow room for new historical understandings. We have in mind Dipesh Chakrabarty’s Provincializing Europe and Michael Hardt and Toni Negri’s Empire. Despite taking different approaches and employing different theoretical lenses, both still contextualise centre-periphery relations and the need to study Europe – or more broadly the West – as but one among many sources found in the past and future (cf. Argyrou, 2001). Such a sense of displacement is fundamental to understanding what is currently taking place in Europe. Internally one cannot ignore the “battles for identity” or, as Zygmunt Bauman (2001) would have it, for “identification”. These are not specific to European contexts, but they acquire here a specific tonality. Giving attention to dynamics which are central with regard to “nation-Europe”, Jock Young points out that: “Just as community collapses, identity is invented” (1999, p. 164). This same process is explained by Alexander Stille in his analysis of technological shifts: “The need for community, physical closeness, personal contact, and affection has not disappeared even if our lives have been considerably restructured” (2002, p. 339). Stille indicates that the search for meaning is inextricably bound to our own sense of our place in history. Though this endeavour may be at times excessive, it is exactly this which grants education a crucial role in the current redefinition of identities and affiliations. It is very much worth noting the fact that quite often the difference in values is greater between generations than it is between nations (Kleinman, 2002, p. 214). The “patrimony” upon which European integration should be built, in both the areas of education and research, will require a space for democratic discussion and deliberation: “The political public sphere can fulfill its function of perceiving and thematizing encompassing social problems only insofar as it develops out of the communication taking place among those who are potentially affected” (Habermas, 1996, p. 365). A decent society?, asked Maria Markus (2001). No doubt. But in order for this to be achieved it is necessary to avoid the production of “opacity” through a rhetoric of “transparence”, and to move away from a kind of “fatalism” that brings a dangerous political climate as witnessed recently in so many elections on the continent. Resolution to an inexorable future brings us nowhere, and thus we must strive to steer a course away from manipulation by unelected groups, networks and institutions, and move further in the direction towards democracy. We close by reversing a popular metaphor and state: the “added value” of Europe resides in the presence of its citizens in politics and public life. And for this, we cannot dispense with education.


69

References Abbot, Kenneth & Snidal, Duncan (2001): ‘International “standards” and international governance’, in: Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 345-370. Albert, Mathias (2002): ‘Governance and democracy in European systems: on systems theory and European integration’, in: Review of International Studies, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 293-309. Anderson, Benedict (1991): Imagined Communities (London: Verso). Andrew, Joe / Crook, Malcolm / Waller, Michael (eds.) (2000): Why Europe? Problems of culture and identity (London: Macmillan Press). Argyrou, Vassos (2001): ‘Provincialising Europe – Reflections on questions of method and strategy’, in: Social Anthropology, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 217-222. Banchoff, Thomas (2002): ‘Institutions, Inertia and European Union Research Policy’, in: Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 1-21. Barnavi, Elie (2002): ‘European identity and ways of promoting it’, in: Cavanna, Henry (2002): Governance, Globalization and the European Union - Which Europe for Tomorrow? (Portland: Four Courts Press), pp. 87-94. Bauman, Zygmunt (2000): Liquid Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press). Bauman, Zygmunt (2001): ‘The Great War of Recognition’, in: Theory, Culture & Society, Vol. 18, No.23, pp. 137-150. Bauman, Zygmunt (2001a): ‘Consuming Life’, in: Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 9-29. Bauman, Zygmunt & Tester, Keith (2001): Conversations with Zygmunt Bauman (Cambridge: Polity). Beck, Ulrich (2001): ‘Interview with Ulrich Beck’, in: Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 261-277. Bellamy, Richard & Warleigh, Alex (eds.) (2001): Citizenship Governance in the European Union (London and New York: Continuum). Benjamin, Walter (1968): Illuminations (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich). Bennett, Oliver (2001): Cultural Pessimism - Narratives of Decline in the Postmodern World (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). Berggreen-Merkel, Ingeborg (1999): ‘Towards a European educational area’, in: European Journal for Education Law and Policy, Vol. 3, pp. 1-7. Bourdieu, Pierre (1994): Raisons pratiques - Sur la théorie de l’action (Paris: Éditions du Seuil). Bourdieu, Pierre & Wacquant, Loïc (2000): ‘La nouvelle vulgate planétaire’, in: Le Monde diplomatique, n° 554, pp. 6-7. Boyne, Roy (2001): ‘Cosmopolis and Risk - A conversation with Ulrich Beck’, in: Theory, Culture & Society, Vol. 18, No.4, pp. 47-63. Breckenridge, Carol / Pollock, Sheldon / Bhabha, Homi / Chakrabarty, Dipesh (eds.) (2002): Cosmopolitanism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press). Brubaker, Rogers (1996): Nationalism reframed - Nationhood and the national question in the New Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Casey, Lee & Rivkin Jr., David (2001): ‘Europe I n the Balance – The alarming undemocratic drift of the European Union’, in: Policy Review, Vol. 107, pp. 41-53. Cederman, Lars-Erik (2001): ‘Nationalism and Bounded Integration: What it would take to construct a European Demos’, in: European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 139-174. Chakrabarty, Dipesh (2000): Provincializing Europe - Postcolonial thought and historical difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Chryssochoou, Dimitris (2001): Theorizing European Integration (London: Sage Publications). Clifford, James (1997): Routes - Travel and translation in the late twentieth century (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Cram, Laura (2001): ‘Whither the Commission? Reform, renewal and the issue-attention cycle’, in: Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 770-786. Cram, Laura (2001a): ‘Governance ‘to Go’: Domestic actors, institutions and the boundaries of the possible’, in: Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 595-618. Cresswell, Tim (2001):’Mobilities – An introduction’, in: New Formations, Vol. 43, pp. 9-10. Debord, Guy (1983): The society of the spectacle (Detroit: Black & Red).

70


Decker, Frank (2002): ‘Governance beyond the nation-state – Reflections on the democratic deficit of the European Union’, in: Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 256-272. Dinan, Desmond (1999): Ever Closer Union - An introduction to European integration (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers). Eder, Klaus & Giesen, Bernhard, (eds.) (2001): European Citizenship between National Legacies and Postnational Projects (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Giddens, Anthony (2002): ‘A Third Way for the European Union?’, in: Leonard, Dick & Leonard, Mark (2002): The Pro-European Reader (Hampshire: Palgrave), pp. 164-170. Grass, Günter & Bourdieu, Pierre (2002): ‘The ‘Progressive’ Restoration’, in: New Left Review, Vol. 14, pp. 63-77. Green, Andy; Wolf, A. & Leney, T. (1999): Convergence and divergence in European Education and Training Systems (London: Institute of Education – University of London). Habermas, Jürgen (1996): Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democarcy (Cambridge: Polity Press). Habermas, Jürgen (2001): ‘Why Europe needs a Constitution’, in: New Left Review, Vol. 11, pp. 5-26. Haller, Max, (ed.) (2001): The Making of the European Union - Contributions of the Social Sciences (Berlin: Springer-Verlag). Hardt, Michael & Negri, Antonio (2000): Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Hardt, Michael & Negri, Antonio (2002): ‘The Global Coliseum: On Empire (interview by Nicholas Brown and Imre Szeman)’, in: Cultural Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 177-192. Hingel, Anders (2001): Education policies and European governance (Brussels: European Commission – Directorate-Generale for Education and Culture) (http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/areas/ groupl2/contribution_education_en.pdf). Hobsbawm, EJ. (1990): Nations and nationalism since 1780 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Hodson, Dermot & Maher, Imelda (2001): ‘The open method as a new method of governance: The case of soft economic policy co-ordination’, in: Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 719-746. Kastrinos, Nikos (2001): ‘Contribution of socio-economic research to the benchmarking of RTD policies in Europe’, in: Science and Public Policy, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 238-246. Keller, Evelyn (1995): Refiguring Life - Metaphors of Twentieth-century Biology (New York: Columbia University Press). Kleinman, Mark (2002): A European Welfare State? European Union social policy in context (Hampshire: Palgrave). Lal, V. (2002).‘Unhitching the disciplines: history and the social sciences in the new millennium’, in: Futures, Vol. 34, pp. 1-14. Le Magazine (Directorate-General for Education and Culture – European Commission), No. 14, 2001. Leonard, Mark (2002): ‘Network Europe:, in: Leonard, Dick & Leonard, Mark (2002): The Pro-European Reader (Hampshire: Palgrave), pp. 139-149. Lotringer, Sylvère (ed.) (1996): Foucault Live - Collected Interviews, 1961-1984 (New York: Semiotext(e)). Markus, Maria (2001): ‘Decent society and/or Civil society?’, in: Social Research, Vol. 68, No, 4, pp. 1011-1030. Mazzoleni, G. (1995): ‘Towards a videocracy? Italian political communication at a turning point’, in: European Journal of Communication, Vol. 10, pp. 29-19. Miller, Peter (2001): ‘Governing by numbers: Why calculative practices matter’, in: Social Research, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp. 379-396. Moussis, Nicholas (1997): Handbook of European Union, 4th ed. (Rixensart: European Study Service). Müller-Solger, Hermann (1999): ‘Education cooperation in the European Union at the threshold of the New Millennium’, in: European Journal for Education Law and Policy, Vol. 3, pp. 111-115. Nevola, Gaspare (2001): ‘Education and political socialisation between national identity and European citizenship’, in: Haller, Max (2001): The Making of the European Union - Contributions of the Social Sciences (Berlin: Springer-Verlag), pp. 33-59. Nóvoa, António (2000): ‘The restructuring of the European Educational Space’, in: Popkewitz, Thomas (2000): Educational Knowledge - Changing Relationships between the State, Civil Society, and the Educational Community (New York: Suny Press), pp. 31-57.


71

Nóvoa, António (2002): ‘Ways of thinking about education in Europe’, in: Nóvoa, António & Lawn, Martin (2002): Fabricating Europe - The formation of an education space (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers). Nóvoa, António & Yariv-Mashal, Tali (in press): Comparative Research in Education: A mode of governance or a historical inquiry? Peterson, John (2001): ‘The choice for EU theorists: Establishing a common framework for analysis’, in: European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 39, pp. 289-318. Popkewitz, Thomas / Lindblad, Sverker / Strandberg, Johanna (1999): Review of Research on Education Governance and Social Integration and Exclusion, in: Uppsala Reports of Education 35 (Uppsala: Department of Education). Przeworski, A. (1996): ‘The role of theory in comparative politics: A symposium’, in: World Politics, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 1-49. Reding, Viviane (2000): Education in the 21st century: Education for the knowledge economy (Conference of the Asia-Europe Foundation, Luxembourg, 2 May 2000). Reding, Viviane (2000a): Education: The new challenges (European Business Summit, Brussels, 10th June 2000). Roberts, Ivor & Springer, Beverly (2001): Social Policy in the European Union - Between harmonization and national autonomy (Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers). Robinson, William (2001): ‘Social theory and globalization: The rise of a transnational state’, in: Theory and Society, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 157-200. Rose, Nikolas (1999): Powers of freedom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Schnapper, Dominique (2002): ‘Citizenship and national identity’, in: Nations and nationalism, Vol. 8, No. l, pp. 1-14. Schudson, Michael (2002): ‘The News Media as Political Institutions’, in: Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 5, pp. 249-269. Shore, Cris (2000): Building Europe - The cultural politics of European integration (London and New York: Routledge). Sisson, Keith & Marginson, Paul (2001): Benchmarking and the “Europeanisation” of social and employment policy, in: “One Europe or Several” Programme - Briefing note 3/01 (Sussex: ESRC). Smith, Anthony (1991): National identity (Reno: University of Nevada Press). Smith, Anthony (2000): The Nation in History - Historiographical debates about ethnicity and nationalism (Hanover: University Press of New England). Stille, Alexander (2002): The Future of the Past (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux). Sweet, Alec / Sandholtz, Wayne / Fligstein, Neil (eds.) (2001): The Institutionalization of Europe. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Tent, H. (2001): Towards a European Research Area Open to the World, in: Special lecture given at the Annual Meeting and Science Innovation Exhibition (San Francisco, February 15-20) (website europa.eu.int/comm/research/area). Van Ham, Peter (2001): European Integration and the Postmodern Condition - Governance, democracy, identity (London and New York: Routledge). Van Heffen, Oscar / Kickert, Walter / Thomassen, Jacques (eds.) (2000): Governance in Modern Society (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers). Verstraete, Ginette (2001): ‘Technological frontiers and the politics of mobilities’, in: New Formations, Vol. 43, pp. 26-43. Wagner, Peter (2001): Theorizing Modernity - Inescapability and Attainability in Social Theory (London: Sage). Wallace, Helen (2001): ‘The Changing Politics of the European Union: An Overview’, in: Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 39, No.4, pp. 581-594. Wallace, Helen, (ed.) (2001a): Interlocking Dimensions of European Integration. (Hampshire and New York: Palgrave). White, Hayden (1987): The content of the form: narrative discourse and historical representation (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press). Wielemans, Willy (2000): ‘European educational policy on shifting sand?’, in: European Journal for Education Law and Policy, Vol. 4, pp. 21-34. Young, Jock (1999): The exclusive society (London: Sage Publications).

72

ANTÓNIO NÓVOA & WILLIAM DEJONG-LAMBERT European Union Documents

1993 - Green Paper European Dimension of Education. 1995 - White Paper Teaching and Learning: towards the Learning Society. 1997 - Study Group on Education and Training Accomplishing Europe through Education and Training. 1997 - Communication from the Commission Towards a Europe of Knowledge. 1998 - Report from the Commission Learning for active citizenship: A significant challenge in building a Europe of knowledge. 2000 - Memorandum on Lifelong Learning. 2000 - Lisbon European Council: Presidency Conclusions (March 23-24). 2000 - “Annexes to the European Council conclusions”, Bulletin EU, 12-2000. 2000 - European Report on Quality of School Education. 2000 - Decision from the Commission - Towards a European Research Area. 2001 - Stockholm European Council: Presidency Conclusions (March 23-24). 2001 - White Paper on European Governance. 2001 - Report from the Commission The concrete future objectives of education systems. 2001 - 2391st Education Council meeting (Brussels, November 29). 2001 - “Education - Commission communication to Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality”, Bulletin EU, 11 -2001. 2002 - Detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems in Europe. 2002 - 2408th Education Council meeting (Brussels, February 14). 2002 - Barcelona European Council: Presidency conclusions (March 15-16). 2002 - 2430th Education Council meeting (Brussels, May 30). 2002 - Education and lifelong learning - Council Resolution (May 30).

DAVID PHILLIPS

INTERPRETING EU EDUCATION AND TRAINING POLICY: THOUGHTS FROM THE ENGLISH PERSPECTIVE ‘[The Englishman] is too often educated to regard Europe as an over-large, polyglot, illtempered country lying to the east and south of England’ (G.D.H. Cole, 1933, p. 22).

MIXED MESSAGES ‘Cresson sinks the Commission’ Headline, Libération, 16 March 1999

In March 1999 the European Union faced what was arguably its biggest crisis since the establishment of the European Economic Community in 1957. After months of criticism of several Commissioners by factions of the European Parliament for their failure to deal with, or accept responsibility for, supposedly corrupt practices, all twenty Commissioners - including the President, Jacques Santer - resigned. For a while, the EU was effectively leaderless, though the Commissioners continued at their desks until such time as the Council of Ministers could decide on its response. That came quickly. On 24 March it was announced - following a special summit meeting of heads of government in Berlin - that Romano Prodi, the widely respected former Prime Minister of Italy, would be Santer’s successor as EU President. The resignation of the Commission en masse followed the publication of a damning report into its work by an independent committee of ‘wise people’ appointed by the Commission itself to investigate the charges being made against it. The report (Commission of the European Union, 1999) was particularly critical of Edith Cresson, one-time French Minister of European Affairs and (1991-92) Prime Minister of France; her resignation at an earlier point, it was widely argued, might have prevented the mass resignation. Within the Commission Cresson headed Directorate-General XXII, responsible for ‘Human Resources, Education, Training and Youth’. Among the programmes under her aegis was LEONARDO DA VINCI, singled out by the independent committee for evidence of particular mismanagement. Mme Cresson eventually indicated that she would not seek reappointment, the view of most observers being that she decided to jump before she was pushed. 73 David Phillips & Hubert Ertl (eds.), Implementing European Union Education and Training Policy: A Comparative Study of Issues in Four Member States, 73—86. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

74

DAVID PHILLIPS

The crisis of March 1999 confirmed the worst fears of critics of the European Union. Public opinion polls on the EU have frequently shown high degrees of doubt and uncertainty about or indifference to its activities. The ‘Eurobarometer’ findings of July 2000, for example, showed 49% holding a favourable opinion of their country’s EU membership, with 14% opposed and 28% having a neutral view. Strongest support was found in Ireland, Luxembourg and The Netherlands, with the lowest support evident in the United Kingdom, Austria, and Sweden, and identification of a ‘general downward trend in levels of support for the EU in most Member States’. On a positive note, the findings suggested that 47% of those surveyed felt that their country was benefiting from EU membership. While 45% had confidence in the Commission, 30% showed mistrust: in the UK confidence was shown by only 25% of the population surveyed (Eurobarometer 53, 2000). In the European elections of June 1999 there was recorded one of the lowest turn-outs ever. In the UK fewer than one in four people bothered to vote. The new Commission was confirmed in office in September 1999. Jacques Santer had meanwhile been elected to serve as an MEP, and several members of the old Commission were reappointed, among them the British Commissioner and former leader of the Labour Party, Neil Kinnock, who now became Vice-President. This series of blows to the EU and its credibility as an institution within the Member States came as no great surprise, since scepticism about ‘Europe’ abounds. The term ‘Eurosceptic’, indeed, is now part of the language. The Eurosceptics were to experience another victory in September 2000, when the Danes voted in a referendum by 53.2% to 46.8% not to adopt the euro, thus throwing into some confusion the notion of a Community unifiable in due course at least by a common currency: there was to be a two-tier Europe, and it could no longer be argued with confidence in the United Kingdom that not adopting the euro – should that eventually be the decision of the nation through a referendum - would cause the country to be isolated in Europe. It would, of course, be quite remarkable if fifteen countries were always able to reach agreement on the important issues which confront them: they will see even their own joint agreements in fifteen different ways. The Member States are unified by diversity and divided by their desire for unity. Interpretation is all important. EU POLICY AND THE PARTICULARITY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM The English feel that they ‘are not really part of Europe’ Anthony Sampson, 1968, p. 3

The parameters of the Oxford part of the PRESTIGE project have been described in Phillips & Economou (1999), Ertl (2000) and Ertl & Phillips (2000). We have been concerned to investigate the formulation, interpretation, transmission and implementation of the education and training policy of the European Union as it is manifest in four Member States: France, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

EU EDUCATION AND TRAINING POLICY: THE ENGLISH PERSPECTIVE

75

The particular focus of the Oxford team’s work has been on the ‘European dimension’ in education and on aspects of the LEONARDO DA VINCI and SOCRATES programmes. The PRESTIGE project has been essentially concerned with the tensions between the imperative for standardisation inherent in the globalising tendencies which can be felt in educational policy at all levels, and the desire to preserve the autonomy and traditions of individual nations. The European Union of course, while aiming at economic and political unity, allows the principle of subsidiarity in education and training effectively to the extent of envisaging that its policies might be ignored altogether. Article 126 of the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty) is worth quoting in full (Article 127, on training, follows much the same lines): 1. The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging co-operation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content, teaching and the organization of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity. 2. Community action shall be aimed at: developing the European dimension in education, particularly through the teaching and dissemination of the languages of the Member States; encouraging mobility of students and teachers, inter alia by encouraging the academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study; promoting co-operation between educational establishments; developing exchanges of information and experience on issues common to the education systems of the member States; encouraging the development of youth exchanges and of exchanges of socioeducational instructors; encouraging the development of distance education. 3. The Community and the Member States shall foster cooperation with third countries and the competent international organizations in the sphere of education, in particular the Council of Europe. 4. In order to contribute to the achievement of the objectives referred to in this Article, the Council: acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189b, after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, shall adopt incentive measures, excluding any harmonization of the laws and regulations of the Member States; acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt recommendations (The Treaty on European Union, quoted from Rudden & Wyatt, eds., 1973, p. 92).

76

DAVID PHILLIPS

The formulation of Articles 126 and 127 is at once reassuring to those who fear the intrusion of ‘Brussels’ into matters that have traditionally been the preserve of national governments and perplexing to others who wish to see serious efforts made to implement policies which have, after all, been agreed by the Member States. In effect it allows, and so results in, the unevenness which is evident when we attempt to trace the effects of EU policy on the realities of educational provision in various domains and at various levels of education systems. The Treaty of Rome had nothing to say about education specifically, the assumption being that, apart from the question of furthering vocational training, provision in education would be entirely a matter for the individual Member States of the Community. And the United Kingdom of course, having joined the Community in 1973, strongly opposed any development of the Community’s powers in matters of education. With the Maastricht agreement, however, considerable action was proposed that depended upon the kind of co-operation that could only flourish if the Member States developed more flexibility in their education systems. How this might happen, given that such incentive measures as the Council of Ministers might adopt, ‘[exclude] any harmonization of the laws and regulations of the Member States’ remained unclear. That exclusion clause, which applies equally to education and to vocational training, is of course entirely consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, but it appears to make some of the aspirations of the particular agreements relating to education and training a little problematic. What is possible is often only to be determined through action in the courts and the establishment of case law (Barnard, 1992). What was actually new in what the Treaty had to say about education? It is true that the EC had what amounted to a policy on education at school level long before Maastricht. Catherine Barnard, in a perceptive article in the journal Education and the Law, mentions the introduction of information technology, equal opportunities, the integration of special needs pupils, consumer education, measures concerned with illiteracy and educational failure, foreign language teaching and the ‘European dimension’ (Barnard, 1992). Early legislation concerned the rights of migrant children. The LINGUA and ERASMUS programmes were already enabling much to be achieved in foreign languages on the one hand and mobility on the other. Catherine Barnard lists the measures that had already been taken - through the Mutual Recognition of Diplomas Directive, for example - to ensure that EC qualifications had validity in all countries of the Community. She concludes that the main importance of Article 126 of the Treaty is that ‘it clearly establishes that education, in its own right and not as some mutant of vocational training, is now within the competence, however carefully ring-fenced, of the European Community’ (ibid., p. 127). The ‘incentive measures’ that the Community might take in future equipped it with considerable influence over legislation in individual Member States, despite the specific exclusion of ‘harmonisation of the laws and regulations’ of those States. The ratification of the Maastricht Treaty by all the Member States was an important step along the road


77

to the kind of ‘harmonization of social legislation’ envisaged by Jacques Delors, if the aims of market and business co-operation were to be attained. As António Nóvoa puts it, in future we may expect that ‘national politicians will shout [aloud] that Education is an exclusive matter for each Member State, at the same time as adopting common programmes and practices’ (Nóvoa, 2000, p. 7). Encouraging the European dimension in education is a principle which has been accorded much attention, and it is manifest in statements about education at all levels – we shall return to it in more detail below. Its association with foreign language teaching in Article 126 revealed, however, a particular deficit when we look at UK provision. England has only in recent years – effectively since the introduction of a National Curriculum in the Education Reform Act of 1988 - reached a stage where one modern foreign language is the norm or even for the most part compulsory for all pupils up to the age of 16, and the government has resisted the desire to move, as other countries in Europe have done, towards a position where the learning of two foreign languages would be expected. There is in England a policy of diversification of first foreign language teaching, which allows any of the languages of EU countries to be taught as the first foreign language in secondary schools as part of the National Curriculum. In reality, however, French, German and Spanish will remain the most widely taught languages, and in that order. With the one example of language teaching it is immediately evident that England has difficulties in satisfying one of the principal aims of Article 126. The dependence of mobility upon the recognition of diplomas and periods of study raises questions, if we stay with the English example, about the nature of university courses. In England students follow a well-defined syllabus during the three or four years (mostly three) of their degree study. There are now many courses which operate on a modular basis, particularly in the newer universities and the former polytechnics; such higher education institutions often collaborate with others in Europe to run joint programmes, with periods of study in another country being regarded as an integral part of the course. This is now facilitated through the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS). But this is by no means the norm in England, and a fairly radical rethink of degree courses would be necessary to facilitate on the one hand the absence of English students in, say, Germany, and the accommodation of, say, German students in English degree courses on a really wide scale. There is also the question of how the academic year is divided up: in British universities the academic year itself is the main unit (students are described as being in their first, second or third ‘year’ of their course), but the year in turn is divided into three terms. There is therefore no proper coincidence with the continental European notion of the semester, though some institutions are now adopting such a division. Policy developments at EU level, especially following the Bologna Declaration (to which 29 countries were signatories), envisage a ‘coherent European higher education space’, with a serious attempt at alignment in terms of calendars, structures and credits.

78

DAVID PHILLIPS

But there is absolutely no internal alignment of syllabuses in English universities. Each institution decides what it will provide, and student movement from one university to another within the system is virtually unknown, except among those completing an undergraduate course at one institution and moving to another for postgraduate work. British undergraduates would not always be responsive to the greater freedom of choice in German universities, where there is not the same notion of a coherent ‘course’, with more or less compulsory attendance at the lectures, seminars, classes and tutorials of which it is composed. To use one example, UK students of modern foreign languages usually have to spend one year in the country whose language they are studying: most are employed as foreign language assistants in schools. Some, however, spend time at foreign universities, but often they fail to make good use of the experience, since it contrasts so greatly with the highly structured courses to which they are accustomed. That said, however, the ERASMUS scheme has proved to be a popular means of encouraging student mobility in a wide variety of subjects. The millionth student to participate was identified in 2001-2. Exchange or short-term transfer possibilities seem to operate best, as far as the UK is concerned, where periods of more advanced study or research can be arranged. To use a parochial example, my own Oxford College attracts good numbers of overseas graduate students, including many from EU countries, particularly Germany. In addition ‘visiting students’, who work for a year (under close supervision) on their own projects, usually associated with continuing work in their home countries, are easily accommodated, especially in the physical and biological sciences, where laboratory space can usually be found and they can be assimilated into research teams. Recognition of qualifications and periods of study would in the UK context be largely a matter for individual institutions. Flexibility of approach would normally be expected, and this would be in the spirit of Article 126. It is in employment where there have been difficulties in the past (in appointment to teaching posts, for example) and where binding agreement among the Member States would create a greater degree of fairness and the potential for an international mix in the workforce. There is a strong sense that education in the United Kingdom has been ‘out of step with Europe’ (Stokes, 1995). Before the changes brought about by the 1988 Education Reform Act Nicholas drew up a checklist of thirteen features which demonstrated the respects in which education in England was ‘idiosyncratic’ in comparison to other countries: The absence of a consistent national structure of schooling. The use made by schools of time – by year, week and day. The existence of a substantial number of single-sex schools. That many schools require their pupils to wear a uniform. That teachers are placed in loco parentis to their pupils.


79

The lack of pre-school facilities for those in their early years of childhood, and post-16 opportunities for continuing and adult education. The arrangements made for religious education, especially for those children whose parents avow specific religious beliefs. The autonomy of teachers – at all levels of education. The approaches to learning, and the teaching methods adopted, at the primary level. The absence of a common curriculum in both primary and secondary schools. The lack of overtly vocational courses for children during the compulsory years of secondary education. Highly specialised first degree courses at universities, which require the study at secondary schools of a narrow range of subjects by those children who express an early interest in applying for entry to them, resulting in the exclusion of those who make inappropriate options. A flourishing and influential system of independent and private schools. (Nicholas, 1983, pp. 44-5) To this list we could add the fact that teachers are not state employees (civil servants), in contrast to many other European countries, and that schools – at least prior to 1988 – have not normally been ‘owned’ by the state. It has always of course been a matter of amazement for foreign observers of the English education system that it had not had an agreed or prescribed curriculum before the legislation of 1988. Now, as far as compulsory schooling is concerned, a German pupil spending time in an English primary or secondary school, could expect to follow roughly the same collection of subjects as he or she would at home in Germany. But considerable differences remain. Despite the key stages, programmes of study, and attainment targets of the English National Curriculum, there is still no established notion of what it means, say, to be a pupil in year eight (or any other particular year) of compulsory schooling. There is therefore no proper way - as there is in Germany - of assessing whether an individual has, to use the German description, reached ‘the goal of the class’ (das Ziel der Klasse). This has not been a particularly important issue for teachers in England, since it would be argued that schools and classes within them differ so greatly that they could not be expected to proceed at the same pace. But now successive governments (whether Conservative or Labour), in publishing league tables listing external school examination results for all schools, have been determined to make comparisons between all the schools in a given local education authority, and such comparisons are predicated on the notion that they should all at least be aiming to achieve the same level of results. The government’s intentions have been to make as much similar information publicly

80

DAVID PHILLIPS

available as possible, including the results of the centrally produced national tests at the end of each key stage. This means that our notional German pupil, spending some time at an English comprehensive school, would not be able in any proper sense to ‘lock into’ a class that would be proceeding at the same pace and level as the one he or she would have been attending in Germany. Furthermore, if the research evidence is to be believed, the German pupil would be working at a lower level of expectation, particularly in mathematics, but also in other important subjects, notable among them modern foreign languages. At the same time he or she would have to adjust to quite different teaching styles, far removed from the Frontalunterricht that characterises German classrooms. What is more, the average German pupil will probably have come from one of three types of school in the tripartite system of secondary schooling prevalent in the Federal Republic, each of which has its characteristic curriculum. In England, the normal school is the comprehensive school, with its expectation that pupils of all abilities can be taught the same curriculum in more or less the same way under the same roof. Gymnasium and Realschule pupils could have considerable difficulty in adjusting to a very different style of schooling. Pupils in the Oberstufe would not have the opportunity to take the range of subjects they are used to in the Gymnasium, despite recent changes in England which encourage pupils to continue with five (rather than three) subjects to Advanced Level of the GCE examination. And so we are faced with the question of the value and practicality of potential mobility between the systems at various levels. The visiting German pupil might well be enthusiastic about the more relaxed style of teaching in England compared to normal expectations in Germany; he or she might welcome the lack of that continuous assessment which causes stress in German schools, or delight in fewer demands being made generally - but what happens on return to the German system? Does the English experience simply count as a bizarre interlude, during which knowledge of English has been developed but little progress made with the academic subjects of, say, the Gymnasium curriculum? This limited example has identified just some of the problems involved in the practicalities of pupil and student mobility between England and Germany. If we now look at EU aims at encouraging a ‘European dimension’ in the curriculum, we shall see that a new set of problems is evident. EUROPE AND THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION Now and for the foreseeable future, Europe is unintelligible without knowledge of its historic communities: who they are, where they live, what makes them different from their neighbours, how their people identify themselves, how they fit – and have fitted at successive re-shakings – into the patterns of Europe’s political kaleidoscope. Fernández-Armesto, ed., 1994, p. 7


81

It is a matter of some wonder, given the extraordinary political, economic and geographical complexity of the continent of Europe, that there has been the high degree of agreement about the desirability of a united Europe in the forms it has taken since the Treaty of Rome. There are firstly problems of definition. Deciding what precisely constitutes ‘Europe’ has been a preoccupation of politicians, historians and geographers for centuries. Anthony Sampson writes despairingly that ‘the word “Europe” is used and abused in so many senses that it sometimes seems to have lost all meaning, except in Metternich’s phrase as a “geographical expression”’ (Sampson, 1968, p. 3). Where in particular do its eastern boundaries lie? Is Russia in Europe? What is it that might cause some 47 countries and a quite extraordinary range of identifiable ‘peoples’ to feel that in some supranational sense they belong together? A brief glance at the comprehensive lists in The Times Guide to the Peoples of Europe (FernándezArmesto, op. cit.) shows the immense complexity of the ethnic and racial make-up of the continent. Europe, it has been said, might be described as the ‘worst drawn continent in the world’: All the regions of Europe are very different: there is no comparison between Scandinavia and Italy, or between the British Isles and the islands of the Mediterranean. Western Europe looks like the product of an eccentric fretsaw (Duroselle, 1990, p. 13).

But even if we might eventually agree on the parameters of geographical definition of this ‘jagged western rump of Asia’ (Barzini, 1983, p. 11),1 problems of description will be less susceptible to any such agreement. Europe is characterised by, indeed exists in, its diversity. It has, in Brague’s phrase, ‘une identité excentrique’ (1999, p. 13). Richard Mayne reported in the early 1970s on the seeming impossibility of unity or common identity in this hugely diverse continent: In Western Europe alone, an area one-third the size of the United States, [Europeans] belong to a score of countries with half-a-dozen different political systems. They use fifteen different national currencies. They speak at least eleven languages, with a wide variety of dialects and local accents. In several countries, cultural minorities are fighting for independence; in almost all, violent protesters have challenged the status quo. With bloodshed in Ulster, babel in Switzerland and Belgium, dictatorship in Greece, Spain and Portugal, political insecurity in Italy, and monetary confusion in the Common Market, a visitor from Mars or America might well ask whether ‘the Europeans’ have any identity at all (1972, p. 1).

1 What seems a generally acceptable definition is provided, for example, in an entry in The Cambridge Encyclopedia: ‘Second smallest continent, forming an extensive peninsula of the Eurasian land-mass, occupying c.8% of the Earth’s surface; bounded N and NE by the Arctic Ocean, NW and W by the Atlantic Ocean, S by the Mediterranean Sea, and E by Asia beyond the Ural Mts ...’ (Crystal, ed., 1990, p. 423).

82

DAVID PHILLIPS

When it comes to teaching about Europe and its history, to creating an awareness among young people of school age that they belong to a wider European community, the problems suggested here become immense. ‘Can there be agreement on such controversial matters as the Spanish Armada, the Battle of Waterloo or the origins of the Second World War?’ asks Keith Watson (1997). A much repeated joke in France has a French visitor to London wondering why the British should wish to name a railway station after a military defeat. Swedes and Danes are committed too to a ‘Nordic dimension’ in terms of ‘belonging’ to communities; some British politicians frequently talk of the UK belonging more naturally to an area of association that would include North America; others see the Commonwealth countries as Britain’s natural partners. Border regions especially throughout the continent of Europe will have associations and relationships that transcend their EU allegiance. And in any case we are enjoined to think in terms of a ‘Europe of the regions’ as well as of nation states. Not only is it problematic for individual Member States to design a curriculum on Europe, but the context in which any such curriculum would be embedded has changed at various intervals.2 We have moved from the Europe of the Six3 to the Europe of the Fifteen, and so the community to which pupils have belonged – if we think only in terms of EEC/EC/EU Member States - has changed incrementally since 1957. And there is a queue of nations wishing to join the EU, not all of the applications – Turkey’s, for example – being uncontentious (Roberts, 1996, p. 571). The ground shifts regularly. This would not matter if ‘Europe’ was always widely conceived, but there is the logistical problem of interpretation. If the EU encourages the notion of belonging to a wider community, how wide is that community? Is it, in any case, more an ‘imagined’ community – to use Benedict Anderson’s term (1991) – than a reality? For ten years or so now it has included Eastern Europe; in the early years of the European Community the inclusion of what was then the Eastern Bloc would have been virtually unthinkable. Perspectives on what constitutes ‘Europe’ change as the descriptions change. Even in terms of traditions and styles of historical writing we can determine significant differences which further complicate the problem of perspective. There is the ‘celebratory’ and nationalistic style of popular historians of the past like Arthur Bryant in the UK (whose books still enjoy a succès d’estime, despite his dubious political leanings), or Emil Ludwig in Germany; there is the assertive and contradiction-defying style of an A.L. Rowse; there are revisionists of various types (cf. the German Historikerstreit); there are conservative and Marxist historians; and there is a host of 2

For the situation in Germany and Sweden, see Ertl & Phillips (2000). On Sweden in particular see Miles (1997). 3

The original ‘Six’ were Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The UK, Ireland and Denmark joined in 1973, Greece in 1981, Spain and Portugal in 1986, East Germany (by incorporation) in 1990, Sweden, Finland and Austria in 1995.


83

writers of various persuasions, the rich complexity of whose writings provides the raw stuff of debate but defies consensus. That in itself is not a problem – consensus is dull and good histories thrive on disagreements about interpretation – but it means that teaching about Europe must be seen as inevitably multidimensional and not susceptible to commonality of approach; it will always be filtered through the perspectives and styles of individual historians and seen through the prism of individual nations. A transnational history of Europe will remain a chimera: any history of Europe will have to take into consideration the elusive nature of its subject. How, then, might writing and teaching about Europe, all too obviously problematic as it is, contribute to the implementation of EU policy to encourage a ‘European dimension’ in the curiculum? The European dimension of course covers more than only what might be accommodated in the curriculum of schools and colleges, but if we limit the focus here to the school curriculum we can immediately identify a huge range of problems. First, there is the question of interpretation of what is meant by encouraging the European dimension. Such interpretation might or might not happen at the level of national government. Anastasia Economou’s research within the UK seems to indicate a reluctance at ministerial level to become too closely involved in translating the supranational policy into some kind of national policy. The task is left to others in the system. Secondly, transmission of the policy goes by default; and thirdly, implementation becomes a matter of chance, left largely to institutions and individuals who become ‘significant actors’ in taking things forward: without the enthusiasm generated by such actors we are left with the impression that very little would happen. Even, however, with enthusiastic intervention by individuals determined that the European dimension should permeate to the school level, it is not always possible to identify successful implementation in the classroom. Where teaching about Europe is evident, it will vary, of course, according to: the level of schooling at which it takes place; the ability of the pupils concerned; the degree of prescription of the formal curriculum; the enthusiasm/competence/bias of individual teachers. It will range from the elementary activities at primary level (identifying countries, flags, beginning to discuss national differences of various kinds) to sophisticated debate at upper secondary level of historical identity and notions of citizenship. It is likely to be more closely allied to citizenship education, in fact, now that that subject is becoming more firmly established in the curriculum. In England, for example, Citizenship has become a compulsory subject in the National Curriculum at secondary level from August, 2002. The European Union is specifically mentioned in the prescriptions for both Key Stage 3 (11-14 year olds) and Key Stage 4 (14-16 year olds):

84

DAVID PHILLIPS Key Stage 3: [Pupils should be taught about:] the world as a global community, and the political, economic, environmental and social implications of this, and the role of the European Union, the Commonwealth and the United Nations. Key Stage 4: [Pupils should be taught about:] the United Kingdom’s relations in Europe, including the European Union, and relations with the Commonwealth and the United Nations. (DfEE, 1999)

This might be the best that can be achieved. It is a prescription that makes it clear that ‘Europe’ should not be seen in isolation, but in relation to a much wider community, including that with which the UK has important historical ties. How it will turn out in practice remains to be seen, but its very existence is in my view encouraging in terms of ensuring that something of the European dimension is firmly embedded in the school curriculum. CONCLUDING REMARKS So extraordinary have been the advances of Europe since the general peace, in the chief constituents of civilisation, its populousness, industry, general riches, education, and the means of friendly intercourse, that a more intimate connection of its several states may be confidently anticipated. International jealousies and aversions have rapidly abated under the quiet influence of commerce, railways, telegraph lines, and emulative exhibitions for mutual improvement. It follows that the philanthropic aspiration [...] for a consolidation of European states into a federal union, has ceased to be chimerical. The Cabinet Gazeteer, 1853, p. 360

Despite the general lack of enthusiasm for EU matters, it is clear that the sort of measures taken so far in education and training have proved generally successful. It is difficult to think of any binding or non-binding Community legislation in the field of education and training that has been contentious to the point of its not being in some way implementable. In the field of post-compulsory education, particularly at tertiary level, there has been considerable enthusiasm for EC initiatives like ERASMUS and LINGUA, as well as TEMPUS, designed to further contact and co-operation with Eastern Europe, and COMETT, set up to encourage links between the universities and industry. There is little doubt that UK institutions will continue to welcome links with their EU partners and to encourage the kind of co-operation envisaged in the Maastricht provisions. But there remains the big question of the immanent qualities of education systems, of their adaptability and receptiveness to change, and of their general compatibility one with another. In looking just at the systems of England and Germany we can observe sufficient contrast in provision at all levels for there still to be considerable practical problems in any widespread mobility of the pupil and student population. Traditionally, of course, many parents finding themselves working for periods in a foreign country would choose to send their children to international schools or to special schools established for nationals of their home country - there is a German


85

school in London, for example. Such arrangements help to get round the problems of reintegration into the home system on return. Whatever the practical problems, however, the post-Maastricht scene in education in the Member States has provided an impressive range of opportunities for all levels of education and training. To take our two examples of England and Germany, two nations which have experienced both mutual admiration and mutual distrust over the last century and a half, we can be sure that the EU agreements in education and training will continue to enable them to co-operate with and learn from each other and in so doing to gain mutual enrichment and contribute in some measure – if only through a mobilité d’esprit, to the ideals of European unity.

86

DAVID PHILLIPS

References Anderson, Benedict (1991): Imagined Communities. Reflexions on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London/New York: Verso). Barnard, Catherine (1992): The Maastricht Agreement and Education: one step forward and two steps back?’, in: Education and the Law, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 123-134. Barzini, Luigi (1983): The Impossible Europeans (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson). Brague, Rémi, et al. (1999): L’Europe, A-t-elle besoin d’une Identité? (Paris: Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian). Cabinet Gazeteer, The (1853) (London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans). Cole, G.D.H. (1933): The Intelligent Man’s Review of Europe Today (London: Victor Gollancz). DfEE (Department for Education and Employment) (1999): ‘The National Curriculum for England and Wales: Citizenship’, (London: DfEE, QCA). Ertl, Hubert (2000): ‘The Development of the Provisions of the European Union in the Field of Education and Training’, in: Ingemar Fägerlind & Mina O’Dowd, Mapping European Comparative Education Perspectives (Stockholm: Institute of International Education). Ertl, Hubert & Phillips, David (2000): ‘Interpreting and Implementing EU Education and Training Policy: The Examples of Germany and Sweden’, in: World Studies in Education, forthcoming. Eurobarometer(2000): ‘Main Findings of the Eurobarometer 53’, http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg10/eb/eb53/ highlights.html. Fernández-Armesto, Felipe (ed.) (1994): The Times Guide to the Peoples of Europe (London: Times Books). Mayne, Richard (1972): The Europeans. Who are We? (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson). Miles, Lee (1997): Sweden and European Integration (Aldershot: Ashgate). Nicholas, EJ. (1983): Issues in Education: A Comparative Analysis (London: Harper & Row). Nóvoa, António (2000): ‘Ways of Thinking about Education in Europe’, paper given at the conference of the European Educational Research Association, Edinburgh, 23 September. Phillips, David (ed.) (1995): Aspects of Education and the European Union (Wallingford: Triangle). Phillips, David & Economou, Anastasia (1999): ‘Conducting Research into European Union Education and Training Policy’: some theoretical and methodological considerations’, in: Compare, Vol.29, No.3, pp. 303-316. Roberts, J.M.: A History of Europe (Oxford: Helicon). Rudden, Bernard & Wyatt, Derrick, (eds.) (1994): Basic Community Laws, 5th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Sampson, Anthony (1968): The New Europeans (London: Hodder and Stoughton). Santos Rego, Miguel Anxo (1997): Política educativa en la Unión Europea después de Maastricht (Educational policy in the European Union after Maastricht) (Santiago de Compostela: Collección Monografías). Stokes, Peter (1995): ‘Education in England and Wales: out of step with Europe?’, in: Phillips, (ed.) (1995), pp. 47-62. Watson, Keith (1997): ‘Potentials and Pitfalls’, in: Light & Salt, Vol.9, Issue 1, June.

BETTINA DAHL

TENSIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN AND THE NORDIC DIMENSION IN EDUCATION, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO SWEDEN 1. INTRODUCTION This paper begins with a description and discussion of the historical development of the five Nordic countries’ relations to the European Union (EU), particularly the arguments for and against membership. I shall attempt to detect some common Nordic attitudes to the EU. Then I shall turn to a discussion of what ‘Nordic’ means in terms of culture and go on to describe Nordic co-operation historically. This includes what is particular for the education systems in the Nordic countries and for Swedish education policy. Finally I shall define what a ‘Nordic dimension in education’ might mean. This leads to a description of the development of the ‘European dimension in education’ in the EU and the possible tensions between this and the Nordic. I shall also discuss how Sweden can deal with these tensions either through the Nordic Council or on its own.

2. THE NORDIC COUNTRIES AND THE EU “The North” (Norden) consists of the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), Finland, and Iceland. It includes the Faroe Islands and Greenland, semiautonomous parts of Denmark, as well as The Åland Islands1 that form a semiautonomous (Swedish) province of Finland. Denmark became a member of the European Communities2 (EC) in 1973. During the 1970s and 1980s Denmark was a kind of bridge-builder between Europe and the North. In 1995 Finland and Sweden joined the EU. Finland is the only Nordic country that is part of the euro-zone. Membership in all countries was preceded by referenda. Norway had referenda in 1972 and 1994, but the population voted No on both occasions. Iceland has not applied for membership. As members of EFTA (European Free Trade Association), Iceland and Norway have been 1

http://www.aland.fi/

2

In 1967 the EC arose as a fusion of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM), and the European Economic Community (EEC). The Treaty on the European Union (Treaty of Maastricht) was signed in 1992 and came into force in 1993 and formed the European Union (EU) (Brandstetter, 1998, p. 62) & http://europa.eu.int/abc/history/index_en.htm.


88

BETTINA DAHL

attached to the EU through the EEA (European Economic Area) Agreement between EFTA and the EC. The agreement was signed in 1992 and came into force in 1994 (Laursen & Olesen, 1998; Siune, 1996).

2.1 The arguments behind the decisions for membership Different argumentation for and against membership has been used. In this paper, emphasis is given to the three EU members, and particularly to Sweden.

2.1.1 Denmark In the referendum in 1972 on EC membership the main reason for the Yes vote (63.3%) was the expectation of economic benefits, particularly on the part of the farmers, as Germany and the UK were seen as better markets for their products than the Nordic countries. For that reason the farmers’ party had already in 1957 suggested membership of the European Economic Community (EEC) (Dosenrode, 1999; Laursen & Olesen, 1998, pp. 7 & 9). The No arguments were mainly to do with political integration and the “three-C”-rhetoric that “Catholicism, Christian Democracy, and Capitalism (or Cartels) dominate the EC” (Laursen & Olesen, 1998, p. 12). This view of Catholicism has its roots in the national romanticism of the 1800s. Catholicism was seen as a contrast to (the Protestant) Nordic and (North) German rationality, optimism about progress, and worship of the modern. This difference became thinner during the century (Sundback, 1999, pp. 78-80). In a referendum in 1982, 52% of the population of Greenland voted for withdrawal and so Greenland left the EC in 1985. She remained an associated member on fishery matters. The Faroe Islands did not become a member of the EC (Council Decision of the EC, 1 January 1973).3 In Denmark in the referendum in 1986 on the Single European Market (SEM) a majority voted Yes (56.2%), expecting positive effects on employment. In 1992 the Danes voted No (50.7%) to the Maastricht Treaty (Treaty on the European Union) as it was seen as representing further political integration. In the Edinburgh Agreement the Danes obtained four exceptions (opt-outs) from the Maastricht Treaty; i.e. non-participation in the third phase of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU, the euro), in the common defence policy, in common policy in legal and internal affairs, and in EU citizenship. These exceptions were accepted in a referendum in 1993 when 56.8% voted Yes (Laursen & Olesen, 1998, p. 16; Siune, 1996, pp. 7-9). Economic arguments had also persuaded voters to shift from ‘No’ to ‘Yes’ (Laursen & Olesen, 1998, p. 20). In a referendum in 1998 on the Amsterdam Treaty a majority voted Yes (55.1%) (Brandstetter, 1998). In September 2000 a majority voted No (53.2%) to joining the 3 http://www.um.dk/english/danmark/danmarksbog/. The Council Decision of the EC of 1 January 1973 is in Document 373D0101(01): http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1973/en_373D0101_01.html.

TENSIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN AND THE NORDIC DIMENSION IN EDUCATION 89 euro. The major No-arguments were loss of national sovereignty, a lack of confidence in EU democracy, particularly due to the Austria Sanctions, and that it would put the Nordic type of welfare state under pressure. It was particularly feared that the generous Danish “People’s Pension” would suffer. The constant fall of the euro against the US dollar since the launch on 1 January 1999 also contributed to the No vote. Table 1 below gives an overview of some opinion polls:

The support for EU membership has remained stable, while negative opinions of the euro have gained ground. However, Eurobarometer 56 shows a quite radical change in all three areas, which could suggest that towards the actual launching of the euro there was either apathy or a realistic view of the situation, depending on perspective. 2.1.2 Finland In a referendum in 1994 a majority of 56.9% voted Yes to Finland becoming a member of the EU. The consent of the Åland parliament was required for the Åland Islands to join too. The economic argument was strong, but the main argument was ‘soft security’ policy (i.e. non-military aspects of security; Mouritzen, 2000, p. 263). Finland’s relationship to the Soviet Union had previously made it impossible to consider EU membership. This was now a way to break away from Russia and engineer a security policy integration in Western Europe without having to join NATO (Olesen, 1999, pp. 910). Finland furthermore assumed the role as an “EU avant garde” country (Mouritzen, 2000, p. 273), mainly in terms of her willingness to accept the euro. At the beginning of her Presidency, in February 1995, Finland stated that: “Our Nordic values are the basis

90

BETTINA DAHL

for Finland’s actions within the Union. These include our conceptions of gender equality and social justice, of the importance of education, of environmental protection, as well as a strong democratic tradition extending right down to the local level”.4 Finland’s launching of the concept of the Northern dimension was a way to avoid being peripheralised (Mouritzen, 2000, p. 273). This was followed by the Committee of the Regions calling for “the ‘nordic dimension’ of the European Union to be taken into account following the accession of Sweden and Finland” (EU-Bulletin, 6-1996, 1.4.80). It recommended programmes of action to expand cross-border co-operation with Russia at local and regional authority levels. The concept of “Nordic/Northern dimension” was not primarily linked to education policy; education was only a minor part of it. The No arguments were “social security and equality”. The EU was seen to be a threat to the Finnish welfare state. Also arguments for democracy and sovereignty played a role (Siune, 1996, pp. 11-12). Table 2 below gives an overview of some opinion polls:

In contrast to Denmark, support for membership and the views of benefits deriving from it are rather moderate, even though there has lately been a considerable rise in support. Also, in relation to support of the euro, there has been an almost 50-50 balance until Eurobarometer 56. The reason could again be experience of the actual introduction of the new currency.

4

Government’s Report to the Parliament, 14 February 1995, Guidelines of Finland’s European Policy http://europa.eu.int/en/agenda/igc-home/ms-doc/state-fi/rep-fi.html.

TENSIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN AND THE NORDIC DIMENSION IN EDUCATION 91 2.1.3 Iceland Iceland is not a member of the EU and it is not on the agenda for any Icelandic political party to apply. In a poll in 1989, 36% of the population was in favour of membership, 21% against, and 43% did not have an opinion. Iceland has traditionally been more focused on the Nordic, Atlantic, and Eastern European markets. At the beginning of the 1990s around 60% of her export went to the EC. EEA membership is generally seen as beneficial. It has contributed to a more stable economy; Iceland has the possibility to present her views at an early stage of decision-making and has experienced that her views have usually been taken into account, although difficulties have also been encountered. A main argument against membership is sovereignty and the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). In 1986-1990, 73.9% of her merchandise exports were products of fishing. Even if the EU adopted the Icelandic fishery policy, the CFP would still be an obstacle, since decisions on quota allocations and management of resources would be finally taken in Brussels. Full sovereignty over her EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone; the 200-mile zone) is a fundamental part of her foreign policy (Asgrimsson, 1998 & 1999-20005; Olafsson, 1998, pp. 37-38 & 85; Palmarsdottir, 1991, pp. 5-6 & 18-22; Siune, 1996, p. 12).

2.1.4 Norway In a referendum on joining the EC in 1972, 53.5% of the Norwegians voted No. The main argument for the No vote was loss of sovereignty, while the Yes vote indicated a wish to participate in European co-operation. In a second referendum in 1994, 52.2% voted No again (Brandstetter, 1998). The No arguments were the same as in 1972 but it was further argued that EU membership might cause unemployment and be a threat to the standard of living in Norway (Olesen, 1999, p. 13). The Yes-side’s arguments centred on defence policy, the environment, and peace. Arguments about employment, Nordic fellowship, and the welfare state played only a minor role. Norway’s general resistance to participate in unions since being under Swedish rule from 1814 to 1905, and before that under Danish rule since the century could also help to explain the No vote (Olesen, 1999, p. 16; Siune, 1996, pp. 9-10). The centre/right government elected in the autumn of 2001 will not hold a EU referendum during its term of office (Dagsavisen, 12 September 2001). Norway is a member of the EEA but has the right to exempt

5

Asgrimsson, Halldor (1998). “Iceland in Europe”. Speech of Halldor Asgrimsson, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Iceland at CEPS (Centre for European Studies) in Brussels, 23 January 1998 http://brunnur.stjr.is/interpro/utanr/utn-eng.nsf/ea52acaba80067ed002565c20053eda6/ acfd88af7989e8460025662d00616852?OpenDocument. Asgrimsson, Halldor (1999-2000). “The place of Iceland in European co-operation”. Report by Mr. Halldor Asgrimsson, Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Althingi [Parliament] on the place of Iceland in European cooperation http://brunnur.stjr.is/interpro/utanr/utn-eng.nsf/pages/ 1E88DB37E5745D4B002568C1003D0DE5.

92

BETTINA DAHL

Svalbard from the application of the Agreement (Agreement on the EEA, Protocol 40 on Svalbard).6

2.1.5 Sweden The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), agreed in 1951 and in force from 1952, was not a purely economic organisation but had supra-national elements (Brandstetter, 1998, p. 18; Miles, 1997, p. 56), and when the Treaties of Rome7 were signed in 1957, coming into force in 1958, membership of the EEC was not attractive to some states because of the aim of supra-national political integration and economic union, as seen for instance in the overall objective of working towards an ever-closer union (Miles, 1997, p. 62). The high EEC tariff walls were also unacceptable for Sweden as her continual economic growth from the 1940s (until the early 1970s) was mainly export-driven (ibid. p. 9). As a reaction, UNISCAN was created in 1950 as an informal economic co-operation between the Scandinavian countries and the UK (ibid. p. 55), and in 1960 EFTA was created as a purely free trade area. In the 1960s Sweden experienced an average annual increase in intra-EFTA trade of around 5-6%, which can be partly attributed to EFTA membership, but in the late 1960s difficulties arose about gaining access to new rather than existing markets (ibid. pp. 67-68). Sweden applied for membership of the EEC/EC four times before becoming a member.

1961-63 Sweden applied as a reaction to the UK’s application in 1961. Owing to Sweden’s neutrality policy, she only applied for Association. There was also concern about the continuation of the Swedish welfare state. During the 1960s, Sweden was regarded as a country with high standards of living, advanced welfare policies, comparatively low unemployment, and a harmonious labour market. “This produced in Sweden a feeling of isolation and self-sufficiency” (Miles, 1997, p. 7). Sweden withdrew when de Gaulle rejected the UK application in 1963 (ibid. pp. 71-73).

1967 The second debate was a result of another UK application but it was short as de Gaulle soon rejected UK membership again. Sweden was now more positive towards the EEC, 6

Svalbard is a demilitarised arctic archipelago. In the Svalbard Treaty of 1920, Norway was awarded sovereignty, which was formally put into effect in 1925 by the Svalbard Act. The Svalbard Treaty secures some rights to citizens and companies of the signatory countries http://www.sysselmannen.svalbard.no. Protocol 40 on Svalbard can be found in Official Journal L 001, 03/01/1994 p. 0208–0208. 7

The Treaties of Rome established the European Economic Community (EEC) as well as the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) (Brandstetter, 1997, p. 31).

TENSIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN AND THE NORDIC DIMENSION IN EDUCATION 93 and therefore had sent an open letter of application. The reason was that in the Luxembourg Compromise in 1966, all the EEC members had agreed that major decisions would require unanimous consent in the Council of Ministers; a move away from supra-nationalism. In addition, Swedish farmers seemed more positive since they would get higher subsidies (Brandstetter, 1998, p. 58; Miles, 1997, pp. 80-81). 1970-1973 A Nordic Customs Union (NORDEK) was discussed in 1968-1970 as a reaction to the failure of the EC application. NORDEK was seen as a supplement to European integration as well as an addition to EFTA. In 1970 intra-Nordic trade accounted for around 27% of Swedish exports, while the exports to the EC and EFTA were 72%. NORDEK could also be used as a tool to further the countries’ EC aspirations by formulating a common Nordic negotiating stance. In NORDEK policy decisions were to be made by intergovernmental means and on the basis of unanimity. At the last minute Finland declared that she disliked the possible attachment to the EC because of her neutrality (Brandstetter, 1998, p. 68; Miles, 1997, pp. 52-53, 58-70 & 156-163). When the EC reopened the question of UK accession in 1970, the Swedish ‘open’ application of 1967 was reactivated. Furthermore, Sweden’s declining economic growth during 1970-71 re-emphasised the country’s dependence on international trade, and the NORDEK project had failed (Miles, 1997, p. 90). However, in 1970 the Werner Report on the EMU was devised, and Sweden argued that a future EMU would imply economic co-operation which would limit her freedom of action. In addition, the Davignon Report, adopted in 1970, emphasised the connection between full membership and participation in foreign policy measures aimed at furthering political unification. This development led to Swedish rejection of any type of membership (ibid. pp. 93-97). A bilateral Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Sweden (and the other EFTA countries) and the EC was signed in 1972 (Brandstetter, 1998, p. 73; Miles, 1997, p. 89). The FTA secured Swedish access to the EC-market without subscribing to the political commitment (Miles, 1997, p. 101). There were still restrictions on free trade with long transitional periods (eleven years) for paper and certain types of finished steel, but tariffs were eliminated on approximately 80% of Swedish-EC industrial trade over a five-year period (ibid. pp. 105-106). The FTA resulted in a 2.5 times rise in both export and import between Sweden and the EC from 1972 to 1979, and Swedish exports to the EC increased to 70% from 1973 to 1978. Sweden became therefore increasingly dependent upon the EC market (ibid. p. 109). 1990-1993 The FTA was not sufficient after the EC launched the Single European Market (SEM, see above). The problem was that if the SEM was not extended to the EFTA states, export from the EFTA countries would not obtain the economic benefits (Miles, 1997,

94

BETTINA DAHL

pp. 115-118). A multilateral dialogue between EFTA and the EC therefore began in 1984, the so-called Luxembourg Process (Brandstetter, 1998, p. 94). This included the concept of a European Economic Space (EES). Sweden supported this, as it did not threaten her neutrality policy or her sovereignty. The EES underwent further institutionalisation, and was then called European Economic Area (EEA). The EC’s motives were partly that EFTA was the largest trading partner, but the EC also wanted to avoid enlargement as the neutral states could jeopardise the development of the EC into a political entity with a common foreign policy (Miles, 1997, pp. 124-125). Sweden’s neutrality policy was incompatible with the political aspects of European integration until the breakdown of the Soviet Union in 1991, and was therefore the main reason for not joining the EC. The neutrality policy was also a basic element in Swedish welfare policy known as “the people’s home” (Folkhemmet) (Olesen, 1999, pp. 9-11), which had been the policy of the Social Democrats from 1932 (Miles, 1997, p. 8). The Social Democratic Party was in government from 1932 to 1976, from 1982 to 1991, and from 1994 onwards (ibid. pp. 23-24). The neutrality policy was essential to keep Sweden to “the third way” between American capitalism and Soviet totalitarianism (Olesen, 1999, pp. 9-11). Membership was also rejected as the supra-national features could compromise Sweden’s economic sovereignty, which could threaten the Swedish welfare state (Miles, 1997, p. 42). But already in the 1980s the Swedish welfare state model was under pressure to cut welfare provisions and curb the size of the country’s public sector (ibid. p. 193), and from 1983 the norm of centralised collective bargaining drifted away. This had been a central aspect since the Basic Agreement in 1938 (ibid. pp. 9 & 32). By 1991, the power structures in the world had changed. This made it easier for the Social Democratic government to decide to apply for full membership in 1991 (Olesen, 1999, pp. 9-11). The continuing violation of Swedish territorial waters and airspace by the Soviet military forces in the 1980s had also made it clear that her neutrality was not being respected (Miles, 1997, p. 199). It was also important that the unanimity requirement for taking decisions in the EC was seen to be maintained (ibid. p. 201). The economic considerations were therefore a prime reason for applying for EC membership. Germany and the UK were Sweden’s first and second most important export markets, and in 1994 trade with the EU was almost 3.5 times as big as her trade with the rest of the EFTA states (Miles, 1997, p. 36). The decision to apply for EC membership was a footnote at the presentation of an economic crisis plan on 28 November 1990. The situation was that economic growth and investment had stopped. There was a negative growth rate of about 1.5-2% per annum, a huge flight of capital particularly to the EC area, and production expenses had gone up, as well as the unemployment rate (15%) and the state budget deficit. In October 1990 Sweden was hit by a serious currency crisis (Miles, 1997, p. 34; Olesen, 1999, p. 14). The crisis point was in 1992, when even raising interest rates to 500% was not enough to defend the krona’s pegging to the ERM (Exchange Rate Mechanism) (Miles, 1997, p. 211). Also the negotiations starting in 1990 about the foundation of the EEA might have made the

TENSIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN AND THE NORDIC DIMENSION IN EDUCATION 95 Swedish government decide to apply for full membership (Olesen, 1999, p. 14). The EEA was asymmetric as it required that the EFTA countries had to accept and implement most EC regulations in exchange for getting access to the SEM (Olesen, 1999, p. 7). For Sweden the EEA Agreement included about 1,500 legal documents, which contain rules for marking of goods, capital, services, etc. (Olsson, 1993, p. 332). Furthermore, the EEA required an EFTA supra-national pillar to govern EFTA’s remit within common EEA policy (Miles, 1997, pp. 130-132). The EEA also had several major exceptions to free trade and did not, for the most part, include agriculture (ibid. p. 127). Realistic power politics might therefore have influenced the Swedish government’s decision to apply for membership. The Social Democratic Prime Minister Carlson said in an interview in Svenska Dagbladet (1 September 1992) that it had been of decisive importance that the EEA had too little influence; only full membership would give Sweden the possibility to participate completely in forming policy. Behind the decision to apply for membership of the EC was therefore also a wish to play a role in Europe (Goldmann, 1993, p. 328). The referendum of 1994 It was mainly expectations of economic benefits that made the Swedes vote Yes (52.2%) to join the EU in a referendum in 1994. Reference to the Swedish welfare state was part of the Yes arguments as well as the environment (Siune, 1996). According to Oskarson (1996, p. 126), the main arguments for the voters were economic, both for the Yes-voters (membership will improve the Swedish economy) and the No-voters (membership is too expensive, net payers to the EU). That Sweden would be isolated was nearly as important a Yes argument as that of the economy. Other Yes-arguments were peace, the possibility to influence the EU, and employment. Other No-arguments were centred on issues related to democracy, consumer questions, open borders, the EU’s organisation, and a lack of openness in EU administration. Public access to all the administration’s documents is a 200-year-old tradition in Sweden (Hellstrom, 1995, p. 81). Political members and sympathisers tended to follow party lines but about half of the Social Democratic voters voted No (49%) (Miles, 1997, p. 254). The Greens, the Left, and the anti-EU Social Democrats undertook the No-campaign. Among the Yes-voters, there is a difference in gender: 46% of the women and 59% of the men voted Yes. Age had an impact as well: 47% of the population aged 18-44 voted Yes, as did 55% of the population above 44. Among votes from the working class, only 39% voted Yes, while 61% of the middle class did so. There was furthermore a difference among regions as 57% of the population from the more populous urban south Sweden voted Yes, particularly in the three main cities, while only 41% from the more rural and provincialbased north did so (Oskarson, 1996, p. 138).

96

BETTINA DAHL

The period as a new member

The economy grew during 1995, but private consumption only rose moderately due to stagnant real income. There was also no immediate reduction in food prices, which the Yes-campaign had promised (Miles, 1997, pp. 266-268). As the economic expectations were not fulfilled there was a drastic fall in the population’s support of EU membership. In the first election to the European Parliament (EP) in Sweden in 1995, pro-EU parties in general did badly and anti-EU parties benefited. On questions such as the abolition of state borders, faith in the benefit for Sweden of EU decisions, and democracy in the EU, the Swedes were the most sceptical population in the whole EU. In fact the Swedes are in general among the EU’s most sceptical population (Gilljam & Holmberg, 1998, pp. 60-63). Table 3 below gives an overview of some opinion polls:

TENSIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN AND THE NORDIC DIMENSION IN EDUCATION 97

In line with Denmark and Finland, the Eurobarometer 56 shows a significant change in attitudes about the euro and a smaller change of attitudes towards membership and perception of its benefits. What is striking, however, is that the percentage of those supporting membership and the percentage finding that Sweden benefits from membership is considerably lower than the number who now seem to support the euro. The Swedish population has always been sceptical towards the euro. Before the EP election in 1995, it was particularly the Conservative (Moderata samlingspartiet) and the Liberal (Folkpartiet liberalerna) voters who were in favour (51 % in favour) and the Left (Vänsterpartiet) and the Green (Miljöpartiet de gröna) voters who were against (only 9% in favour) (Gilljam & Holmberg, 1998, p. 58). Sweden has decided on a “wait and see” strategy regarding joining the euro and the Danish No vote will most likely negatively influence the outcome of a future Swedish euro-referendum (Financial Times, 1 October 2000). In the autumn of 2001 the Swedish Prime Minister, however, anticipated that Sweden will join the euro in 2005 if its introduction goes well. He will, however, not hold a referendum until a Yes vote is guaranteed (BBC, 10 August 2001). At the end of December 2001 the Prime Minister stated that he hoped for a referendum on the euro in 2003 (FinansTidningen, 8 February 2002). 2.2 Common Nordic attitudes to the EU From the above it is clear that the Nordic countries and populations have some similarities but are not fully alike in their view of the EU. Even among the three Member States there are differences. The Nordic countries’ populations prioritise sovereignty and welfare as well as economic benefits (Siune, 1996, p. 14). Economic considerations have always been of high importance for the Nordic EU Member States’ positive interest in European integration. This is connected with the Nordic countries’ small open economies being very dependent on foreign trade (Olesen, 1999, p. 11). In general they prefer an interstate (interdependence) level of co-operation instead of a supranational level (integration) (Olesen, 1999, pp. 1-3). The populations’ (Denmark, Finland, Sweden) general attitude to the EU is that 64-76% support the principle of subsidiarity. Areas such as social policy, health, education, and culture should remain national matters (Eurobarometer 44 & Standard Eurobarometer 43; Siune, 1996). Denmark and Sweden mainly joined for economic reasons. At least this was a main incentive for the populations to vote Yes; power politics may also have been part of the governments’ agenda. This is also seen in the populations’ support of it. The Danes find they benefit from membership and a majority are in favour of membership. In Sweden only a minority feel that they benefit from membership and only a minority supports membership. The Danes and the Swedes are, however, different in the way they see their welfare state in relation to the EU. In Denmark concern for the welfare state supports a

98

BETTINA DAHL

No argument (it would put the welfare state system under pressure, particularly the pension system) while in Sweden it became a Yes argument (it will improve the economy). The welfare state seems therefore to be mainly a “political” concern in Denmark as the Danes wanted to preserve the specific welfare system while in Sweden the concern is about earnings for the welfare state. The Danes also seem slightly less sceptical than the Swedes. In common is a concern for democracy. A difference between Denmark/Sweden and Finland is that the Finns are not as critical towards the EU in general and therefore Finland has moved to a position at the centre of the EU (Olesen, 1999, p. 8). Furthermore the economic argument was not the main reason the Finns voted Yes to join the EU, but is still a strong argument. Denmark has been a member since 1973, which has given the country a great amount of experience that can be used to promote Danish interests, but the four exceptions may limit her freedom of action. Finland and Sweden do not have the same experience but they also do not have the historically determined restrictions to their EU membership. In both Denmark and Sweden the governments’ freedom of action is restricted by a very sceptical public opinion. Finland’s government has on the other hand greater freedom of action (Petersen, 1996, pp. 3-4). Even though Sweden is not a member of the euro-zone, one could argue that this does not “damage” her relationship with the EU as much as the Danish position outside the euro-zone affects the Danes. Sweden has not (yet) held a referendum on the euro, and within the EU there may therefore be an expectation of Swedish entry, whereas the Danes directly rejected the euro, and this decision cannot be expected to change soon. The question of sovereignty has been a main concern for the Nordic populations. The root of this scepticism might be the Nordic countries’ experience of being small nations, dominated by larger states. Furthermore Sweden and Denmark’s collapse from a status of middle-size European powers to small state status over the past two centuries might have put a damper on their enthusiasm for the international scene (Olesen, 1999, p. 15). Their collective experience and past therefore seem to influence present policy and attitudes. Among the three Nordic Member States, there are hence many similarities, particularly between Denmark and Sweden, while Finland is different in many areas. Overall, the Nordic countries have similar EU interests that can roughly be divided into offensive and defensive interests (Petersen, 1996, p. 4). The offensive interests are to make the Union more Nordic; the Nordic countries wish to influence the EU with welfare politics, democracy, and post-materialistic values with an emphasis on protection of the environment, equality, the rights of citizens, anti-discrimination, and anti-racism. On welfare policy there is a particular focus on unemployment, a social dimension, and consumer protection (Petersen, 1996, pp. 5-8). At the Nordic Council’s Europe Conference in Copenhagen in 1996, before the EU Inter-GovernmentalConference (1996 IGC), the Norwegian Prime Minister Brundtland (Social Democrat) talked about the EU as an arena for defending the institutional Nordic Social Democratic welfare state model (Laursen & Olesen, 1998, p. 47; Siune, 1996, p. 21). The Nordic EU

TENSIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN AND THE NORDIC DIMENSION IN EDUCATION 99 countries are strongly in favour of the principle of subsidiarity and they agree that the role of the national parliaments should be strengthened to consolidate democratic legitimacy (Miles, 1997, pp. 289-290 & Petersen, 1996, pp. 6-7). The latter stance might, however, be against the Nordic EFTA-EEA countries’ interests. The management of the EEA Agreement would be more stable if the Commission had more power to push through decisions which have been negotiated between it and the EFTA-EEA states (Asgrimsson, 1999-2000). The defensive interests are to stop the development of the Union in a federal supra-national direction and to keep the existing balance between small and large countries (Petersen, 1996, pp. 11-13). 3. A NORDIC DIMENSION I shall first clarify the notion of ‘Nordic’ and to what extent it makes sense to talk about the North as something “united”. Secondly, I shall discuss and compare the Nordic countries’ education systems, and thirdly, discuss particularly the Swedish education policy agenda. 3.1 A united North? In modern time there arose a dream of a united North with roots in common values and traditions of a religious, linguistic, social, and political nature. Previous attempts to unite the North were undertaken by the Danish Queen Margrethe who united Denmark, Norway, and Sweden in the Kalmar Union (1397-1524) and later through Swedish initiative in the century where Sweden for a short time grew at the expense of Denmark, Poland, and Russia. In the century “Scandinavianism” was a political and cultural movement to promote Nordic co-operation and a reaction against threats from Germany and Russia. A Scandinavian monetary union existed from 1875 to 1924 and was formally dissolved in 1947. The Scandinavian process for unification never resulted in binding supra-national constructions due to lack of power behind the ambitions, and political Scandinavianism died out (Dosenrode, 1999; Laursen & Olesen, 1998, pp. 4-5; Miles, 1997, pp. 2-3). The idea survived within more popular national organisations such as “Norden” (The North), created in 1919 in all the Nordic countries, with more moderate ambitions for Nordic co-operation. As a result of the recent Norwegian independence from Sweden in 1905, it was very difficult to have their consent to cooperation above the inter-state level. Finland was furthermore a Grand Duchy of Russia from 1809 to 1917, and before that under Swedish rule, and Iceland obtained her independence from Denmark in 1944. These three ‘minors’ have therefore traditionally put emphasis on national sovereignty vis-à-vis the two ‘majors’ who fought for regional leadership (Dosenrode, 1999; Laursen & Olesen, 1998; Miles, 1997, p. 142). In World War II, Finland pressured Sweden to enter the war as an ally, but Sweden wanted to remain neutral and only lend support to Finland as a ‘non-belligerent’. The German

100

BETTINA DAHL

occupation of Denmark and Norway led to a recrudescence of “Nordism” (Dosenrode, 1999, pp. 11-12; Laursen & Olesen, 1998, pp. 5-6). A Scandinavian Defence Alliance was discussed in 1948-1949. This was preferable for Sweden if Denmark and Norway did not join NATO (Miles, 1997, p. 145). However, Danish and Norwegian mistrust that Sweden would ever come to their aid due to the experience of World War II meant the end of the discussions (Miles, 1997, p. 148; Olesen, 1999, p. 3). The many appeals to Nordic co-operation had rather the purpose of strengthening domestic policy or national resistance towards European integration than strengthening Nordic co-operation. The weak Danish Social Democratic government in 1947 felt that further Nordic co-operation with the strong Social Democratic governments in Norway and Sweden would support their policy (Dosenrode, 1999; Laursen & Olesen, 1998, p. 20). Also the successful creation of a joint Scandinavian airline (SAS, Scandinavian Airline System) in 1946 made further economic co-operation seem obvious (Miles, 1997, p. 56). The Scandinavian movement has been a prominent producer of national identities as the Scandinavian countries believe in common Nordic values provided by a common past. In this connection Scandinavianism has not replaced national values but strengthened them (Laursen & Olesen, 1998, p. 21). Furthermore it was noted in 1977 that the Nordic countries seemed more integrated, also economically, than any other group of independent states in the world (Miles, 1997, pp. 141-142). The Nordic Social Democrats have had a principal influence on the creation of the political culture and were the most eager spokesmen for Nordic co-operation after World War II. In the North it has long been the opinion that the Nordic (Social Democratic, institutional) welfare states are unique and superior to other countries’ systems. Towards the end of the Millennium, most of the “3 Cs” rhetoric has disappeared, and the EU has now in more right-wing eyes become a “Social Democratic project” and for that reason has been critiqued (Olesen, 1999, pp. 17-18). Thus, the dream of a united North has always been a dream, mainly a Social Democratic dream. On the other hand, the reference to Nordic culture has been essential in creating the national characters, and Nordic co-operation has been developed in areas of common interest and has particularly been strengthened through the founding of the Nordic Council, as will be described below. 3.1.1 The Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers The Nordic Council was founded by Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden in 1952 as a forum for inter-parliamentary co-operation between the Nordic countries. Finland joined in 1955. “It was not established by a treaty, but by individual endorsement by the national parliaments. Delegations from the national parliaments (still) simply meet on an annual basis to discuss matters of common interest” (Laursen & Olesen, 1998, p. 24). The members (87) are elected by the countries’ parliaments. The delegations from the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and the Åland Islands are part of the delegations from

TENSIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN AND THE NORDIC DIMENSION IN EDUCATION 101 Denmark and Finland. The Nordic Sami do not have their own independent representative but are members of national delegations. The Nordic Council can only issue recommendations, but usually the countries follow them. It also takes initiatives and controls a number of joint Nordic projects (Laursen & Olesen, 1998). A Common Nordic Labour Market Treaty (1954) established the principle of free labour mobility. The Convention on Social Security (1955) provided for all social security benefits of one country to be extended to the citizens of other Nordic states living in that country. A Nordic Passport Union was completed in 1958 but from as early as 1952 passports for Scandinavian travel had been abolished (Miles, 1997, p. 154). The Nordic Council of Ministers was founded in 1971 (a reaction to the Danish and Norwegian EC application) as an informal forum for inter-governmental co-operation. The Nordic Council of Ministers presents suggestions to the Nordic Council and administrates the Nordic Council’s recommendations as well as the joint Nordic activities. The Nordic Council of Ministers meets with different composition according to the topics discussed. The Prime Ministers have overall responsibility for the cooperation. The two councils each have their own secretariats. Nordic co-operation has been informal, and the success of this pragmatic and functionalist approach lies in a “slowly growing ethos of cooperation from which a cobweb of practical cooperation results” (Laursen & Olesen, 1998, p. 25). This has worked very well in areas low on the political agenda, but has not been strong enough to promote joint Nordic responses to questions of high politics. The No-argument’s reference to the Nordic cause suffered a defeat in 1995 when Finland and Sweden joined the EU. The Swedish government announced that it was no longer able to finance the activities of the Nordic Councils at the then current level. The co-operation was then predicted to receive a lower priority or to have to be organised in a different way (Laursen & Olesen, 1998, p. 45). Already some years before, changes in Nordic co-operation had been discussed. In the Bornholm Declaration (1992) the Nordic countries decided to expand co-operation on European and regional questions to ease the countries’ participation in the EU and EEA. At the Nordic Council’s session in Reykjavík in 1995, it was decided that future co-operation should aim at three main pillars: (1) co-operation within the Nordic region; (2) relationship with Europe, the EU, and the EEA; and (3) the adjacent areas (the Baltic countries, the Arctic, and Northwestern Russia) (Lindström, 1996, pp. 125-126). A new principle was coined “Nordic Advantage/Usefulness” (Nordisk nytte): New activities must “be related to activities which would otherwise be conducted on a national level, but where the tangible, positive effects can be achieved by joint Nordic action” (Laursen & Olesen, 1998, p. 47). The Swedish Conservative Prime Minister Bildt said in 1994 that one of the most important tasks for Sweden would be “to give the EU a clear Northern European Dimension” (Miles, 1997, p. 169). In a press release from the Nordic Council (11 November 1998), it is stated that the North should as soon as possible identify questions on the European agenda where the Nordic countries can stand together to promote Nordic views and

102

BETTINA DAHL

interests. Furthermore, Nordic co-ordination before EU meetings has been experienced as being particularly efficient on questions relating to consumers, food, environment, energy, research, education, culture, media, social, and labour market policy. This was also discussed in a Nordic Council report about possibilities for intensified cooperation.8 The discussion has gone further, and in September 2000 a Nordic panel of wise men under the Nordic Council of Ministers published a report (“Norden 2000”) about the future of Nordic co-operation. The report was presented at the Nordic Council’s meeting in November 2000 and was received very positively. It was discussed that such cooperation would only be a success in areas of complete accord.9 The report states that the enlargement and further integration of the EU demands that the North move from only informing about and co-ordinating their views to instead “talk with one voice” on policy areas of priority (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2000, p. 4). It is stated that information, communication, and education are key issues in the fast growing international network. IT and computer skills as well as a solid general education constitute preparedness for lifelong learning. At the same time the school’s important role as a creator of democracy remains (ibid. p. 18). Therefore, the report suggests a model in which Nordic cooperation focuses on various subject areas, and while the Nordic ministers consider this area, they include a discussion about EU policy as well as co-operation with the adjacent northern areas (ibid. p. 31). Nordic co-operation has therefore changed since Finland and Sweden joined the EU, but these changes have been under way since 1992 and the EEA Agreement. From receiving low priority from Sweden just after Sweden joined the EU, Nordic cooperation has become more goal-oriented, also towards a joint Nordic profile in the EU. 3.2 Nordic educational systems I shall now look at the historical development of the Swedish education system and compare it with the systems in the other Nordic countries today. 3.2.1 Historical development of the Swedish educational system In the Middle Ages, Swedish schools used similar texts and methods as the rest of Europe. There is no trace of any specific national contribution (Boucher, 1982, p. 4). The Reformation and the fusion of the state and the church developed the educational ideas of nationalism and democracy. This happened since the religious development came at the same time as the struggle for national unity as Sweden established a new 8

Sammanfattande slutrapport, 20 April 1999, Utredning över den nordiska dimensionen i de nationella styringssystemen, Intensiveret Nordisk Samarbejde http://www.norden.org/hagstrom/slutrapport_990420.htm. 9

http://www.norden.org/session2000uk/main.htm.

TENSIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN AND THE NORDIC DIMENSION IN EDUCATION 103 national monarchy in the and centuries (ibid. pp. 4-5). This was the time of the beginning of popular education. The Protestant church rests on the idea of “the priesthood of all believers” and in 1656 church law made the parish priest responsible for teaching the catechism and the curate for teaching reading (ibid. pp. 5-6). At the beginning of the 1800s, both liberal/radical reformers and conservatives agreed that liberty and equality should be the guiding principles of childrearing (Boli, 1989, p. 216). In 1842 a law established a compulsory elementary school, the folkskola (Boucher, 1982, p. 8). This was the first time a wholly universalistic education regulation had been promoted (Boli, 1989, p. 232). The later political dominance of the Social Democrats meant a hegemony of universalistic equality over that of individual freedom (ibid. p. 255). There were considerable changes in the school system from the 1950s to the 1980s (Boucher, 1982, pp. 21-28). The existing parallel system of non-selective elementary schools (folkskolor) and progressively increasingly selective and diversified schools (realskolor) and post-compulsory academic and vocational provision in the gymnasium and in yrkeskolor, was replaced by an integrated series of end-on institutions. Pupil diversification was postponed until the end of the compulsory sector (ibid. pp. 21-22). The reforms also meant that the school curriculum stressed the need to strengthen democratic principles of, for instance, tolerance (ibid. p. 197). Boucher (1982, p. 7) argues that the democratising of the school is not simply a phenomenon of the century but has deep roots in the Swedish tradition, and perhaps goes back as far as the Viking Village Law, where all free-men met as equals at the moot to discuss common problems.10

3.2.2 The Nordic countries’ educational systems The Nordic countries have the same educational objectives in common, which are equal access to (lifelong) learning, teaching democracy, independence, equality, and the development of critical awareness in pupils. The focus is broad and comprehensive as opposed to elitist (Andersen, 1999a, p. 27). There are nevertheless significant differences between the organisation of the school systems as a whole (Nordin, 2000, p. 12). The Danish school system is decentralised, with many options as well as support for private schools (Daun, 1997, pp. 29-33). Finland has a highly centralised system with very limited possibility to choose schools as well as low subsidies to private schools. Sweden previously bore one of the highest educational costs in the world. Larger reforms in the 1990s decentralised the school system down to the school level, unlimited

10 The free-men ranged from impoverished peasants to men of wealth and authority, and they had the rights to even elect or reject a king or change the religion (Jones, 1984, pp. 150-152). Viking women were able to own land, inherit property, and divorce their husbands.

104

BETTINA DAHL

choice was legislated for, high subsidies were given to the private schools, and cuts were made in the education budget. The structure of the elementary (primary and lower secondary) schools in the North is quite similar. All have a 9-10 year elementary school, in Sweden the grundskola. In Denmark, Finland, and Sweden schooling begins at the age of seven, in Norway (since 1997) and Iceland at the age of six. Compulsory education is the rule in Denmark and Finland, and the children must therefore receive education but not necessarily at a school. Compulsory attendance at school is the rule in Iceland, Norway, and Sweden (Andersen, 1999b). The Swedish system particularly is single-tracked and homogeneous. In Sweden there is not, as in Finland, a separate vocational high school, but after the grundskola the pupils can go to a high school (upper secondary) called gymnasieskola. In the gymnasieskola they can choose between thirteen vocational programmes or three theoretical programmes (social science and humanities; natural sciences and technology; and aesthetics). It is difficult to differentiate between general and vocational education since within the three theoretical programmes the pupils can choose courses with a vocational orientation and the thirteen vocational programmes also include a rather high proportion of general education subjects (Swedish Ministry of Education, 2000, p. 8; Salin & Waterman, 2000). Admission criteria to upper secondary school are successful completion of the grundskola with a pass in Swedish, English, and Mathematics (Eurydice, 1997b, pp. 44-45). In all the Nordic countries the elementary schools are mainly municipality schools funded by the state (Andersen, 1999b, pp. 48-50; Packalén, 1999, p. 60). Denmark is a bit different here since a comparatively large proportion of pupils (12%) attend private schools. This is due to the particular Danish tradition for “Free Schools” since the 1850s. In Sweden the share of private schools is 2.4%, and it is even less in the other Nordic countries. Since 1992 Swedish parents have had the right to choose which school their children attend, and the pupil’s home municipality is obliged to pay for the pupil’s schooling. Independent schools receive 75% of the average cost per pupil in a municipality school. In all the Nordic countries there are furthermore relatively many elementary schools per child. Denmark and Finland are the two extremes with on average 275 and 140 pupils per school respectively (Andersen, 1999b, pp. 49-51; Eurydice, 1997a, pp. 237-238; Nordin, 2000, p. 12). The attainment level in the Nordic countries is relatively high compared with the OECD countries. The proportion of 25-64 year-olds in 1996 in the OECD countries whose highest level of education was received at upper secondary school was 40%, while 20% had received a higher education. The figures for the Nordic region are 47% and 26% respectively. Within the Nordic region there are differences since the proportion of 25-64 year-olds with an upper secondary school education as highest level of education varies from 41.4% (Iceland) to 54.5% (Norway). The figure for Sweden is 47.3%. Only 24.5% of Swedes have had their highest education at elementary school level (the OECD average is 39.8%), and 27.3% have a further education (the OECD

TENSIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN AND THE NORDIC DIMENSION IN EDUCATION 105 average is 20%) (Nordin, 1999, p. 31). The OECD has estimated that in 2010 this number for Sweden would be about 35% (Swedish Ministry of Education, 2000, p. 3). Thus there are similarities between the Nordic educational systems in the focus, elementary school structure, and attainment level, but there are also many differences in the administration of schools, choice possibilities, and the structure of the whole education area. 3.3 Swedish EU education policy A central goal in Swedish educatio n policy is that pupils must learn more than mere knowledge; the teaching of respect for human values is equally important (Press Release from the Swedish Ministry of Education, 15 June 2000). A report from the Swedish Ministry of Education states the necessity of developing a “democratic mentality” in pupils (Swedish Ministry of Education, 2000, pp. 6-9). In the Swedish government’s development plan for pre-school, school, and adult education (1999), it is stated that the goals of knowledge and of basic values must be integrated (ibid. p. 89). In the Swedish curriculum for the pre-school (Lpfö 98) the purpose of the pre-school is seen as to develop the child’s ability to function and act socially responsibly, to make sure that solidarity and tolerance are learnt at an early stage, and to counteract traditional sex roles. This is also stated in the curriculum for the compulsory school in general (Swedish Ministry of Education, 2000, pp. 113-114). In Svenska Dagbladet, 29 August 2000, the Swedish Minister for Schools stated that “a school for all” is the goal for “us” Social Democrats. The Swedish Minister of Education and the Swedish Minister for Schools welcome the fact that the EU now shares Sweden’s view on the importance of lifelong learning, but education policy remains a national matter. Adult education is seen as a way to minimize classdivisions (Press Release, Swedish Ministry of Education, 29 June 1999). The ‘Nordic dimension in education’, particularly the Swedish (Social Democratic), “version” is therefore that the teaching of democratic values is as important as the teaching of knowledge. The focus is on a “school for all”, adult (lifelong) education, equality, democracy, and a high number of people receiving further education. The forming of education policy is a task of the national state, not the role of the EU. Education should happen at school, in a decentralised school system with possibilities for choice. The whole school structure is organised in a single track. 3.3.1 The creation of European policy in Sweden According to Christensen (1997, p. 143), national foreign policy is to a great extent created in a political environment influenced by negotiations among states. The negotiations contribute to create decision-making processes which are closed to the public. In the Nordic context, characterised by scepticism towards European integration,

106

BETTINA DAHL

this internationalisation of the decision-making process is problematic. To reduce this democratic deficit, separate Advisory Committees on European Union Affairs were created in each country’s parliament. The Committees are a kind of mini-parliament with representatives from all the parties in the parliament. The Committees in Sweden (and Denmark) mainly work on questions that have come up in the EU Council of Ministers. In Sweden power in foreign policy is with the government, and the parliament’s (Riksdag) influence is small (ibid. p. 144). In the Danish Europe Committee decisions are binding for the parliament, but the Swedish Committee (EU-nämnden) is only an organ of co-operation. This is to make it possible for the Swedish ministers to “improvise” during negotiations (ibid. p. 146). The parties are split on EU policy, particularly the Social Democrats, and this in practice prevents the Swedish government from running solo (ibid. p. 157). In the EU-nämnden in 1995-96 only about 5% of the cases discussed were on the initiative of the Ministry of Education. By contrast, the Ministry of Farming and Fishing accounted for 14.5% and the Foreign and Defence Ministry stood for 17.5% of initiatives (Christensen, 1997, p. 153). The education area accounted for only about 2.5% of the overall activities. The Conservative Party in particular was active in about 45% of these cases. This might be linked to the fact that they wanted to show themselves as an alternative to the Social Democratic government (ibid. pp. 154-155). In relation to other policy areas, the various parties in general give the education area within the EU very low priority (ibid. p. 156). This means that EU policy in Sweden is to a greater extent than in Denmark a product of government policy only. Education receives very little attention in the EUnämnden and one could therefore conclude that the area has rather low priority, which might be connected with the fact that education in Sweden’s view is solely a matter of national policy. Nevertheless, lifelong-learning, democracy, and equality are the main issues in Sweden’s EU education policy. 4. THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION IN EDUCATION A general description of the development of the notion of a European dimension in education can be found in Ertl (chapter 1 in this present volume) (see also Siedersleben & Dahl, in this present volume). To recapitulate, the Treaties of Rome (1957) only remotely touch upon education policy but from the beginning of the 1970s a number of initiatives were taken, for instance the Janne Report and the creation of the DirectorateGeneral for Research, Science, and Education in 1973 (Beukel, 1992, pp. 15-19). The first time the notion of a ‘European dimension in education’ is defined more formally is in the Resolution of July 1988. The goal is to strengthen the European dimension in education. To do so, young people’s sense of European identity should be enhanced and their knowledge of the EC and its Member States should be increased. Young people should also be made aware of advantages in the EC as well as challenges (Official

TENSIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN AND THE NORDIC DIMENSION IN EDUCATION 107 Journal of the European Communities C 177/5-7, 6 July 1988). Various educational programmes were initiated and controlled from the Commission. But it was not until the Maastricht Treaty that a specific legal basis was created for it. This was achieved in Articles 126 and 127, which remained unchanged in the Amsterdam Treaty (signed in 1997 and coming into force in 1998) but were renumbered as Articles 149 and 150. 4.1 Nordic responses to the development As Ertl (chapter 1 in this present volume) argues, the development of the EU’s education and training policy has developed by sequences of steps. A part of this is the development of the notion of a European dimension in education. This notion was received with some scepticism particularly in the Nordic countries (Beukel, 1992; Böttcher & Engelund, 1995). In this section I shall follow the division of the stages of development laid down by Ertl (chapter 1 in this present volume) and here discuss how these policies were received by the Nordic countries. I shall focus particularly on the Expansion Phase (1976-1992) and the Consolidation Phase (1992 onwards) as it was not until 1973 that Denmark joined the EC, and Sweden and Finland did not join until 1995. 4.1.1 Expansion Phase 1976-1992 As explained by Ertl, in 1976 the ministers of education decided on the first Action Programme and a permanent Committee of Education was set up. The first Action Programme resulted in many problems due to the notion of the ‘European dimension’. The Member States would have to teach various aspects relating to the EC and at least one other language spoken in the EC. The negotiations in the EC Council reached a deadlock from November 1978 to June 1980 as many of the Member States saw this as an intervention in national sovereignty. One meeting was in fact cancelled since the Danish Minister of Education refused to participate as Denmark (which was the only Nordic EU Member State at that time) was against the content of the presented resolutions and it was emphasised that the EC should not interfere with education policy at national level. There were, however, still problems with the question of the European dimension among the Ministers of Education in general. In the Solemn Declaration on European Union from the European Council in Stuttgart in June 1983 some of the objectives for education were closer co-operation between the institutions of higher education, exchange of teachers and students, development of the teaching of the languages of the EC, better knowledge about the other Member States, and education in European history and culture to promote a European awareness (EC-Bull. 6-1983, 1.6.1: 3.3). In October 1983 the Parliament suggested setting up a European Schoolbook Commission to ensure that for instance history books have a European shape to eliminate national prejudice, to provide greater knowledge about the EC, and to promote the European ideal in schools

108

BETTINA DAHL

(Official Journal of the European Communities C 307/36-37, 14 November 1983). But as the question of the European dimension still caused problems it was not until June 1985 that a statement on the European dimension in education was agreed among the Ministers of Education. The statement was partly drawing on the European Council in Stuttgart (EC-Bulletin, 6-1985, 2.1.68). 4.1.2 Consolidation Phase 1992 onwards In 1985 the White Paper on the SEM was accepted, and the SEM was to be completed by the end of 1992 (Nugent, 1994, p. 272). The SEM’s first pillar is to guarantee the “free movement of goods, persons, services and capital between the member states” (ibid. p. 273). The education initiatives therefore became primarily aimed at creating a highly qualified workforce to contribute to economic growth and increase competitive power against, particularly, Japan and the USA. Furthermore the Action Programmes were especially involved in vocational and higher education, with an emphasis on commercial, technological, and natural science, plus the needs of trade and industry. They encouraged various forms of co-operation between education institutions through economic enticements (Böttcher & Engelund, 1995, p. 5). This labour-market orientation of the education policy is also seen in the Ruberti document of May 1993 (Böttcher & Engelund, 1995, pp. 9-10). This document was a review of how far the EU had gone in terms of education policy, and it determined guidelines for future years. The document underlined the importance of education in terms of competitive power. However, the Danish Minister of Education (7 September 1993, Statement on the Ruberti document; Böttcher & Engelund, 1995) found the Ruberti document to be too economic- and labour market-oriented, and instead Denmark underlined the importance of a generally welleducated and active population that can function in a democratic society. One can also see reservation towards the Commission’s “top-down” strategy, which makes the dialogue with the participants more difficult. As Böttcher & Engelund (1995, p. 10) argue, this suggests that the Maastricht Treaty created a tension between the Nordic view of education and that of the rest of Europe. This tension between the national and the supra-national, and between harmonisation the multiplicity is also seen in the Treaty.11 A next step was the Commission’s White Paper of November 1995: “Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society” (see Swedish Ministry of Education, 1996b). Here, the Commission emphasises five goals. The first is the promotion of learning of new knowledge. The Green Paper (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1996a), which was the Swedish Ministry of Education’s comment on the EU’s White Paper states that this goal is too narrow as it does not include the school’s basic democratic importance. The 11 Article 126: 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.

TENSIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN AND THE NORDIC DIMENSION IN EDUCATION 109 three next goals are to bring school and working life closer together, to fight marginalisation, and to provide opportunities to learn to speak three of the languages of the EU. Sweden agrees with this. The fifth goal is to invest in education. Sweden also agrees here but emphasises that the White Paper’s discussions of, for instance, taxquestions, does not, and should not, belong to the competency area of the EU (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1996a, pp. 22-34). The Green Paper also states that education policy should remain, for the main part, a national matter. However, it is also stated that co-operation is a give-and-take relationship and compromise might therefore be necessary (ibid. p. 6). Furthermore it is stated that the Action Programmes SOCRATES and LEONARDO should continue. The Swedish school is not controlled from the top, but through the formulation and prioritisation of goals which give greater opportunity to local influence. This is in Sweden’s eyes more effective and more democratic, and the EU should strive for a similar system. Sweden finds that adult education, vocational training, multicultural society, and integration are areas that the EU does not touch, but which ought to be prioritised in the future (ibid. pp. 7-11). The development has gone further. In a statement from the Committee of Regions in March 1998, the Committee supported the Commission’s communication: “Towards a Europe of knowledge”. They emphasise the importance of involving the local and regional authorities to promote the feeling of being an EU citizen and having a common cultural background (EU-Bulletin, 3-1998, 1.2.89). The Parliament decided in May 1998 to raise funding for the programmes within education. It furthermore stated that access to education must be ensured for the most disadvantaged, that lifelong learning must be guaranteed, and a European dimension introduced into educational programmes (EUBulletin, 5-1998, 1.2.98). In December 1998 the EU Council (Education) passed a statement about an Action Programme for the period 2000-2006 whose purpose is to improve the quality of education through promoting co-operation and mobility and strengthening the European dimension at all levels of education. The second phase of SOCRATES and LEONARDO was therefore to run from 2000 to 2006. More decisions will be made at national level (Utbildningsdepartementets Nyhetsbrev, No. 4, 1999). In May 2000 the Commission agreed a statement about eLearning. The targets are to improve the infrastructures, to give all schools in the EU internet connection, easy access to schools for all groups in society, and the establishment of a net between the schools (European Schoolnet, EUN) (EU-Bulletin, 5-2000, 1.4.16). Some of these later developments are therefore more in line with Nordic policy. 4.2 Tensions between the European and the Nordic Dimension EU education policy has thus developed considerably. It was only remotely mentioned in the Treaties of Rome, later it became a tool to improve the SEM, and towards the end of the Millennium it achieved a broader scope. It seems to have been part of a struggle between integration enthusiasts and the historical sceptics (Nordic countries) as well as

110

BETTINA DAHL

the demands for the SEM. The notion of the European dimension was from the start contrary to Nordic policy as it was seen as interfering with national policies and as too focused on the economic needs of the SEM. The later development has expanded to the whole area of education whereas after 1985 it mainly focused on higher and vocational education. It has included more Nordic themes such as “lifelong learning” and “education for all”. But an important Nordic view of the school’s role in forming democratic citizens is not on the EU agenda. It is also still on the EU agenda to promote the EU population’s positive view of being European, and there are some supra-national aspects such as the discussion of tax questions to increase investment in education. There are, however, aspects which point in the opposite direction, namely that from 2000 more decision-making and administration regarding SOCRATES and LEONARDO were to be undertaken at the national level, which is in line with Swedish demands. Therefore, the range of EU education policy is growing larger, which from a Nordic point of view is less good, as it is against Nordic defensive interests; but the development has included some Nordic views, which is good, as it is in line with Nordic offensive interests. The tensions between the European and the Nordic dimension therefore seem to be in two areas. Firstly, there is a different view about the role of the EU and the role of the national state, the Nordic countries emphasising the latter. Secondly, there is a difference of opinion about the goals of education. In short: to create democratic citizens or to fulfil the needs of trade and industry. The Nordic countries emphasise both, the EU principally the latter. The problem for Sweden is here a kind of “Catch-22” dilemma.12 Influencing EU education policy in a Nordic direction could in itself be a contradiction to the Nordic emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity in this very area. The “solution” must be that the Nordic countries must “choose side”. Either to stay out of the EU and, at least formally, decide everything themselves, or to participate with full strength, which means compromising and more integration, but also more influence in the development of EU education policy. This is a general problem for all the EU members in various policy areas, but in the area of education it is a particular problem for the Nordic countries since they especially emphasise the principle of subsidiarity in the area of education. These tensions in the education area are furthermore traceable to Sweden’s early resentment at becoming a member of the EEC/EC/EU. Fear of loss of sovereignty played a major role. The Swedish emphasis on teaching democracy has furthermore deep historical roots in Sweden. A key question is therefore how the Nordic countries, especially Sweden, can maximise their influence.

12 The dilemma is explained by Heller, from the point of view of a bombardier in combat: “Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to” (Heller, 1994, p. 63).

TENSIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN AND THE NORDIC DIMENSION IN EDUCATION 111 5. STRATEGIES TO COPE WITH THE TENSIONS In this section I shall suggest that a way Sweden could cope with these tensions is either (1) to seek to co-operate with the other Nordic countries; or (2) on her own to try to maximise her influence. The Nordic countries performing parallel actions The North could aim at “Parallel Actions” (roughly synchronic patterns of action) to speak with added weight or even, as discussed in the Nordic Council, talk with one voice. A problem with Nordic co-operation is that it used to be an informal slowly growing ethos of co-operation, a style which may not function adequately here. Since 1992, the Nordic Council has discussed a reform of its co-operation, but the co-operation has not been tested yet, and former attempts at more formalised co-operation have failed, not to mention old Nordic rivalry and fears. It still remains a challenge. What is more, the question of the influence of the national parliaments in the EU could split the Nordic EFTA-EEA countries and the Nordic EU Member States. If it works, an advantage might be that speaking with one voice could be particularly fruitful in a future larger EU. The concept of ‘Nordic Advantage’ encourages joint actions in areas where it is of common benefit. Furthermore, Sweden has a population sceptical towards the EU, while Nordic co-operation is seen in a more positive light, at least among EU sceptics. But if the result is negotiated from a Nordic platform, it may be more easily accepted. Finland belongs to the EU avant garde, and it may therefore be convenient for Sweden to “ally” herself with Finland, since Sweden (with Denmark) stands outside the euro-zone, which could weaken their negotiation opportunities. Sweden could also benefit from Denmark’s long experience as a member. At the meeting of the Nordic Council in 2000 it was discussed that it would be necessary with complete accord to secure success. Sweden does not completely agree with Denmark and Finland in the education area, and may therefore have to compromise too much before even having a joint Nordic agenda. For instance, Swedish policy on compulsory attendance is different from both the Danish and the Finnish policy, and the school systems in Denmark and Finland are less homogenised and single-tracked. Sweden’s administration is decentralised, like that of Denmark, while the Finnish system is centralised. The Danish “Free School” tradition is also different from both the Finnish and the Swedish school traditions. It might therefore cause problems to try to find a common Nordic ground. One could also expect these negotiations to be rather timeconsuming, and therefore Sweden would risk falling behind the development. But as the overall focus is the same (non-elitist, equal access, democracy, lifelong learning) the countries could benefit from speaking with one voice on more general education questions.

112

BETTINA DAHL

Sweden negotiating her own line Due to the nature of the EU-nämnden (only co-operation with the Riksdag) and the Swedish tradition of giving the Ministers a free hand to “improvise”, “the Swedish line” is developed by the operating actors without being rooted in the citizens or the parliament. This means that “the Swedish line” is not a democratic object for negotiation. The Swedish line and the interests behind it become increasingly unclear as Swedish EU policy becomes further integrated and therefore even more influenced by the negotiations among states. This may therefore be a difficult path. In the EU-nämnden the government is only obliged to inform the Riksdag and even though the EU-nämnden in practice does not now allow the government to run solo, a change of government or more internal agreement among the Social Democrats may change this. The importance of this is argued by Hellstrom (1995, p. 83): “if the voters do not grasp the rules, their feelings of powerlessness and frustration increase”. The Swedish population is already negative towards the EU and what they see as its democratic deficit. Furthermore there is an old Swedish tradition of openness in decision-making procedures. Further “secrecy” may cause even more criticism. This could lead to a No in a future Swedish euro-referendum. This could put Sweden down as a “B-member” and be against the country’s interests in playing a role in the EU, expressed when Sweden decided to become a member of the EU and not only of the EEA. On the other hand, if the Swedish Ministers understand how to “improvise”, the results may be better, more Swedish, as Sweden would not need first to make compromises with the other Nordic countries. This could also be very time-effective and could place Sweden in the forefront of developments. 6. CONCLUSION This paper has uncovered issues around EU education policy, especially the notion of a European dimension, as well as the Nordic view on education, particularly Swedish EU policy in education. These views are to some extent contradictory. The Nordic nations emphasise the principle of subsidiarity and issues like democracy, equality, lifelong learning, and wider access to education, while the European dimension focuses on creating a European awareness among EU citizens, creates mobility, and takes initiatives to make the SEM work better. The gap between the European dimension and the Nordic dimension (the Swedish Social Democratic version) did, however, get smaller towards the end of the Millennium. But there are still areas where different views prevail. These areas are the role of the school in forming democratic citizens as well as the role of the EU in forming education policy. To deal with this Sweden could negotiate her view on her own or through intensified co-operation in the Nordic Council. The pros and cons of these options depend upon the sort of agreement that can be negotiated among the

TENSIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN AND THE NORDIC DIMENSION IN EDUCATION 113 Nordic countries, the size of the enlargement of the EU, and the sceptical Swedish population with its regard for democracy and open decision-making procedures.

114

BETTINA DAHL

References Internet references, references to various EU-Bulletins, Official Journal of the EC, Eurobarometers, newsletters, newspapers, and press releases given above are not repeated below unless it represents more general knowledge. If the reference is not in English, an English translation is put in brackets. Andersen, Jens (1999a): ‘Nordisk uddannelse i internal sammenhæng’ (Nordic education in an international perspective), in: Nordisk utbildning i fokus – indikatorer, Vol. 13 (Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers). Andersen, Jens (1999b): ’Grundskolestrukturen i Norden (Elementary school structure in the North)’, in: Nordisk utbildning i fokus – indikatorer, Vol. 13 (Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers). Beukel, Erik (1992): ‘Uddannelsespolitik i EF’ (Education policy in the EC) (Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag). Boucher, Leon (1982): Tradition and Change in Swedish Education (London: Pergamon, 1982). Boli, John (1989): New Citizens For a New Society – The Institutional Origins of Mass Schooling in Sweden (London: Pergamon). Brandstetter, Gerfried (1998): ‘Europæisk samarbejde 1945-1997: kronologisk leksikon’ (European cooperation 1945-97: chronological lexical). (Copenhagen: Jurist- og økonomforbundets Forlag). Christensen, Dag Arne (1997): ‘Europautvala i Danmark, Sverige og Noreg: Sandpåstrøningsorgan eller politiske muldvarpar?’ (The Europe Committees in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway), in: Nordisk Administrativt Tidsskrift, Vol. 78, No. 2, pp. 142-162. Daun, Holger (1997): ‘National Forces, Globalization: some European response patterns’, in: Compare, Vol. 27, No. 1, 1997. Dosenrode, Søren Z. von (eds.) (1999): ‘Et nordisk alternativ til Europa’ (A Nordic alternative to Europe) (Aarhus: Systime). Engelund, Hanne & Böttcher, Erling (1995): ‘EU og uddannelserne (EU and the educations). Rapport afgivet til Rådet for Europæisk Politik’ (Roskilde: Roskilde University). Eurydice (1997a): ’A Decade of Reforms at Compulsory Education Level in the European Union 1984-1994. This survey also covers the EFTA/EEA countries’ (Brussels: Eurydice). Eurydice (1997b): ‘Secondary Education in the European Union: Structures, Organisation and Administration. This survey also covers the EFTA/EEA countries’ (Brussels: Eurydice). Generaldirektoratet for forskning (1999): Europa-Parlamentet (Brussels: Research Directorate-General). Gilljam, Mikael & Holmberg Sören (1998): ‘Sveriges förste Europaparlamentsval’ (The first EU Parliament election in Sweden) (Stockholm: Nordstedts Juridik AB). Goldmann, Kjell (1993): ‘Norden i Europa’ (The North in Europe), in: Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, Vol. 96, No. 4, pp. 321-331. Hedegaard, Lars (1994): ’En nordisk mening med Europa’ (A Nordic sense of Europe) (Copenhagen: Foreningen NORDEN). Heller, Joseph (1994): Catch-22 (London: Vintage). Hellstrom, Mats (1995): ‘Transparency, public access and equality: Sweden’s contribution to the EU’, in: How can voters have their say? (Brussel: The Philip Morris Institute). Jones, Gwyn (1984): A History of the Vikings (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Laursen, Johnny N. & Olesen, Thorsten B. (1998): ‘A Nordic Alternative To Europe’, in: CORE working paper, Vol. 2, Copenhagen Research Project on European Integration (Copenhagen: Copenhagen University). Lindström, Guy (1996): ’Nordisk samarbete i en ny tid’ (Nordic co-operation in a new era), in: Nordisk Administrativt Tidsskrift, Vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 121-130. Miles, Lee (1997): Sweden and European Integration (London: Ashgate). Mouritzen, Hans (2000): High Politics in Northern Europe: Recent Developments and their Interpretation, in: Danish Institute of International Affairs (DUPI) Reprint 2000/1.

TENSIONS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN AND THE NORDIC DIMENSION IN EDUCATION 115 Nordic Council of Ministers (2000): ‘Norden 2000’ (The North 2000), in: Wise Men’s Report (Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers). Nordin, Allan (1999): ’Befolkningens utbildningsnivå’ (The populations’ education level), in: Nordisk utbildning i fokus - indikatorer, Vol.13, (Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers). Nordin, Allan (2000): ‘Både likheter och olikheter mellande nordiska länderna’ (Both similarities and differences between the Nordic countries), in: Skolen i Norden, Vol. 1, ODIN, (Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers). Nugent, Neill (1994): The Government and Politics of the European Union, 3rd ed., MacMillan. Olafsson, Björn G. (1998): Small States in the Global System: Analysis and illustrations from the case of Iceland (Sydney: Ashgate). Olesen, Thorsten Borring (1999): ’Fokus - Suveræniteten og den nationale interesse: Norden og den europæiske integration 1945-2000’ (Focus - Sovereignty and the national interest: The North and the European integration 1945-2000), Vol. 5, (Copenhagen: Danish Institute of International Affairs (DUPI)). Olsson, Jan (1993): ’Svensk statsförvaltning och EG-integrationen’ (Swedish state administration and the EU integration), in: Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, Vol. 96, No. 4, pp. 332-358. Oskarson, Maria (1996): ’Väljarnas vågskålar’ (The voters’ scales), in: Ett knappt ja till EU, Norstedts Juridik, Stockholm, pp. 124-148. Packalén, Petra (1999): ’Deltagande i utbildning’ (Participators in education), in: Nordisk utbildning i fokus – indikatorer, Vol. 13 (Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers). Palmarsdottir, Bryndis (1991): ‘Independence and Interdependence: Iceland and the EC’, in: University of Reading Department of Politics, Occasional Paper, No. 8. Petersen, Nikolaj (1996): ’Norden og EU’s regeringskonference 1996’ (The North and the EU Government Conference 1996) (Copenhagen: Nordic Council). Siune, Karen (1996): ’Hvad kan Norden give EU?’ (What can the North give the EU) (Copenhagen: Nordic Council). Salin, Sven & Waterman, Chris (2000): ‘Sweden’, in: Colin Brock & Witold Tulasiewicz (2000): Education in a Single Europe, ed. (London: Routledge London). Sundback, Susan (1999): ’Den smalnande klyftan mellan det katolska och det nordiska’ (The thin cliff between the Catholic and the Nordic), in: Norden och Europa: Språk, kultur och identitet, Vol. 10 (Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers). Swedish Ministry of Education (1996a): Grönbok (Green Paper) (Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet). Swedish Ministry of Education (1996b): ‘Vitbok: Lära och Lära ut – på väg mot kunskapssamhället’ (White Book; Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society) (Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet). Swedish Ministry of Education (2000): ‘Faktablad: Några resultat från OECD och EU - Education at Glance OECD indicators’ (Some results from the OECD and the EU), U 00.013. (Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet). Swedish Ministry of Education (2000): Värdegrundsboken - om samtal för demokrati i skolan (The basic value book - about talk for democracy in the school), by Zackari, Gunilla & Modign, Fredrik (Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet). The EU official web page: http://europa.eu.int. The Nordic Council’s official web page: http://www.norden.org/.


ANASTASIA ECONOMOU

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION IN EDUCATION IN ENGLAND, SCOTLAND AND WALES 1. INTRODUCTION This chapter starts by reviewing briefly the initiatives of the EU and the UK on the European dimension; it then continues with the main part of the discussion which focuses on findings from my empirical comparative study between England, Wales and Scotland on the formulation, acceptance and implementation of the European dimension in compulsory schooling. A brief description of the methodology followed in the study is also included. The diversity in the UK's approach to the European dimension in education is seen as a result of the differences in the educational provision within the UK, the cultural and historical context, the existence of vested and other interests, the commitment of various individuals, institutional ignorance and the processes of the reception of policy. Furthermore, the description of the differences in the approach to the European dimension within the UK hopes to add to the appreciation that, although any standardisation of policy on the European dimension in compulsory schooling within the EU would be difficult, the study of such differences - as well as the study of similarities - can lead to effective interaction and learning between the education systems of the Member States. 2. A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE EU'S INITIATIVES ON THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION IN EDUCATION The founding Member States of the ECSC (1951) and later the EEC (1957) - the predecessors of the EU - worked towards the establishment of economic co-operation (Hoggart & Johnson, 1987; Judt, 1996; Young, 1996); although some hoped that it would expand to a wider European community (Young, 1996; Mikkeli, 1998). In the decades which followed steps were progressively taken towards closer political, economic and cultural co-operation (Urwin, 1995; Young, 1996; Minshull & Dawson, 1996). However, it was the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 (EC,1992), which legitimised the Community's political dimension; it was with this Treaty that education was officially 117 David Phillips & Hubert Ertl (eds.), Implementing European Union Education and Training Policy: A Comparative Study of Issues in Four Member States, 117—141. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

118

ANASTASIA ECONOMOU

recognised (Article 126 of the Treaty) for the first time as an area of policy of the European Union. Initiatives on the European dimension in education should be looked at within the context of the wider educational policies and initiatives, as well as the wider developments within the EEC/EU - for a detailed analysis see Economou (2001). Four periods in the development of the European dimension can be identified. a) The period between 1957 and 1976 when education "remained a taboo subject within the corridors of the European Community" (Neave, 1988, p. 6), and was mentioned only in relation to vocational education and training - which was an area covered by the Treaty of Rome - and only in conjunction with social policy. The concept of the European dimension enjoyed recognition for the very first time in the Janne Report in 1973 (EC, 1973) - which put forward a plan for a Community policy in education; some interest to put education - and thus, the European dimension, - at the service of the labour market was also detected. The European dimension was to be approached through exchanges and inclusion in the school curriculum in the hope of achieving a better understanding amongst the people of the EEC. The concept of 'Europe' appeared to be limited to the EEC, indicating possibly some anxiety to make the young Europeans familiar with the Community while at the same time reinforcing its status. b) The period between 1976 and 1986 when the EEC expressed a more clear interest in education by undertaking a number of educational initiatives, and legitimised education as a policy area particularly through initiatives such as the Action Programme in 1976 (EC, 1976). Globalisation of the economy and the high levels of unemployment resulting from the economic crises of the 1970s brought amongst other things a change in the EEC's perspective on education policy; there was a realisation that action in education should be more strategically planned and the sectors of education and vocational training should be brought together in order to reduce unemployment and to improve the skills of the new labour force, with a further aim being the economic convergence of the EEC Member States (see also Neave, 1988). The European dimension in education was to contribute to this shift in education by enhancing awareness and understanding of the EEC and its functions through the teaching of modern foreign languages, co-operation between educational institutions, study visits, exchanges of teachers, pupils and information, and the development of a sense of European citizenship. c) The period from 1986 to 1992 when, following the 1986 Single European Act the EEC intensified its initiatives in education in order to meet the needs of the labour market and industry; these included educational programmes for higher and further education - amongst the objectives of these programmes were the establishment of a multi-cultural and mobile Europe. In the Resolution of the Council and the Ministers of Education meeting within the Council on the European dimension in education of 24 May 1988 (EC, 1988) the European dimension in education was further considered "to

THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION IN ENGLAND, SCOTLAND AND WALES

119

be an element contributing to the development of the Community and achievement of the objective of creating a unified internal market by 1992". The development of a sense of European identity was particularly stressed as part of the European dimension, possibly in the hope that it would contribute to a smoother European integration. The Member States would have the responsibility for taking the policy in the area forward, possibly through incorporation in the school curriculum and teacher training; the Community would be there for support through provision of material and facilitation of exchanges and co-operation between institutions, especially those in higher education possibly because higher education is far more independent from governmental influence than the other sectors of education, and independent organisations/agents - pointing to the need for a neutral agent in the whole process of the European dimension. The 1988 Resolution is suggestive of the Community's recognition that initiatives in the area have to start in the school years for changes to happen (Economou, 2001, p. 19). The establishment of a number of school networks followed the resolution across the Community (Ryba, 1995). In 1992 education was included in the Community's primary legislation, the Treaty of the European Union - in Article 126 - for the first time. The European dimension was referred to as one of the educational objectives; however, the European dimension was seen in a limited manner; that is through the teaching and dissemination of the languages of the Member States. This could be taken as an indication of the EU’s reluctance to take dramatic steps in the area in case this raises strong reaction amongst the Member States. d) During the post-Maastricht period (the period between 1992 and today) the Union's educational initiatives have focused on educational programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO, which were launched in 1995 and further extended up to 2006 in 1999. These initiatives have been taken within the EU's wider approach in providing a flexible labour market able to meet the needs of the economy and to enhance competitiveness. From a more political point of view the EU, through these programmes, has managed in a subtle way to push its competencies by establishing relationships with educational institutions in the Member States and surpassing the involvement of their governments. According to the EU the implementation of SOCRATES constitutes a way of enhancing the European dimension in education. In particular, it hopes to provide learners of all ages and social groups with insights into the European dimension of the subjects they are studying, especially through the expansion of the teaching and learning of modern foreign languages, open and distance learning, partnerships and exchanges of educationists and students. These would further strengthen the spirit of European citizenship (EC, 1995). The objectives of the SOCRATES programme were in accordance with the 1993 "Green Paper on the European Dimension in Education" (EC, 1993) which argued that the European dimension is a factor which would help in the adjustment of the educational process to the new economic, social and cultural environment. The implementation of the European dimension could take place amongst other things through the teaching of languages,

120

ANASTASIA ECONOMOU

knowledge of other countries, their cultures and professional environments, and the development of the concept of European citizenship. The main focal point of action should be the school since it encompasses the most important players, i.e. pupils, parents, teachers and the local community. In summary the European dimension according to the EU stands for: Development of skills that will enable young people to work and live in Europe; Understanding of the culture and history of other Member States; Development of a sense of European citizenship; Development of a sense of European identity; Awareness about the EEC/EU; Awareness about shared values such as human rights, democracy, and freedom amongst the European states. The EU further sees the European dimension to be approached through: Exchanges of teachers and students; Learning of European languages; Co-operation between educational institutions of the Member States; Participation in educational programmes; Learning about the geography of other Member States; Production of material about the EEC/EU and its Member States; Organisation of events such as conferences and seminars on European education issues; The establishment of networks, distance learning, co-operation with industry, and of information centres and the development of comparative research were also seen as helpful towards the enhancement of the European dimension. Furthermore, the European dimension was seen to contribute towards: Economic integration in the EEC/EU; Creation of a multicultural Europe; Social development of Europe; Understanding of the EEC/EU; Political integration of the EEC/EU (Economou, 2001, p. 28). ‘Europe’ is used to refer most of the time explicitly or implicitly to the EEC/EU and its Member States. The European dimension in education is seen to be approached through achieving an understanding of the EEC/EU and its Member States by learning


121

about their history, geography and culture, but most of all by experiencing them through exchanges, participation in projects, various events, and the development of suitable skills to live and work in other European countries; the development of a sense of European citizenship is also seen as desirable and as a way to smooth the process of integration between the Member States. Experiencing the EEC/EU could contribute towards its economic and political integration, and its social development.

3. A REVIEW OF THE UK'S INITIATIVES ON THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION IN EDUCATION The UK's initiatives on the European dimension in education should be seen within the wider context of her relationship with the EU in order to have a better understanding of them (see Economou, 2001). The UK has been a somewhat hesitant partner of the EEC/EU since its membership in 1973; she has seen the common economic market as an end in itself while she has resisted fiercely in matters of common social policy, including education - for instance, with the Lingua programme (for language training) where she opposed the programme’s extension from higher education to secondary and primary (George, 1991). During the period 1976 to 1986 the UK's input on the European dimension in education was limited to the establishment of the national UK Centre for European education (UKCEE) - this took place in 1978. The UKCEE was established with some modest funding from the Department of Education and Science, and the Commission. This was part of an EEC initiative following the 1976 Action Programme in Education. Fifteen such European Centres were established in the Member States; these centres aimed to encourage a European perspective in primary and secondary education in the countries of Europe by forging close links with ministries of education and organisations which could contribute towards their aims. Because of the restricted funding, the UKCEE's activities were limited to disseminating some information and dealing with requests from its member organisations, schools, teachers and students, and organising a national conference and seminars on European dimension issues, and the European Schools' Day Competition each year. Since 1989 the UKCEE has merged with the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges (CBEVE),1 which is responsible for international education issues. The Central Bureau has succeeded in the dissemination of information on European education issues - for instance the LEAs and schools view the Central Bureau as the place where they can find support on European education issues (Economou, 2001, pp. 42-43). In the period 1986 to 1992 the most important initiative came in February 1991 with the publication of ‘The European Dimension in Education Statement (DFE, 11991) - A 1

Now the Central Bureau for International Education and Training.

122

ANASTASIA ECONOMOU

Statement of the UK Government’s Policy and Report of Activities Undertaken to Implement the 1988 EC Resolution on the European Dimension’. This was a somewhat late response to the Resolution. The DFEE2 explained that delay as a result of clash in priorities: While we were negotiating that Resolution and in principle agreeing that it is a good thing to promote the European dimension in practice our whole domestic attention was going in implementing this Bill [the 1988 Education Reform Act] [....] Now, I suppose that the European dimension was never a high priority for our Government at this point, particularly when they were introducing a National Curriculum. The most important thing that the Government meant to do was bedding down the National Curriculum (interview, DFEE, March 1997).

The Statement suggested that the European dimension stands for cultural understanding and linguistic diversity, awareness of the EC, development of a sense of European identity and skills that would help Britain to play a successful part in the economic and social development of Europe, and understanding of the EC's interdependence with the rest of Europe and the world. In addition there was recognition of the need to include the European dimension in the school curriculum while the responsibility for its implementation was delegated to the LEAs in England and Wales, Local Authorities in Scotland and Library Boards in Northern Ireland. The publication of the ‘Policy Models’ in 1992 (DFE, 1992b) aimed to give specific directions to the LEAs, schools and colleges as to how they should go about planning and implementing the European dimension. The need for mobility of people within education across Europe was recognised, while knowledge and understanding of Europe, awareness of other cultures, and language capability were acknowledged as the elements that schools should focus on in their curriculum regarding the European dimension. The UK's lukewarm approach to the European dimension became even more obvious in the 1993 response to the EEC's Green Paper on the European Dimension in Education (DFE, 1993b). The UK Government (DFE, 1993a) suggested that the Green Paper had significant political importance because it gave voice to education in the Single Market; they further stated that Britain supported any action based on Article 126 so long as subsidiarity and value for money were secured. They argued for flexibility to be given to the Member States to identify their own priorities of reaction to the European dimension in Education and for the EU's role to be supportive. They objected to the expansion of Lingua to a wider public as an inefficient use of resources. They also opposed the EU producing new material for open and distance learning. Instead, the UK Government suggested the exchange of information and good practice between the educational institutions of the Member States. Although they appeared to favour mobility as a way to contribute to quality education in Europe they insisted that parents should fund pupil mobility. Referring to the concept of European citizenship as an element of the European dimension they argued “this entails a recognition of the need to 2

Since 2000 it is called the DFES – Department for Education and Skills


123

educate young people for increasing work and leisure contacts with other Europeans, and for mutual understanding and respect which that implies” (p. 3). During the British presidencies of the EU in 1992 and 1997 school packs about Europe were prepared and sent to schools all over the country. These were information packs with some glossy material about Europe. They were one-off initiatives which have not been followed up. There was no assessment of their impact (if any) and it is likely that they have ended up on the schools’ library shelves or in storage space (Economou, 2001, p. 52). In both packs the European dimension was presented as something that should be encouraged in the light of the Single European Market. In the 1992 pack (DFE, 1992a) the European dimension was referred to primarily as awareness of the EC and the development of a European identity, while in the 1997 pack there was no mention of the development of a European identity – it was probably realised that this has been a far-fetched aspiration. The 1997 pack (DFEE, 1997) stressed the preparation for European citizenship primarily through the teaching of the curriculum and at a secondary level through partnerships; moreover care was taken to present the European dimension within the wider context of the international dimension: I have to say there was a tension in producing this book, which you might be interested in. And that is that for both the CBEVE and ourselves [QCA] there is a concern that some would see the promotion of a European dimension to be a narrowing, that in fact their concern would be that there is more to the world than [...] Europe, that the important thing should be to promote a global dimension and by concentrating simply on Europe you are actually suggesting that therefore, people shouldn’t be developing a more global dimension, etc. What we did in the case studies to try and resolve this dimension was to show how in some of the case studies links with Europe often developed into links with other countries and how partnerships would be made more mature by possibly linking with, say, schools in the Caribbean or schools in Africa or schools in the Pacific Rim (interview, QCA, January 1998).

In November 1997 the Secretary of State for Education and Employment suggested that the teaching of citizenship and democracy in schools should be strengthened, and he set up an advisory group on “Education for Citizenship and the Teaching for Democracy in Schools”. The aim of the group was to provide advice on effective education for citizenship in schools. This was the first time that the need for education for European citizenship was recognised and suggestions for statutory recognition made in an official report since 1990; citizenship education should aim among other things to show “how formal political activity relates to civil society in the context of the United Kingdom and Europe” (DFEE, 1998, p. 40). In particular, knowledge and understanding of “topical and contemporary issues and events at local, national, EU, Commonwealth and international levels” (ibid., p. 44) should be amongst the essential elements that should have been covered by the end of compulsory schooling. In summary, the concept of the European dimension in education according to the UK government refers to (Economou, 2001):

124

ANASTASIA ECONOMOU

Awareness of languages, history, culture and geography of other European countries; Awareness of the EEC/EU; Developing European identity; Developing a sense of European citizenship. The European dimension was seen to be approached through: Teaching of relevant school subjects; Provision of information on European issues – including the establishment of information centres; Production of material of European content; Organisation of staff and student exchanges as well as exchange of information, participation in programmes and establishment of co-operation and development of networks between institutions of different European countries; Organisation of events with European content; Incorporation in teacher training. In addition, the aims of incorporating a European dimension in schooling included: Understanding of the EEC/EU; Economic integration of the EEC/EU – through developing the necessary skills and qualifications for the labour market; Social development within the EEC/EU; Establishment of peace. The European dimension in schools has been amongst the concerns of all governmental policy documents on the European dimension. However, most of the time it was not clear what ‘Europe’ stood for, possibly because of the apprehension of the British governments as to the way in which they should approach the EEC/EU. The elements of the European dimension refer primarily to the acquisition of general knowledge about the different European countries and largely ignore the present and future of the EEC/EU and Europe. The delivery of the European dimension is seen to be achieved through the curriculum as part of subjects such as history, geography and languages, extracurricular activities such as participation in exchanges, the publication of relevant material, organisation of events and the dissemination of information about issues of European interest. Not all the documents analysed stated clearly the ultimate aim of the European dimension in education. However, achieving an understanding of the EEC/EU and contributing towards the economic integration within it were the most commonly cited aims for the European dimension. The European dimension in


125

education has not been a priority for the British government; their main interest has been the implementation of the National Curriculum and raising standards in numeracy and literacy. Within the UK there are different educational arrangements for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland which suggest diversity in the acceptance and implementation of policy in the European dimension in compulsory schooling. The discussion below will refer to a comparative study of the European dimension in compulsory schooling in England, Wales and Scotland. 4. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION IN EDUCATION IN ENGLAND, WALES AND SCOTLAND 4.1 Methodology This is a rare intra-country comparative study (see Figure 1) of the formulation, acceptance and implementation of the European dimension in British compulsory schooling. The study is written within the historical-philosophical tradition of analysis in comparative education, with supporting evidence from empirical work. The study took place between 1995 and 1998 - the empirical evidence was collected between 1996 and 1998. The historical-philosophical approach used draws on Bereday's (1964) model (see Jones, 1971 and Economou, 2001). The study has also taken into consideration a critical policy analysis approach (Taylor et al., 1997 and Ball, 1994) in the hope of achieving a better understanding of the policy under investigation. The methods used in gathering data included documents (primarily policy documents from the EU, British Government, LEAs and non-departmental organisations), literature, semi-structured interviews (fiftyseven interviews with officials from the European Commission and the European Parliament representation in the UK, the DFEE, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office, from LEAs, various non-governmental and non-departmental organisations, and teachers’ unions and associations) and an open questionnaire (which was sent to all the LEAs in England, Wales and Scotland; it had a 60% return) (Economou, 2001, pp. 8192). The data collected was analysed qualitatively - some descriptive statistics were also used in the analysis of the data gathered through the questionnaire. England, Wales and Scotland have been treated here as separate entities as far as education is concerned. Bell and Grant (1977, p. 20) in their much acclaimed book ‘Patterns of Education in the British Isles’ have stressed that: It is important [...] that not only British comparativists but comparativists throughout the world should recognise clearly the increasingly fragmented nature of educational structures within the British Isles and the scholarly and political dangers of generalising about ‘British’ educational phenomena at any time.

126

ANASTASIA ECONOMOU

Raffe (2000, p. 25) also talks about ‘the education systems of the UK’ and the need for research to compare them as systems or at least to pursue more detailed comparisons within a broader system frame of reference. However, he argues that such comparative research should take into consideration the interdependence of the UK systems - they are not autonomous and unconnected; they share some British features, are politically and functionally interdependent and are shaped by common socio-economic and political factors. The present study, by treating education in England, Wales and Scotland separately, does not ignore the interdependence between them since England, Wales and Scotland belong to the same geographical entity, and share to a certain extent historical, political, cultural, social and economic features. The present study considers it of great interest to investigate the similarities and differences between England, Wales and Scotland in the way they interpret, deliver and implement the European dimension, and how unity with diversity coexists without a uniform educational system in Great Britain – this could be further seen as an example of the Member States within the EU. Furthermore, the experience of the present research has resulted in preparing the ground for a larger project within the PRESTiGE network and served both to provide


127

models for the research design and to indicate some of the difficulties which were to be encountered (Phillips & Economou, 1999, 2001). 4.2 Actors and Patterns Within Great Britain different patterns of formulation, acceptance and implementation in the European dimension are identified in England (see Figure 2), Wales (see Figure 3 ) and Scotland (see Figure 4). In England the DFEE decides policy on the European dimension but does not have a direct involvement in the delivery and implementation of the European dimension in compulsory schooling; neither do they have an active interest in its enforcement. They have selected the CBEVE as the national agency for the EU education programmes and they have left it up to the LEAs if they wish to take the European dimension forward. The Welsh Office has been responsible for education in Wales but with a complete lack of interest in the European dimension in education: ‘The Welsh Office is very selective about where to place their effort. We have to be sure of the reasons why something has to be done. The European dimension does not bulk very much in our thinking’ (interview, WOED, May 1997). Thus, it could be argued that they have an input through their absence in the whole process of the implementation of the European dimension in compulsory schooling in Wales. In Wales there is no central point of reference where the different players could be brought together (see Figure 3); there is a lack of communication channels between the players: they cannot exchange experience and get feedback from each other, and this has inevitably been counterproductive for the implementation of the European dimension in compulsory schooling. On the whole, the Government has failed to perform a number of the functions it envisaged for itself with regard to the European dimension in education in the 1991 Statement on the European dimension such as to: Provide a legislative framework; Make sure that it is covered in the National Curriculum; Organise conferences.

ANASTASIA ECONOMOU

128

However, the Government has performed to a certain extent other functions that it set for itself, such as to: Encourage exchanges through the CBEVE; Support EU programmes;


Publish policy models for the LEAs; Encourage the teaching of modern foreign languages in the curriculum and through CILT.

129

130

ANASTASIA ECONOMOU

In Scotland (Figure 4) the IRB within the SOEID is responsible for European and international education issues. Apart from having published a policy document (SOED, 1994), they established the Scottish International Education Advisory Group (SIEAG) in 1997 with representatives from the majority of players on the educational scene who meet to exchange information and expertise and devise future plans for action. Further exchange of information, expertise and feedback between all these players takes place in the conferences they organise twice a year. This has led to a better channelling of information with regard to the European dimension and especially participation in projects abroad; and so it is not surprising that the participants in the present study considered the SOEID as the body which has made the greatest impact on the European dimension in Scotland. There is determination in the IRB to encourage the European dimension: We want to push it forward; we see advantages for our students. The difficulty for us is that it has to be a stagnant approach. We believe that in Scotland there are some advocates of the European dimension [in] schools and colleges and therefore we wish to help others [to become] convinced of the importance of it. I think it is about persuasion and consultation. That is the way to succeed. It takes longer (interview, IRB-SOEID, November 1996).

It could be argued that there is better communication between the players in Scotland because it is a small country - however, this is not true for Wales, which is much smaller than Scotland. It seems that what matters most is the presence of active individuals at the IRB, especially since 1990, and in the LEAs since the mid 1980s, who were keen to make use of the availability of funding from the EU in the hope that this would help the Scottish nation to free itself from its political and financial subjugation to England by creating strong links with the EU. In addition Scottish education has a more centralised and interventionist style (Beattie, 1997, p. 72). Paterson (1997, p. 142) also observes, regarding the policy process in Scotland, that: The SED had two main arms, the administrative civil service and the inspectorate. Between them they set up a dense network of committees, and they maintained official and informal contacts with pressure groups, with representatives of local government, and with professional associations. McPherson and Raab (1988:472) have described these as the ‘policy community’, the Scottish instance of British pluralism. The SED could not impose its will on that policy community: notably, it had to negotiate with local government (which actually ran the schools) and with the representatives of teachers [...] In return for granting this key role to leading professional bodies, the SED obtained access to the educational expertise which these groups embodied, and also gained their consent to changes.

The Central Bureau through its offices in London and Edinburgh manages and administers EU educational projects in England and Wales, and Scotland respectively; it promotes participation in these projects, provides information about, and help with, the procedures of application, receives the applications and makes a first selection of the best ones. The final selection of the projects which will be awarded money is made by an independent panel which includes representatives from the Education Departments; it awards the money for the projects, evaluates them, and reports to Brussels about them.


131

The Bureau set up a European Advisory Committee (of twelve members) where it tries to bring together the different players with regard to the European dimension, but it does not seem to have succeeded in the exchange of information and feedback on a wide scale; its impact is limited because the Bureau itself selects the representatives from LEAs, schools and universities while there are no representatives from teachers’ bodies, the Inspectorate, the Commission and the different bodies in Wales. However, the CBEVE is the first point of contact for the LEAs - schools also contact it but they often are referred back to their LEA: We have to look and see what is required by the local authorities. We have to work with them and if they have some ideas we have to see their base and help them to do these things. It is only then that we can help and develop things. We have to be very friendly because it is a service for these people (interview, CBEVE - Scotland, November 1996).

132

ANASTASIA ECONOMOU

The WJEC is the only non-departmental body which is proactive in the area of the European dimension in Wales while providing information, material, advice and help about projects. LEAs appear to fulfil to a certain extent the role envisaged for them by the Government, and their work is equally appreciated throughout Great Britain. When LEAs have a European or international co-ordinator schools would turn to them for help, advice, and support regarding European dimension initiatives, and especially participation in projects with schools abroad - if this facility is not available then they would refer to the Central Bureau, Eurodesk, the Educational Relays (this applies to schools in England and Wales only) and the WJEC (which operates for Wales only). Some proactive LEAs would contact schools on their own initiative and convince them to participate in European and international educational projects. Scottish LEAs have been more proactive and innovative than their counterparts in England and Wales, possibly because they have been engaged in activities in the area of the European dimension for longer - since the mid-1980s. However, it appears that: LEAs are generally very keen to get involved in European projects but they don’t have the resources, they need often a co-ordinator. For a small LEA the idea of having a co-ordinator for European awareness when they can’t perhaps afford an adviser for modern foreign languages is very hard. Quite often it is the job of the adviser for modern foreign languages to do European awareness as well. They have 5% of their time to do it. It is very hard for them, they don’t have the resources to do this sort of thing. So, teachers have to find out things for themselves, by themselves without much support. But the situation varies in different parts of the country (interview, LEA Co-ordinator, November 1996).

Non-departmental bodies such as the Inspectorate are not required to inspect for the European dimension; however, some Inspectors with a personal interest in the area tend to comment on it in the inspection reports: Yes, we would certainly comment on it. First of all I think we would begin by giving credit to the school or the college for taking the initiative, but our main concerns must always be the quality of the education that is arising from that initiative, what are the outcomes in terms of the experiences that the teachers and their students are undertaking (interview, OHMCI, January 1998).

Inspectors in Scotland are more inclined than their counterparts in England and Wales to do so, and this adds to a higher profile for the European dimension in Scotland - of course on an informal basis. This is a positive development since Inspectors have a great impact on education (cf. Convery et al., 1997). The curriculum authorities do not see the European dimension as lying within their responsibilities; instead they point to the Government, the Central Bureau and especially schools: We cannot do more than the statute allows in the sense that it is not for us to police what goes on in schools. That is for the Inspectorate. It is not for us to resource schools. That is the DFEE. It is not for us to train teachers. That is for TTA. Our concern is the substance of the curriculum and the guidance to support it. And of course, we can try to encourage, conjure,


133

swaddle, inspire, but we have apart from that no other mechanism (interview, QCA, May 1998). If they [teachers] want to find the time to teach the European dimension they will do it. If you are interested in something you do it even if it is not obligatory (interview, ACAC A, January 1998).

The curriculum authorities in England and Wales appear convinced that the National Curriculum provides for the European dimension through the subjects of geography, modern foreign languages, history, arts and music and are reluctant to get further involved (cf. Convery et al., 1997): So, the European dimension almost exists within our National Curriculum at two levels both as a set of requirements where it has been criticised as not being strong enough, but as a set of opportunities where I think there is tremendous opportunity (interview, QCA, January 1998).

The curriculum authority in Scotland finds the European dimension to be part of the Curriculum Guidelines as a cross-curriculum theme and that “there is no need to do anything revolutionary, we have to be mindful of the work in schools” (interview, SCCC, official, March 1998). The representation of the European Commission in the UK follows the official policy of the Commission in Brussels, and so they do not interfere with the internal policies of the Member States; they are simply providers of material: “We are here to interact with the Government and Whitehall; we are here to explain Commission policy and to make available the policies that have been adopted by the Member States but not comment on it” (interview, ECO, London; March 1997). 4.3 Interpretation The European dimension was viewed in a diverse way, with emphasis primarily on its informative aspects, although the necessity to live in the new European reality was recognised by stressing the development of a sense of European citizenship and appropriate skills – all these elements are in accordance with the 1988 Resolution’s suggestions; nevertheless, there is some eagerness to relate Europe to the rest of the world through the international dimension (in order of frequency): Awareness of other European cultures, history and modern foreign languages; Development of a sense of European citizenship; Awareness of Europe; Being part of the international dimension; Development of skills to work and live in Europe; Development of a sense of European identity; Provision of information about Europe;

ANASTASIA ECONOMOU

134

Awareness of the EU. Welsh contacts focused a lot on learning about other cultures without seeing themselves as participating actively in Europe. English contacts feared to confine themselves to things European and looked towards the wider world context, possibly in fear of losing their independent stand on international politics. Scottish contacts, more than the rest, expressed a willingness to participate actively in Europe as citizens and professionals, possibly in the hope of developing further their independence from England as a political entity. There was no clear identification of the aims of the European dimension, and this could be suggestive of an apprehension about the concept. This might have resulted from a wider reservation towards the role of education in the future integration process of the EU. This adds to the assumption that the interpretation of the European dimension within Great Britain is affected by cultural traditions and national political will. 4.4 Delivery The European dimension was seen to be delivered through curricular and extracurricular activities - in accordance with the suggestions made by the 1988 EC Resolution on the European dimension - (in order of frequency): Participation in programmes and especially exchanges; Production of material on European issues; Curriculum subjects; Organisation of events and establishment of networks with educational institutions abroad; Dissemination of information on Europe; Production of policy documents on the European dimension and organisation of in-service training for teachers in this area; Appointment of European co-ordinators in the different educational institutions and organisations. Participation in educational projects and especially exchanges appears as the most popular way towards a European dimension in compulsory schooling (cf. Adams et al., 1996), possibly because direct experience raises interest and motivation amongst pupils and teachers. In addition incorporation of the European dimension in the curriculum was seen as a coherent and consistent approach that might have long-term results. Almost a quarter of the players suggested that work on the European dimension depends on individuals’ interest, enthusiasm and effort - these are the ‘significant actors’ (cf. Bell, 1989a, 1989b; Convery et al., 1997). The role of the ‘significant actor’ was much more


135

stressed by participants from England, which could be taken to imply the lack of a policy/strategy in the area; while it could also indicate a particular structure within English society which as Beattie (1997, pp. 62-63), observes is: more like a honeycomb than a pyramid. Within such a honeycomb, individuals occupying particular cells may stay in them for long periods and acquire, by mere durability, considerable prestige and influence. Sometimes, perhaps more often than not, that influence inhibits change. But more easily than in more rationally hierarchical bureaucracies of the French or Prussian model, efficient and committed individuals may also find themselves in positions where they may exercise considerable influence in propagating change.

4.5 Implementation The implementation of the European dimension in schools is seen to be patchy (cf. Bell, 1989a, 1989b; Field, 1998); a number of schools show enthusiasm and positive attitudes - with a few of them using it even as a motivation towards learning: This is an area of high social and economic deprivation and we need to show children that there is another way of dealing with situations of life and that they should be given as many options in this field as possible so that they are able to make choices [...]One of my real motivations was to provide another set of values that they could make judgements by and one of those things was to show children wider European models so that children can make decisions and widen their horizons. Part of us being involved with children from other schools and other countries is that our children get to understand that there are differences, but in fact their differences is the benefit (interview, Cardiff primary school, headteacher, January 1998). “[The European dimension has been] very good for this school to get back prestige” - the school was threatened with closure in the mid-1980s - and to “make a good name within the city of Edinburgh” (interview, Edinburgh secondary school, teacher, February 1998).

However, it is believed that the majority of the schools do not see it as important or amongst their priorities. Also, there is some evidence that when the European dimension takes place in the school it benefits only certain groups of pupils (cf. Adams et al., 1996), i.e. high achievers and well-behaved pupils who are allowed to participate in projects, or pupils from privileged backgrounds because they can afford to pay for and participate in various trips. When the European dimension is encouraged, most of the time it is, as we have seen, a result of the effort, enthusiasm, interest and commitment of individual teachers - the ‘significant actors’ - (cf. Bell, 1989a, 1989b; Convery et al., 1997): “It is a personal ambition I suppose, it is a personal target that I have. I wanted the school to be different from other schools. I wanted the pupils in this school to have an opportunity that other pupils do not have” (interview, Edinburgh secondary school, headteacher, February 1998). This is in accordance with the expectations of the Government, the CBEVE, LEAs and curriculum authorities, which have stated that it is within the teachers’ and schools’ remit. The European dimension is seen to be put into practice primarily through participation in projects and the teaching of modern foreign languages, revealing a failure to see it as a cross-curricular theme that could permeate all

ANASTASIA ECONOMOU

136

subjects, including sciences. This approach is probably further encouraged by the fact that the European dimension has not had a presence in the National Curriculum.

4.6 Problems The implementation of the European dimension in compulsory schooling is not an easy task primarily because of: Lack of money; Teachers’ attitudes; National anti-European and xenophobic attitudes; Existence of other priorities and curriculum pressures; Lack of time; Lack of information; EU requirements; Government’s lack of interest, limited knowledge of modern foreign languages and absence of a statutory basis for the European dimension; Reorganisation of the LEAs. Teachers feel overworked and this adds to a negative approach towards the European dimension: My job is so overcrowded anyway, I am not going to seek to make more work for myself. What happens is, I mean, if it is presented to me then I will take it in, you know...I mean even the COMENIUS project I find it hard to do, to go to meetings and get the work done, I struggle (interview, Oxfordshire primary school, December 1997).

However, the school’s wider curriculum and priorities can influence teachers’ activities on the European dimension even when there is good will on their part: When I started this year I said “right I am going to make it, Friday or Thursday is going to be the day we do European work”, but other things come in and you do not stick with that because of things that are happening in the school. This year has been a particularly diverse year for us because it is our school’s centenary. So celebration and preparation of that had to take precedence (interview, Edinburgh primary school, teacher, February 1998).

The wider public’s attitudes, including these of parents, have an impact on the European dimension in schools: When we ask parents in this country ‘will you host students from other countries’, the immediate reaction is ‘No’. They have real difficulty in opening up. I don’t just mean opening up their home and providing a bed, but opening up emotionally and culturally. We are very blinkered in this country. I think it is easy to get pupils and parents in schools abroad


137

to host than to get English, Welsh teachers, pupils, kids and parents to host. It is much more difficult (interview, Cardiff secondary school, teacher, January 1998).

Lack of a statutory basis for the European dimension makes it easier for the teachers to ignore it: We do have to teach what we are told to teach because of the National Curriculum and if there isn’t a European dimension to it then we don’t necessarily do it, which is sad. But at the end of the day we have to teach what is best for the kids and that has been Britain down in black and white for us. Anything that we do with a European dimension is outside those topics, is extra, voluntary really (interview, Cardiff primary school, teacher, January 1998).

PAT (1996) also found that there is lack of information and supportive material as well as that teachers are reluctant to load themselves with additional work outside the statutory requirements. Bell (1989a, 1989b) and Ryba (1995) agree that distraction is caused by national attitudes in the implementation of the European dimension in the curriculum. Scottish contacts more than the rest were concerned about the limited knowledge of modern foreign languages, possibly because they attach more importance than the rest to the understanding of other cultures and professional opportunities in Europe. Welsh contacts pointed more than the rest to the lack of supportive mechanisms and problems in the functioning of different organisations involved in the delivery of the European dimension; this adds to evidence of the lack of support and guidance for schools in Wales more than in the case of the rest of Great Britain. For instance, the DFEE and WOED did not have sympathy for the obstacles faced by the rest of the players; on the other hand the SOEID could share most of them, which confirms that the first two lack touch with what is happening on the ground, while the latter seems to be informed about what is going on in schools. These findings seem to reveal that vested and other interests at all levels affect transmission and implementation by creating resistances while institutional ignorance impedes all processes of interpretation, transmission and implementation (Phillips & Economou, 1999). 4.7 Solutions A better future for the European dimension was hoped to be achieved by offering support and guidance from above, i.e. from the EU and the government: Making available more money; Offering support and guidance to schools, and direct experience of Europe to pupils, mainly through exchanges; Having the EU invest greater effort than at present; Making it statutory; Providing in-service training on the European dimension to teachers;

138

ANASTASIA ECONOMOU Leading from the Government, redefining the aims of education and developing a sense of European citizenship; Enhancing the learning of modern foreign languages; Changing attitudes and political devolution - this applies to Wales and Scotland only;

Making the European dimension part of work on the international dimension. The suggestions point towards the need for a national will and effort. It is interesting that there is no mention of the role of the schools and the teachers, possibly implying some recognition that they have been doing what they can and that it is for those at the top of the hierarchy to take further action. 5. CONCLUSIONS The variety in the formulation, acceptance and implementation of the European dimension within Great Britain stems primarily from differences in educational provision - for instance, Scotland has its own education system - and from the cultural and historical context, and, at a secondary level, from the existence of vested interests, the commitment of ‘significant actors’, institutional ignorance and the processes of the reception of policy. This diversity in approach to the European dimension within Great Britain suggests that any standardisation of policy within the Member States is likely to prove unrealistic in theory and unworkable in practice. However, at the same time, this variety in approach provides an example of the way educational systems deal with pluralism, something which can be of help to the EU and other supranational organisations, by exhibiting that, although it is impossible to have a homogeneous educational system, it is possible to achieve unity coexisting with diversity at different levels (cf. Grant, 1981). The patterns for England, Wales and Scotland where the implementation of the European dimension is placed in the hands of external bodies resembles the German model (see Ertl & Phillips, 2000), while the Scottish pattern further resembles the Swedish approach (ibid.) as far as the closer relationship between the ministry and the bodies involved in the implementation process is concerned. The findings further suggest that EU education policy is filtered through the education systems of Member States through their own establishment of paths of implementation that do not necessarily imply governmental authority or even direct approval (cf. Field, 1998; Ertl & Phillips, 2000). The latest initiatives on the European dimension in education at EU level include the extension of SOCRATES to the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Cyprus and, an increase in its budget. SOCRATES II is extended to 2006 and had its budget even further increased, and it is also extended to include adult education and distance learning, and information and communication technology in education. What is


139

more, application procedures have been simplified - these developments have been taken in an effort to reinforce the European dimension in the Member States (see also Ertl & Phillips, 2000). It would be of great interest to investigate the impact that these new developments at EU level will have on the implementation of the European dimension in the UK and the extent to which participation in projects remains the main vehicle for the delivery of the European dimension. The Treaty of Nice in 2000 and the use of a common currency since January 2002 this is true for twelve of the Member States; the UK (together with Denmark and Sweden) has chosen to stay out of it – have added to political and economic integration within the EU. It is inevitable that such developments will bring about changes regarding the EU's and Member States' education policies and especially policies on the European dimension in education because of the greater interdependence within the Union.

140

ANASTASIA ECONOMOU

References Adams, T., Evans, M. & Raffan, J. (1996): A Pilot Study of UK Co-ordinated Socrates: Comenius Action 1, School-based Partnership Programmes, Interim Report (Cambridge: The University of Cambridge, Department of Education). Ball, S. (1994): Education Reform: A critical and post-structural approach (Buckingham: Open University Press). Beattie, N. (1997): ‘Contextual Preconditions of ‘Open Schooling’: the English case in historical and comparative perspectives’, in: Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 59-75. Bell, G. (1989a): ‘Europe in the Primary School: A Collaborative Venture Between Schools and Teacher Trainers’, in: British Journal of In-Service Education, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 87-94. Bell, G. (1989b): Europe in the Primary School: A Case Review Report (Sheffield: Pavic). Bell, R. & Grant, N. (1977): Patterns of Education in the British Isles (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd). Bereday, G. Z. F. (1964): Comparative Method in Education (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, inc.). Convery, A., Evans, M., Green, S., Macaro, E. & Mellor, J. (1997): Pupils’ Perceptions of Europe (London: Cassell). DFE (1991): The European Dimension in Education: A Statement of the UK Government’s Policy and Report of Activities Undertaken to Implement the EC Resolution of 24 May 1988 on the European Dimension in Education, February 1991 (London: DFE). DFE (1992a): Education Europe (London: DFE). DFE (1992b): Policy Models: A Guide to Developing and Implementing European Dimension Policies in LEAs, Schools and Colleges, March 1992 (London: DFE). DFE (1993a): Letter to Commissioner Ruberti; dated 2.12.93 (London: DFE). DFE (1993b): UK Government Response to the European Commission’s Green Paper on the European Dimension of Education (London: DFE). DFEE (1997): Partners in Europe (London: DFEE). DFEE (1998): Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools; Final Report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship, 22 September 1998 (London: DFEE). Economou, A. (2001): The Formulation, Acceptance and Implementation of the European dimension in British compulsory schooling. A comparative study within Great Britain, DPhil Thesis. (Oxford : Oxford University). EC (1962): Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Rome, 25 March 1957 (London: HMSO). EC (1973): Janne Report, Supplements 1973, S. 10/73, Bulletin of the European Communities. EC (1976): Resolution of the Council and the Ministers of Education on Comprising an Action Programme in Education, 9 February 1976, OJ of the EC, No C38/3, 12.2.76. EC (1988): Resolution of the Council and the Ministers of Education Meeting within the Council on the European Dimension in Education, 88/C177/02, OJEC No C177/5, 6.7.88. EC (1992): The Maastricht Treaty, URL: http://europa.eu.int/en/record/mt/top.html EC (1993): Green Paper on the European Dimension of Education, COM (93) 457 Final, 29 September 1993, Commission of the European Communities. EC (1995): SOCRATES Vademecum. Ertl, H. & Phillips, D. (2000): ‘Interpreting and Implementing EU Education and Training Policy: the Examples of Germany and Sweden’, in: World Studies in Education, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 81-103. Field, J. (1998): European Dimensions: Education, Training and the European Union (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers). George, S. (1991): Britain and European Integration since 1945 (Oxford: Blackwell). Grant, N. & Bell, R. (1995): Education in Europe: Models of Education (Milton Keynes: Open University). Grant, N., (1981): ‘The British Isles as an Area of Study in Comparative Education’, in: Compare, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 135-146. Hoggart, R. & Johnson, D. (Eds.) (1987): An Idea of Europe (London: Chatto and Windus).


141

Jones, P. E. (1971): Comparative Education: Purpose and Method (St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press). Judt, T. (1996): A Grant Illusion? An Essay on Europe (London: Penguin Books). Mikkeli, H. (1998): Europe as an Idea and Identity (London: Macmillan Press Ltd). Minshull, G. N. & Dawson, M. J. (1996): Europe into the 21st century (London: Hodder & Stoughton). Neave, G. (1988): The EEC and Education (Chester: Trentham Books). PAT (1996): The Delivery of the European Dimension in Education (Derby: PAT). Paterson, L. (1997): ‘Policy-Making in Scottish Education: A case of pragmatic nationalism’ in: CLARK, M.M. & MUNN, P. (1997): Education in Scotland: Policy and Practice from pre-school to secondary (London: Routledge). Phillips, D. & Economou, A. (1999): ‘Conducting Research into European Union Education and Training Policy: some theoretical and methodological considerations’ in: Compare, Vol. 29, No. 3, 1999, pp. 303316. Phillips, D. & Economou, A. (2001): ‘Conducting Research into European Union Education and Training Policy: some theoretical and methodological considerations’ in: Watson, K. (2001): Doing Comparative Education Research: Issues and problems (Oxford: Symposium Books). Raffe, D. (2000): ‘Investigating the Education Systems of the United Kingdom’ in: Phillips, D. (Ed.), The Education Systems of the United Kingdom - Oxford Studies in Comparative Education (Oxford: Symposium Books). Ryba, R. (1995): ‘Is Progress Towards Development of the European Dimension in Education Satisfactory?’, in: Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1995, pp. 63-75. SOED (1994): Scottish Education and the European Community: Policy, strategy and practice (Edinburgh: SOED). Taylor, S., Rizvi, F., Lingard, B. & Henry, M. (1997): Educational Policy and the Politics of Change (London: Routledge). Urwin, D. W. (1995): The Community of Europe: A History of European Integration since 1945 (London: Longman). Young, J. W. (1996): Cold War Europe 1945-1991 (London: Arnold).


NICOLA SAVVIDES

THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION IN THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM FOR ENGLAND 1. INTRODUCTION Since its introduction under the 1988 Education Reform Act, the National Curriculum has been subjected to frequent modifications. Its earlier revisions were carried out largely because the curriculum was overloaded and imposed considerable pressure and demands on both pupils and teachers. Sir Ron Dearing was appointed, in 1993, to carry out a major revision and attempted a ‘slimming down’ of the National Curriculum. This resulted in the cessation of history and geography (subjects believed to be important in incorporating the European dimension) from being compulsory at key stage 4. Furthermore, Economou (2001, 2002) found that the revised National Curriculum of 1995 failed to provide a statutory basis for the European dimension; some references to teaching about Europe were made in the curriculum orders for history, geography, modern foreign languages, music and art but they were of limited nature and open to diverse interpretation on the part of the teachers. As a result, some pupils were taught about Europe while others were deprived of such an opportunity. The curriculum was also criticised for being ‘Anglo-American’ (Morrell, 1996). Perhaps such kinds of criticism combined with further pressure of the need to integrate a European dimension during the 1998 UK government’s Presidency of the European Union was what prompted and led to the most recent revision of the curriculum, published in 1999 for implementation in the year 2000. With the intention of developing the contribution of Economou, this paper analyses the subjects within the most recently revised National Curriculum, revealing the extent to which the approach to the European dimension has changed. I begin with a brief discussion on the nature and aims of the new curriculum that are relevant to the European dimension before moving on to a more detailed examination of the European dimension within the curriculum subjects. 2. THE REVISED NATIONAL CURRICULUM FOR ENGLAND (2000) Economou (2001, p. 120) observed that the National Curriculum of 1995 ‘cannot achieve the broadness that the education of the young people of the century requires. 143 David Phillips & Hubert Ertl (eds.), Implementing European Union Education and Training Policy: A Comparative Study of Issues in Four Member States, 143—160. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

144

NICOLA SAVVIDES

It fails to educate them as citizens of the wider world’. Furthermore, Economou (2001, p. 120) argued that ‘the European dimension could find its way into the curriculum only if the Government reissues the aims, values, priorities and attitudes that should shape education’ and that ‘another way through which the European dimension could be encouraged could be the teaching of citizenship’. The new National Curriculum (2000) has taken these factors into account. It now includes more of a European and international dimension with more cross-curricular themes such as global interdependence, the environment, personal, social and health education, and citizenship. The handbooks for primary and secondary teachers state that in developing their own curriculum, within the framework of the National Curriculum, all schools should follow a broad set of common values and purposes. It therefore lists two aims for the school curriculum. Aim 1 states that: The school curriculum should contribute to the development of pupils’ sense of identity through knowledge and understanding of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural heritages of Britain’s diverse society and of the local, national, European, Commonwealth and global dimensions of their lives. It should encourage pupils to appreciate human aspirations and achievements in aesthetic, scientific, technological and social fields, and prompt a personal response to a range of experiences and ideas.

This statement is a significant landmark since the creation of the National Curriculum. It is the first time that the term ‘European dimension’ has been mentioned and that the importance of developing a sense of (European) identity amongst pupils has been acknowledged. Many of the subjects of the National Curriculum have statutory study requirements or options for teaching about Europe, particularly history and geography and the important new subject of citizenship – a concept that was, as Economou (2001 and in this present volume) has suggested, increasingly referred to throughout the 1990s in policy documents and in particular in the ‘Partners in Europe’ pack for schools in 1997. Furthermore, the importance of educating pupils for citizenship is also included in aim 2 of the school curriculum. This states that schools should ‘equip pupils to understand their responsibilities and rights’, teach them to be ‘responsible and caring citizens’ and develop ‘their awareness and understanding of, and respect for, the environments in which they live, and secure their commitment to sustainable development at a personal, local, national and global level’. Given the fact that we live in and are part of Europe and should participate in its development, it is rather surprising that the word ‘European’ has been excluded from the above statement. However, a non-statutory framework for personal, social and health education and citizenship is provided in the curriculum, which does involve a European dimension. Key stage 1 suggests that pupils discuss topics of ‘European’ concern. It is not specified what sorts of topics might be discussed, though current European issues and events could feature largely here.

THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION IN THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM FOR ENGLAND

145

At key stage 2 pupils should ‘appreciate the range of national, regional, religious and ethnic identities in the United Kingdom’ (DfEE handbook for primary teachers 1999, p. 139). Further, it is suggested that pupils learn to respect and understand different races through thinking about people with different values and customs and understanding ‘that differences and similarities between people arise from a number of factors, including cultural, ethnic, racial and religious diversity’. Communicating with children in other countries by satellite, e-mail or letters is also encouraged. The guidelines at key stage 3 suggest that pupils ‘respect the differences between people as they develop their own sense of identity’ and that pupils should be taught ‘about the effects of stereotyping, prejudice, bullying, racism and discrimination’. There are similar suggestions at key stage 4. Oomen-Welke (1995) has indicated that understanding all of the above-mentioned concepts is a prerequisite to developing a sense of European citizenship and identity: The European dimension means that pupils come to know varieties and differences first and learn about our neighbours in Europe in the process. The important step from national citizenship values to European and global citizenship values consists of the readiness to compare and then to modify one’s own thinking and behaviour, to accept our responsibility for national and European history, and to overcome political egoisms.

The Citizenship Curriculum As well as the above guidelines on including citizenship in the curriculum, the subject will, for the first time, be statutory from August 2002 at key stages 3 and 4. It is intended that this subject will enable pupils to play a significant role in society at local, national and international levels by teaching them about their duties, rights and responsibilities as citizens and about the economy, democratic institutions and values of their society and the wider world. It should also help pupils to understand their own identities and have respect for people from different backgrounds (DfEE booklet for Citizenship, 1999, p. 12). At key stage 3, requirement 1i stipulates that pupils should be taught about ‘the world as a global community, and the political, economic, environmental and social implications of this, and the role of the European Union, the Commonwealth and the United Nations’. This is the first time that learning about the role of the European Union has featured in the National Curriculum and is indeed a very positive step towards embedding a European dimension in the curriculum. At key stage 4, requirement 1f states that pupils should be taught about ‘the opportunities for individuals and voluntary groups to bring about social change locally, nationally, in Europe and internationally’. Pupils must also learn about ‘the United Kingdom’s relations in Europe, including the European Union, and relations with the Commonwealth and the United Nations’. This shows that Europe should be viewed as part of a wide Community with which the UK has important historical ties.

146

NICOLA SAVVIDES

Taylor (2001) has commented that as with all curriculum developments, the success of the new ‘citizenship’ subject will depend on the teachers and resources provided. It seems likely that citizenship will be taught mostly by history teachers, since history is no longer required to be taught at key stage 4. It is therefore quite possible, given the specialist subject knowledge of history teachers, that pupils will be presented with ample information on Europe’s common cultural heritage, the historical development of the European Union and its institutions, and the Member States’ common principles, values and interests such as respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, democracy and economic progress. Classroom debates might include the notions of citizenship (e.g. what it means to belong to a community) including what it means to be a European citizen and the notions of identity and European identity. It has been argued, however, that loading pupils with information and knowledge is not itself enough to develop any sense of European identity. Starkey (1995) has stated that ‘citizenship implies feeling committed to the community as well as simply knowing about it. Education for European citizenship has to be based on thinking, feeling and doing. The doing is about putting the principles into action’. Whether and how these principles will be put into action remains to be seen, but certainly pupils will be encouraged to think about their own identities and obligations as citizens at all levels. Taylor (2001), however, is of the opinion that students may not be provided with enough knowledge about Europe since there has been a lack of funds to provide adequate materials relating to Europe. The fact that so many new resources must be prepared to cover the various parts of the citizenship curriculum could mean that attention to Europe, which is just a small part of the subject, is limited. It can be said, therefore, that the success of incorporating a European dimension within this new subject may depend on the individual capabilities and interests of the teacher as well as on the resources that they have available to them. The History Curriculum History is one of the main subjects that can contribute to promoting a European dimension in the school curriculum. According to Goodson and McGiveney (1985, p. 58), surveys undertaken during the 1970s such as the Europe in the school survey show that history has been identified as the major vehicle for teaching about modern Europe. Yet up until very recently, history courses have seldom included any European content and have displayed a tendency to be strongly nationalistic, focusing on English successes, imperial activities and the ‘Age of Nelson’ (Goodson and McGivney, 1985, p. 2). Where European history has been taught, it has often been centred on wars, crises and conflicts portraying Europe in a negative light. This has both reinforced English superiority and maintained national prejudices and stereotyped views of other nations. Organisations such as the European Commission and the Council of Europe have expressed their concern about the lack of mutual understanding and tolerance of other


147

peoples and have taken steps to eliminate ethnocentricity and national bias from school textbooks throughout Europe (e.g. the 1983 Resolution on the establishment of a school textbook Commission, C 307/36-37, Nov. 1983) and to promote the European dimension in education, especially regarding developments in the post-war period. Despite such efforts, the 1995 National Curriculum history programme did not include any study unit on post-war moves towards European co-operation and unity and there was no reference to the European Union at all (Economou, 2001, p. 114). At Key Stage 2, pupils had the option to study about Ancient Greece, and at Key Stage 3 pupils were only to be taught about European events before 1914 and about the First and Second World Wars (Economou, 2001, pp. 113-114). Economou (2001, p. 114) referring to Morrell (1996, p. 13) has noted that the Historical Association argued that Key Stage 3 was in danger of being Anglocentric unless history teachers were specifically committed to providing pupils with a balance of British, European and World history. The recent history syllabus (1999) has been developed quite considerably and includes new study units that offer pupils a greater world perspective. It is suggested that aspects of history should be developed through teaching the content relating to local, national, European and world history where appropriate (DfEE booklet for history, 1999, p. 6). Further, it is mentioned that through history pupils should learn about past societies and come to recognise ‘differences and similarities between cultures and within cultures over time’. It also states that citizenship can be promoted through history since pupils have the opportunity to learn about the political aspects of history and various forms of government and ways to effect change. Pupils can therefore ‘discuss the nature and diversity of societies in Britain and the wider world’. At key stage 1, pupils are required to learn about important historic figures and events from both Britain and the wider world (see Appendix 1). Thus there is a possibility for teachers to include a European dimension by teaching about significant people and historic incidents from Europe, although whether they choose to or not is their own decision. At key stage 2, requirement 2b states that pupils should be taught ‘about the social, cultural, religious and ethnic diversity of societies studied, in Britain and the wider world’. Again, teachers are presented with an opportunity to incorporate a European dimension since they could choose to focus on European societies. Pupils must also be taught three British history studies, which can include a European dimension in their content and a European history study. In their study of British history, pupils learn about ‘how British society was shaped by the movement and settlement of different peoples in the period before the Norman Conquest’, and how British society was affected by Roman or Anglo-Saxon or Viking settlement. The curriculum lists many examples and suggestions on what could be taught for these topics, including the Roman Conquest, Boudicca and other European individuals and events that impacted on Britain. The same applies for pupils’ required study of ‘Britain and the wider world in Tudor times’ (see Appendix 1, requirements 8 and 9 at KS2).

148

NICOLA SAVVIDES

There is also an optional study unit on Britain since 1930, which may include teaching about the impact of the Second World War. Although, for the first time, there is a specific requirement for a European history study, this is limited to a single European country, namely, Ancient Greece (see Appendix 1, requirement 12 at KS2). It is disappointing that despite so many discussions about intentions and possibilities on how to incorporate a European dimension into the curriculum, there is still no scope within the European history study unit for learning anything about other European countries or the establishment and development of the European Union. At key stage 3, pupils have the same opportunity to learn about European societies as in requirement 2b in key stage 2 (see above). Pupils should also be taught to ‘identify trends, both within and across different periods, and links between local, British, European and world history’. What trends and links could be identified in the context of Europe would depend on what is being taught, as we shall now see. Pupils must be taught three British studies, a European study and two world studies, which can incorporate a European dimension by teaching about significant European people and events as well as ‘the history of Britain in its European and wider world context’ (see Appendix 1, requirement 7 at KS3). This appears to imply that the history of Britain cannot be taught in isolation from Europe since it has heavily influenced the development of Britain. For example, in their first British Study of the development of the monarchy and significant events during the period 1066-1500, it is suggested that pupils study events such as the Norman Conquest and the Battle of Hastings and Joan of Arc and the Hundred Years’ War. In the second British Study, which includes the study of political, religious and social changes in Britain during the period 1500-1750, it is suggested that pupils could be taught about ‘relations with other European countries in the sixteenth century’. However, this is so vague and can be interpreted so widely that it would probably be difficult for teachers (the majority of whom have not specialised in European history) to know what to teach under this topic. They would therefore be more likely to choose an example from the suggestions listed in the history booklet that is more concrete, such as ‘the Plantations in Ireland’. Thus, once again, it depends on the individual teacher as to what extent a European dimension would be included in the study of British history (cf. Economou, 2001, p. 115, in this present volume). A European dimension may also be incorporated in the third British Study. Concerned, in part, with political changes that have affected the UK, it is suggested that pupils study ‘the Napoleonic Wars and the role of Nelson and Wellington’. Pupils must also be taught a European Study before 1914, which should include a ‘study of a significant period or event in the pre-history or history of Europe’. The scope of the Study extends far beyond that of key stage 2 with suggestions of topics such as the Neolithic Revolution, the Roman Empire, Spain under Philip II, the Italian Renaissance and other significant periods and events. There is also further opportunity to learn about Europe in the second World Study, which focuses on ‘some of the


149

significant individuals, events and developments from across the twentieth century, including the two World Wars, the Holocaust, the Cold War, and their impact on Britain, Europe and the wider world’. Examples given on what to teach for this World Study include individuals such as Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini, events such as the Western Front in the First World War, the Russian Revolution, the rise of National Socialism in Germany, the partition of Ireland and its impact and the fall of the Berlin Wall, and developments such as the break-up of the overseas empires of European countries and the development of the European Union. It is interesting to note that these options were not available under the previous version of the National Curriculum (1995). As Economou (2001, p. 114) has noted, ‘The establishment of the European Economic Community is completely ignored as well as other achievements of the European nations in the modern world’. However, although the curriculum now includes many examples of Europe-related topics that could be taught as part of a World Study, they are only optional subjects and so there is still the possibility that in some schools the teacher will choose to ignore them completely. Economou (2001 and in this present volume) came to the same conclusion regarding the teacher’s role when analysing the 1995 version of the National Curriculum. The Geography Curriculum Early surveys, such as the Europe in the School survey, have classed geography as the second most important subject in the school curriculum for teaching about modern Europe (Goodson and McGivney, 1985, p. 80). Indeed, the scope of the subject can be very wide, enabling pupils to learn about the physical and human features of an area or region (e.g. the European Union) such as the relevant demographic, economic and industrial, political, social and cultural data and important contemporary issues such as environmental problems. Thus geography is an ideal subject in which to bring in a range of cross-curricular themes, including the European dimension and citizenship. Yet the term ‘European Union’ failed to appear in the geography curriculum until 1995 and even then it was not mentioned in its maps (Morrell, 1997 quoted in Economou, 2001, p. 120). However, in 2001 the QCA revised the geography curriculum documents and maps and so the term ‘European Union’ is now included in the map for Europe at key stage 3 but not at key stage 2. At key stage 1, pupils learn about their local area as well as a locality either in the United Kingdom or abroad, which contrasts with the physical and/or human features of their local area. It is not, therefore, necessary for pupils to choose to investigate an area within Europe. Indeed, they may even decide to restrict their study to the United Kingdom, which is useful in learning more about the diversity of places within one’s own country but it can be argued that this approach is inward-looking and does not introduce pupils to regions within Europe or the wider world.

150

NICOLA SAVVIDES

At key stage 2, pupils are expected to know and understand significantly more about people, places and environments both in the United Kingdom and abroad. Requirement 3 presents an interesting list of what pupils should be taught and a list of examples of places and environments that can be studied is suggested, including places in the British Isles, Europe and the European Union and the world (see Appendix 2). However, these are merely suggestions, and so it would be possible for teachers to exclude teaching about Europe if they prefer to focus on other areas or countries. Requirement 7b does state though that in their study of localities and themes pupils should ‘study a range of places and environments in different parts of the world, including the United Kingdom and the European Union’. Thus geography teachers are legally required to bring in the European Union into classroom instruction, yet, within key stage 2, it remains down to the individual teacher to decide the extent to which aspects of Europe and the European Union will be focused upon. There is at least the opportunity for the more ‘euroenthusiastic’ teacher to choose a variety of topics related to Europe, but the more eurosceptic teacher may limit the study of Europe as far as is legally possible. Key stage 3 presents further opportunities for pupils to be taught European geography and provides interesting examples of countries and areas that could be studied in Europe (see Appendix 2). It is also proposed that the places that pupils study could include those studied in other curriculum subjects, such as Germany or France in modern foreign languages, emphasising the cross-curricular nature of the national curriculum and the way in which similar aspects of Europe can be studied in more than one subject. Requirement 7b specifically, states that in their country studies and themes pupils should ‘study different parts of the world and different types of environments, including their local area, the United Kingdom, the European Union and parts of the world in different states of economic development’. The note accompanying requirement 7b explains that ‘the study of places and themes in the United Kingdom and European Union contributes towards pupils’ broader knowledge and understanding of the geography of the United Kingdom and of the European Union’. The geography curriculum also suggests that pupils should develop their understanding of global citizenship, which includes awareness of what it means to be a citizen in the local community and of the United Kingdom, Europe and the wider world. The Modern Foreign Languages Curriculum The European dimension is closely associated with foreign language teaching as is seen in many EU documents (e.g. the 1988 Resolution and Article 126 TEU), and the Commission continues to stress its importance for equipping pupils to live and work in Europe by enabling them to understand and communicate with people from other European cultures. Yet, in England, teaching a foreign language has only been the norm or even compulsory for secondary school pupils since the introduction of the National Curriculum in 1988. Furthermore, whereas other European countries have moved

THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION IN THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM FOR ENGLAND 151

towards teaching pupils two foreign languages, the British government has resisted such moves, showing its reluctance in satisfying one of the principal aims of Article 126 TEU (Phillips, in this present volume). Modern foreign languages are presently taught at key stages 3 and 4 only. The current programme of study at key stages 3 and 4 is the same, although pupils at key stage 4 are expected to be at a more advanced level. Thus at key stage 3 pupils should begin to understand, speak, read and write at least one modern foreign language. They are also expected to ‘increase their cultural awareness by communicating with people who speak the language and by using materials from countries and communities where the language is spoken’ (DfEE booklet for modern foreign languages, 1999, p. 16). At key stage 4, pupils are expected to ‘increase their cultural awareness through more direct contact with people who live in those countries and communities’, though the only suggestion that is made is for pupils to communicate with native speakers is via e-mail. Study requirement 4, entitled ‘Developing Cultural Awareness’, states how pupils should be taught about different countries and cultures (see Appendix 3). Although not mentioned in the curriculum, COMENIUS assistants can be (and are often) used to help pupils improve their language skills and to bring a European dimension to the language by providing pupils with a different cultural perspective. Requirement 6 specifies that at least one official working language of the European Union must be offered to all pupils in every school. It is likely that the most widely available language is French, followed by German and Spanish (England’s ‘neighbour’ languages), since other EU languages are not as popular or as widely spoken by foreign language teachers (cf. Economou, 2001, and Phillips, in this present volume). Schools may also offer any non-EU languages. The pupil has the choice to study any of the foreign languages offered by the school and therefore may decide to study a nonEuropean language such as Japanese if the option is available to them. The DfEE booklet for MFL also includes non-statutory guidelines for schools that wish to teach modern foreign languages at key stage 2. It is stated that ‘learning another language raises awareness of the multilingual and multi-cultural world and introduces an international dimension to pupils’ learning giving them an insight into their own culture and those of others’. As well as learning how to use the foreign language for communication, the guidelines suggest that pupils can be taught about other countries and cultures by working with authentic materials including some from ICT-based sources, considering their own culture and comparing it with others and considering the experiences of other people (DfEE booklet for MFL, 1999, p. 33). It is also stated that learning another language presents opportunities to reinforce the knowledge, skills and understanding that have been developed in other curriculum subjects. For example, pupils can learn songs, alphabets, poems, rhymes and stories in other languages, do international or multi-cultural work (celebration of festivals, storytelling), use ICT to email schools abroad and access materials from the internet and satellite television and learn about geographical and historical work relating to other countries.

152

NICOLA SAVVIDES

It appears, therefore, that the importance of modern foreign languages is increasingly being recognised with steps being taken towards ensuring its adequate provision in the curriculum. One would think that the future trend would be towards providing further opportunity for the study of languages in the curriculum. Yet unfortunately this is not the case. According to a recent Green Paper entitled ‘14-19: Extending Opportunities and Raising Standards’, in order to make more time for the study of other academic and vocational subjects, the government proposes to make foreign languages optional at age 14, making British schools the only ones in Europe to have such a policy. Despite the fact that this has not yet come into force, hundreds of schools are breaking the law by dropping compulsory foreign languages (Henry & Slater and Henry & Shaw, 2002). Furthermore, according to a survey by the Association of Language Learning in May 2002, nearly 30 per cent of schools planned to abandon compulsory languages from September 2002. Although the government plans on offering primary pupils an ‘entitlement’ to languages, (presumably in the hope that those children who do take languages from a young age will be encouraged to pursue languages to secondary level), this has been condemned as a ‘half-hearted fudge’ to deflect criticism from the post-14 proposal (Henry and Shaw, 2002). Making foreign languages optional is a serious cause for concern in terms of the future employability of British students, particularly within a mobile Europe, and would be a volte-face from where MFL policy should be heading. If this is implemented it will have serious consequences for the European dimension in education in all spheres. The Art and Design Curriculum At key stage 1, requirement 4c specifies that pupils should be taught about ‘differences and similarities in the work of artists, craftspeople and designers in different times and cultures’ and suggests the study of sculptors, photographers, architects and textile designers. The vagueness of this statement leaves it open to wide interpretation and means that pupils will not necessarily be exposed to European art, especially since American culture tends to predominate in England. Economou (2001, p. 115) also arrived at this conclusion for the revised curriculum of 1995. Key stage 2 develops the requirement at key stage 1 a step further by stipulating that pupils should study ‘the roles and purposes of artists, craftspeople and designers working in different times and cultures’ such as Western Europe and the wider world. Although Western European art is suggested as an area of study, it is not statutory and so once again it may be excluded from classroom instruction. Key stage 3 does, however, require that pupils be taught about ‘continuity and change in the purposes and audiences of artists, craftspeople and designers from Western Europe and the wider world’. It is proposed that pupils study the differences in the roles and functions of art in contemporary life, medieval, Renaissance and post-Renaissance periods in Western Europe (DfEE booklet for Art and design, 1999, p. 20).


153

The Music Curriculum At key stages 1 and 2 pupils should be exposed to ‘a range of live and recorded music from different times and cultures’, It is suggested (at key stage 2) that pupils achieve this through the study of music from the British Isles, from classical, folk and popular genres and by well-known composers and performers. This implies that the term ‘different times and cultures’ means cultures within Britain rather than cultures from Europe or the wider world. It is surprising that the suggestion to study music from the European classical tradition and from cultures across the world, which appeared in the 1995 music curriculum for key stages 2 and 3, has been omitted at key stage 2. There is, however, a requirement at key stage 3 for pupils to be taught a range of live and recorded music from different times and cultures including music from the British Isles and the ‘Western classical’ tradition. The English Curriculum At key stage 1, the reading of literature should include ‘stories and poems from a range of cultures’. Key stages 2, 3 and 4 also stipulate that the range of literature should include texts drawn from a variety of cultures and traditions. Whilst there appears to be an opportunity to incorporate a European dimension into the teaching of English literature by studying texts from Europe that have either been written or translated into English, teachers tend to choose texts from other English-speaking cultures (e.g. America, Australia, South Africa). There is a list of examples of drama, fiction and poetry by major writers from different cultures and traditions on page 36 of the DfEE booklet but they are predominantly American and African writers. None of them are European. Thus it seems that the only area where a European dimension is to be integrated is under the section entitled ‘English literary heritage’ at key stages 3 and 4. This requires pupils to study how and why texts, such as Greek myths, have been influential and significant. The remaining subjects of the National Curriculum Although a European dimension can be given to all the subjects in the National Curriculum, its inclusion in Mathematics, Science, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Physical Education (PE) has not been particularly significant. For Mathematics, pupils are only required to learn Pythagoras’s theorem and for Science they should understand the different ways of interpreting empirical evidence such as Darwin’s theory of evolution. There is no found opportunity to study, for example, the theories of famous people from other European cultures. For ICT it is suggested that pupils use the Internet to learn about other cultures. Pupils also have many opportunities to use ICT in the other subjects of the National

154

NICOLA SAVVIDES

Curriculum such as MFL and English. They can use ICT to communicate with pupils from other European countries via e-mail and to share and exchange information about themselves and their countries and cultures through, for example, video conferencing. The PE curriculum mentions that it can promote pupils’ cultural development by helping them to ‘experience and understand the significance of activities from their own and other cultures [for example, folk dances and traditional games], recognise how activities and public performance gives a sense of cultural identity, and consider how sport can transcend cultural boundaries’ (DfEE booklet for PE, 1999, p. 8). Furthermore, key stages 1 and 2 require pupils to be taught to create and perform dances from different times, places and cultures. It seems a missed opportunity, however, that there is no mention of using PE to learn about famous sports, sportspeople, games and tournaments in Europe. 3. CONCLUSION An important aspect of the National Curriculum for England (2000) is the fact that it takes account of the European dimension practically for the first time, especially in the subjects of citizenship, history, geography and modern foreign languages. ‘European awareness’ is particularly emphasised and pupils are also expected to learn and understand about their common European heritage in order to help develop their sense of European identity and citizenship. However, there are still many subjects in which the European dimension fails to be included. Furthermore, at the primary level, the possibility of bringing in the European dimension remains minimal – there are not many study requirements that include teaching about Europe, nor are there many suggestions or opportunities for teachers to bring it into classroom practice. On the whole, the revised National Curriculum is a step in the right direction towards a curriculum that effectively includes a European dimension. Perhaps future reviewers might consider its statutory inclusion into other subject areas at both the primary and secondary level, so that pupils have the chance to learn further about the various aspects of the Community they are a part of.

THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION IN THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM FOR ENGLAND 155

APPENDIX Appendix 1: The relevant requirements and examples from the History Curriculum: (Note: the words in italics are not statutory requirements. They are suggestions and examples as stated in the National Curriculum.) Key stage 1: [Requirement 6c. Pupils should be taught about:] the lives of significant men, women and children drawn from the history of Britain and the wider world [for example, artists, engineers, explorers, inventors, pioneers, rulers, saints, scientists]

[Requirement 6d. Pupils should be taught about:] past events from the history of Britain and the wider world [for example, events such as the Gunpowder Plot, the Olympic Games, other events that are commemorated].

Key stage 2: [Requirement 2b. Pupils should be taught:] about the social, cultural, religious and ethnic diversity of the societies studied, in Britain and the wider world

[Requirement 6 stipulates the following:] During the key stage, pupils should be taught the Knowledge, skills and understanding through a local history study, three British history studies, a European history study and a world history study.

[Requirement 9 stipulates the following:] An overview study of how British society was shaped by the movement and settlement of different peoples in the period before the Norman Conquest and an in-depth study of how British society was affected by Roman or Anglo-Saxon or Viking settlement.

Examples for 9: Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings in Britain Effects of Roman settlement: the Roman Conquest and occupation of Britain; Boudicca, Caratacus and resistance to Roman rule; the building of Hadrian’s Wall, roads, villas and towns by the Romans; Roman settlement in the local area. Effects of Anglo-Saxon settlement: the arrival and settlement of the Anglo-Saxons; the conversion to Christianity, the lives of monks and nuns, for example Bede and Hilda; religious beliefs and customs, including the Sutton Hoo and other ship burials, and myths and

156

NICOLA SAVVIDES legends; Anglo-Saxon settlement in the local area.Effects of Viking settlement: Viking raids and settlement; King Alfred and Anglo-Saxon resistance to the Vikings; King Cnut and the Danes; Jorvik and other Viking settlements; heroic poems and sagas; Viking settlement in the local area.

Examples for 10: Britain and the wider world in Tudor times Significant individuals and events: Henry VIII, Thomas More and the break with Rome; Francis Drake and the Armada; the reign of Elizabeth and the roles played by Mary Queen of Scots and the Earl of Essex; John and Sebastian Cabot, Walter Raleigh and exploration; William Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Theatre.Everyday life: life for the rich and poor; differences between town and country life; education; ships and seafaring, merchants, traders and settlers; trade with Africa, Asia and America; food and entertainment; medicine and health; Tudor buildings in the local area; the impact of the closing down of a religious community on the local area.

[Requirement 12 for a European history study stipulates the following:] A study of the way of life, beliefs and achievements of the people living in Ancient Greece and the influence of their civilisation on the world today.

Examples for 12: a European study of Ancient Greece Aspects of the way of life: arts and architecture; houses, cities and public buildings; citizens and slaves; education for girls and boys; language; medicine, health and hygiene; games and leisure including the Olympic Games; plays and the theatre; ships and trading; soldiers and warfare. Beliefs and achievements: the city states of Athens and Sparta; gods and goddesses, myths, legends, beliefs and customs; Pheidippides and the battle of Marathon; Pericles and the building of the Parthenon; the conquests of Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great; great scholars and discoverers.

Key stage 3: [Requirement 7 stipulates the following:] In their study of local, British, European and world history, pupils should be taught about: a significant events, people and changes from the recent and more distant past b history from a variety of perspectives including political, religious, social, cultural, aesthetic, economic, technological and scientific c aspects of the histories of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales where appropriate d the history of Britain in its European and wider world context e some aspects in overview and others in depth


157

Appendix 2: The relevant requirements and examples from the Geography Curriculum: (Note: the words in italics are not statutory requirements. They are suggestions and examples as stated in the National Curriculum). Key stage 2: [Requirement 3. Pupils should be taught:] a to identify and describe what places are like [for example, in terms of weather, jobs] b the location of places and environments they study and other significant places and environments [for example, those listed on page 21 and places and environments in the news] c to describe where places are [for example, in which region/country the places are, whether they are near rivers or hills, what the nearest towns or cities are] d to explain why places are like they are [for example, in terms of weather conditions, local resources, historical development] e to identify how and why places change [for example, through the closure of shops or building of new houses, through conservation projects] and how they may change in the future [for example, through an increase in traffic or an influx of tourists] f to describe and explain how and why places are similar to and different from other places in the same country and elsewhere in the world [for example, comparing a village with a part of a city in the same country] g to recognise how places fit within a wider geographical context [for example, as part of a bigger region or country] and are interdependent [for example, through the supply of goods, movements of people].

158

NICOLA SAVVIDES

Key stage 3:

Appendix 3: Requirement 4 of the Modern Foreign Languages Curriculum: (Note: the words in grey are not statutory requirements. examples as stated in the National Curriculum).

They are suggestions and

Developing cultural awareness 4 Pupils should be taught about different countries and cultures by: a working with authentic materials in the target language, including some from ICT-based sources [for example, handwritten texts, newspapers, magazines, books, video, satellite television, texts from the internet] b communicating with native speakers [for example, in person, by correspondence] c considering their own culture and comparing it with the cultures of the countries and communities where the target language is spoken

THE EUROPEAN DIMENSION IN THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM FOR ENGLAND d considering the experiences and perspectives of people in these countries and communities.

159

160

NICOLA SAVVIDES

References Bell, G. H. (Ed.) (1991): Developing a European Dimension in Primary Schools (London, Fulton). Bell, G. H. (Ed.) (1995): Educating European Citizens. Citizenship Values and the European Dimension (London, Fulton). Blackledge, R. C. R. (1994): ‘The United Kingdom’, in: Brock, C. & Tulasiewicz, W. (1994): Education in a Single Europe (London, Routledge). Brock, C. & Tulasiewicz, W. (Eds.) (1994): Education in a Single Europe (London, Routledge). Brock, C. & Tulasiewicz, W. (Eds.) (2000): Education in a Single Europe (London, Routledge). Commission of the European Communities (1988): Resolution of the Council and the Ministers of Education meeting within the Council on the European dimension in education of 24 May 1988, in: OJEC No 177/02, pp. 5-7, 06.07.88. Convey, A. & Merritt, A. (2000): ‘The United Kingdom’, in: Brock, C. & Tulasiewicz, W. (2000): Education in a Single Europe (London, Routledge). Convey, A. & Speak, C. (1994): A European Dimension in the Teaching of Geography: an introduction (Sheffield, Geographical Association). DfEE (1999): The National Curriculum for England (London, HMSO). Economou, A. (2001): The Formulation, Acceptance and Implementation of the European dimension in British compulsory schooling. A comparative study within Great Britain, DPhil Thesis (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Findlay, I. (1996): ‘European dimensions in schools’, in: Ahier, J., Cosin, B., Hales, M. (1996): Diversity and Change: Education, Policy and Selection (London, Routledge). Goodson, I. F. & McGiveney, V. (1985): ‘European Dimensions and the Secondary School Curriculum’ (Lewes, Falmer Press), in: Henry, J. & Shaw, M. (2002): Schools jump gun in ditching languages, TES, 24 May 2002. Henry, J. & Slater, J. (2002): ‘Language barrier hinders excluded’, in: TES, 14 June 2002. Mackinnon, D. & Statham, J. (1999): Education in the UK. Facts and Figures (London, Hodder & Stoughton). McLean, M. (1990): Britain and a Single Market Europe: prospects for a common school curriculum (London, Kogan Page and Institute of Education, London University). Morrell, F. (1996): Continent Isolated. A study of the European Dimension in the National Curriculum in England (London, Federal Trust). Oomen-Welke, I. (1995): ‘Reflections on Concepts of European Education: A German Point of view’, in: Bell, G. H. (1995): Educating European Citizens. Citizenship Values and the European Dimension (London, Fulton). Phillips, D. (Ed.) (1995): ‘Aspects of Education and the European Union’, in: Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, 5(2) (Wallingford, Triangle). Phillips, D. & Economou, A. (1999): ‘Conducting Research into European Union Education and Training Policy: some theoretical and methodological considerations’, in: Compare, Vol. 29, No. 3. Rudden, B. & Derrick W. (Eds) (1994): Basic Community Laws, edition, (Oxford, Clarendon Press). Starkey, H. (1995): ‘From Rhetoric to Reality: Starting to Implement Education for European Values’, in: Bell, G. H. (1995): Educating European Citizens. Citizenship Values and the European Dimension (London, Fulton). Taylor, K. (2001): ‘Why leaders need to show Euro vision’, in: TES, 11 May 2001 [Internet] Available from: [Accessed 20 June 2002]. Tomlinson, S. (2001): Education in a post-welfare society (Buckingham, Open University Press).

HUBERT ERTL

EUROPEAN POLICIES AND TRANSITION PROCESSES: THE INFLUENCE OF EU TRAINING PROGRAMMES IN EASTERN GERMANY 1. INTRODUCTION With the increase in global competitiveness in the business world, companies have to offer higher quality goods, introduce diversity and customisation into their products and services, and maintain short cycles of innovation and low prices. In these circumstances a country's system of vocational education and training is faced with the challenge of providing qualifications to enable students and trainees to live up to the complex and wide-ranging demands of the world of work. In his recent study, Andy Green characterised Germany as a ‘high skills society’ with national competitiveness primarily based on high productivity in manufacturing of a wide range of high-quality goods, relying predominantly on scientific elites and on highquality intermediate skills. The system of skill formation that serves the ‘high skills society’ generates wide skills distribution and high levels of social trust, and promotes high incomes and relatively high wage equality (Green, 2001, pp. 67-89 and 142f.). At the heart of the German model of skill formation lies arguably the dual system of vocational education and training. The so-called dual system is based on a contract between the training enterprise (the firm where the practical training takes place) and the trainee. Trainees spend three to four days a week at their training enterprise and for the rest of the week attend a staterun part-time vocational school. Blocks of training at external training centres often supplement on-the-job-training. The duality of the training structure is seen partly as an important advantage for the German economy, which in turn is directly linked to the economic recovery of West Germany after World War II. Moreover, it was a major element in the effective transition of young people from school to work. West Germany had the lowest rate of youth unemployment among the countries of the western world for


162

HUBERT ERTL

several decades (BMBF, 1998a). The appeal of the dual system to other countries is primarily due to this socio-economic potential.1 With the imminent collapse of the entire social structure at the end of the life-span of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), including both the economic and the educational systems, the dual system was regarded as an important element for a new overall framework of training that had been successfully tested in the Federal Republic. It was expected that the system could be easily adopted since legal, financial, political and administrative support was offered by the western Federal States (Bundesländer or Länder) (Wordelmann, 1992, p. 13). With unification, the GDR was divided into five Länder which became part of the Federal Republic of Germany and also of the European Union (EU). In this situation, action programmes of the EU supplemented the support from western Germany. The mechanisms of the European integration process, hitherto only operating in the western Länder, were transferred into the eastern Länder (Manning, 1992, p. 495).2 This chapter aims to investigate the role of EU programmes in the transition of the vocational training system in eastern Germany. More specifically, the influence of Petra (European Community Action Programme for the Vocational Training of Young People and Their Preparation for Adult and Working Life) on the adoption of the dual system in the eastern Länder is traced. In order to do so it is necessary to investigate the development of EU programmes in the field of education and training.3 On this basis the problems of the programmes in the transition process in the east of Germany will be highlighted and their relation to the overall situation in the training sector in eastern Germany will be shown.

2. THE TRANSFORMATION PROCESS OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING AND ITS PROBLEMS As far back as the treaty for the creation of a monetary, economic and social union, signed by the two Germanies in May 1990, the legal basis of the system for vocational 1 Some observers regard it as a highly successful export commodity which will be the model for VET not only in the EU but also in the countries of the former Communist Bloc (cf. Arnold, 1993, pp. 20f.; Heimerer, 1995, p. 166; Hörner, 1996, p. 55). For the influence of the German system on educational policy and practice in other countries see Wilson (1997) and Waterkamp (2002). 2 Manning (1992) uses the terms ‘eastern Germany’ or ‘eastern Länder’ to describe the New Federal Republic’s five new states Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Brandenburg, Sachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt and Thüringen. This seems to be the most advisable but still imperfect way to avoid more problematic terms like ‘new Länder’, ‘former GDR’ or even ‘Ex-DDR’. For the difficulties these terms imply see Phillips (1992, p. 121). 3 The investigation of the development of EU programmes in this context is further pursued in chapter 9 in this present volume.

EU PROGRAMMES AND THE TRANSITION OF TRAINING IN EASTERN GERMANY

163

education and training in the Federal Republic was identified as one of the regulations the GDR was expected to adopt in the future (Wordelmann, 1992, p. 15). As early as August 1990, some weeks before official unification, the People’s Chamber (parliament) of the former GDR adopted the laws most relevant to the dual system of the Federal Republic – the Vocational Training Act (Berufsbildungsgesetz), the Vocational Training Development Act (Berufsbildungsförderungsgesetz), and the Crafts Code (Handwerksordnung) (Anweiler, 1991, p. 101). Thus, the dual system of the Federal Republic was in place a few weeks before the training year was about to start in autumn 1990. Training institutions, trainers and trainees in eastern Germany had to deal with radically changed legal and organisational conditions. From 3 October 1990, newly concluded training contracts were based exclusively on the new legal system. Transitional measures existed in order to facilitate the process of assimilation for already existing training contracts (Weissflog, 1992, pp. 110-114). Therefore it can be argued that the legal transition in the field of vocational education and training took place extremely swiftly and was well ahead of other areas of the transition process. Despite all the uncertainties created by the rapid adoption of the legal foundation of the western training system at an individual and institutional level, the new framework created relatively clearly defined conditions for the restructuring of the training sector, following the well-established model in West Germany. It has been argued, on the one hand, that this new framework and the support from the Federal Republic was a major advantage for the eastern Länder in the immediate transition process in comparison to other countries of the former Soviet Bloc. On the other hand, it has been argued that the potential of forty years of development and research in the field in the former GDR was neglected and sacrificed for a system of training that appeared to be best equipped to minimise the problems of the first and second threshold in a modern market economy, that is the transfer of young people from school to training and from training to work (Degen et al., 1990 and Degen, 1993).4 Because of the common heritage of dual structures in training provision there was an expectation that the training sector of eastern Germany could be easily integrated into a unified employment and training market.5 However, it soon became clear that the hope of a swift transformation of the economy and the training sector in eastern Germany could not be fulfilled.

4

Interestingly, the recurrent discussion about the crisis of the dual system of vocational training reached a peak in West Germany in the late 1980s as a consequence of the shortage of training places in the mid-1980s. Owing to the demographic decline of young people of school-leaving age this discussion slowed down to a certain extent at the beginning of the 1990s, only to gather pace again a few years later when the shortage of training places (see Table 1) recurred in both parts of Germany. 5

For a documentation of the expectations of an easy extension of the western dual system towards eastern Germany immediately after unification see for example Uthmann (1991).

164

HUBERT ERTL

In particular the dependence of the East German economy on the large nationalised industrial and agricultural combines proved to be the main obstacle to economic growth and the development of competitive training structures in the east after unification. Contrary to the over-optimistic expectations of the unification period, the structural differences in the two training sectors could not be overcome in just a few years following unification.6 A clear indication of this fact is provided by the quantitative problems in the training market in eastern Germany. From 1993 onwards there has been a growing shortage of training places which has primarily been a result of the steady and substantial increase in the numbers of young people looking for a training place (see Table 1). The increase in the number of training places has not been able to keep up with the growth rate on the demand side. The slightly improved figures of 1998 and 1999 (a shortage of nearly twelve thousand training places in 1998 and over nine thousand in 1999 in the eastern Länder compared with a shortage of 14,500 in 1997) cannot be regarded as a reversal of the general trend, but show the limited success of new, state-subsidised programmes in the creation of training places in the east.7

6 It is important to note that the domination of the training sector by the industrial and agricultural combines in the GDR was only one of several important differences in the training provisions in the two parts of Germany. For a detailed discussion of these differences see Ertl (2000d). For detailed information on the system of vocational education in the GDR see Waterkamp (1985 and 1987). 7

Most important in this context is the Initiative for Training Places in the East (Lehrstelleninitiative Ost) which created 17,500 new places in 1998. For 1999 the new coalition government of Social Democrats and the Green Party introduced the Ad Hoc Programme for the Reduction of Youth Unemployment (Sofartprogramm zum Abbau der Jugendarbeitslosigkeit), to create 100,000 work or training places for young people. It was financed by two billion Marks, including 600 million Marks out of EU structural funds. The Ministry for Education and Research has estimated that in 1999, 40% of training places in eastern Germany were financed by these government programmes (BMBF, 2001, p. 16). For the training policy of the current government and the role of the Ad Hoc Programme see the interview with the federal Minister for Education Edelgard Bulmahn (1999). For the impact of other programmes on the training market in the eastern Länder see BMBF (1999a, pp. 3-10, 36-41; 2001, pp. 19ff. and section 1.1.4).


165

Government intervention in the training market resulted in a substantial share of statesubsidised school-based training places.10 Research in unified Germany indicates that one year after they finish training only 16 per cent of young people with a school-based training qualification are working in the occupation they were trained for. The corresponding figure for young people with a work-based training qualification is 42 per cent (Ulrich & Westhoff, 1994). School-based training schemes seem to postpone the employment problem for young people from the first to the second threshold in eastern Germany (Damm-Rüger, 1994; Schöngen & Tuschke, 1999). These kinds of training places must be regarded as having an adverse effect on the overall structure of the dual system because the market forces which ought to balance supply and demand in the medium term are weakened by prolonged state intervention. The subsidies of the state which are most successful in encouraging eastern German firms to invest in apprenticeship training within the dual system are those that facilitate training alliances among a number of companies. These schemes seem best equipped to 8

Source: BMBF (2000a, p. 40 and 2001, p. 50).

9

For the structure of the demand of training places in 1991 see Schober (1991). For the structure of the supply of training places in the eastern Länder in 1992 see Schober (1993). 10 For details on the funding of school-based training in training centres in the eastern Länder by the Federal Ministry of Education see BMBF (1995). In 1993 for instance, the ‘joint initiative east’ (Gemeinschaftsinitiative Ost) provided 500 million Marks for the creation of ten thousand training places outside of companies.

166

HUBERT ERTL

create new training places without endangering the market orientation of the system (BMBF, 1997c). As well as the implications of the transformation process in the national context, unification also had an international and a particularly strong European dimension. From the day of unification, the eastern Länder were fully eligible for all EU programmes in education and training. As early as November 1990 the EU Committee for Education conferred in Berlin about ways in which the eastern Länder could take part in European co-operation in the fields of education and training as soon as possible. The transnational programmes and projects of the Union were supposed to help the new federal states to come to terms with the transformation of education and training and also to provide ideas for innovation (BMBW, 1991, preface). In order to achieve this aim the lack of contacts and co-operation with western European countries in GDR times had to be overcome. A special fund of ten million ECU was set up in 1991 to set up transnational projects and to initiate participation in the programmes. Considering the overall transformation process of vocational education and training in the eastern Länder outlined in this chapter, it can be concluded at this point that there was a discrepancy between the aims of the inner-German policies and the EU policies. Whereas the former focused on the swift transfer of the dual system to the east, the latter aimed to involve the five eastern Länder in the wider process of European integration. The following description of the role of EU programmes in the transition process illustrates some of the consequences of this discrepancy. 3. THE ROLE OF EU PROGRAMMES AND INITIATIVES IN THE TRANSITION PROCESS The convergence of living, working and learning conditions in all of its regions is one of the most important principles of European Union policy. A multitude of supportive measures are in place to improve the situation in socially and economically disadvantaged regions in the Union. From 1990 onwards the eastern part of unified Germany was classified as a top-priority region for structural help from the EU, the region particularly qualified for supportive measures in the training and education sector (Holldack et al., 1996, pp. 5f.). High quality vocational education and training is seen as a measure to prepare EU citizens for the opportunities of free movement. Therefore the development of human resources is a central aim of the European Union’s policy. 3.1 The role of programmes within the EU policy for education and training German unification happened at a time when the integration process in western Europe was gathering pace. The most prominent indication of this is the Treaty on European Union (TEU of Maastricht Treaty) introduced in 1992. In spite of the on-going discussions about the effects of the Treaty it is indisputable that it clarified the legal


167

status of the programmes in education and training. On the basis of the Treaty the two major framework programmes – SOCRATES (Community Action Programme in the Field of Education) and LEONARDO DA VINCI (Community Vocational Training Action Programme) – were established in 1994. However, the task immediately after unification in 1990 was to bring the eastern Länder of Germany into the accelerated integration process as quickly as possible and particularly into the preparation for the Single European Market and the political Union in 1993 (Manning, 1993, p. 62). Therefore, the first interventions of the European Union in eastern Germany were based on the generation of programmes that preceded SOCRATES and LEONARDO. These programmes were initiated on the basis of rulings of the European Court of Justice that encouraged the European Commission and the Council of Ministers to organise a multitude of programmes and projects in the field of education and training from the mid-1980s. In these rulings, the Court interpreted Article 128 of the Treaty of Rome in a way that gave the Community institutions the right to adopt legislation in the field of vocational education and training that was binding on the Member States. The most important decisions of the Court in this context were the cases of Forcheri (1982), Gravier (1983) and Erasmus (1989) (see Moschonas, 1998, pp. 1520).11 In addition, the challenges of the new information technology and the consistently high levels of youth unemployment throughout Europe in the 1980s were considered to be the main reasons for the high priority of vocational training and the creation of action programmes in this area (Strohmeier, 1994, pp. 57f.).12 In the context of vocational education the most important programmes were Comett (European Community Action Programme in Education and Training for Technology, launched in 1986) and Petra (European Community Action Programme for the Vocational Training of Young People and their Preparation for Adult and Working Life, launched in 1988). As a preparation for the Single European Market these programmes in education and training were amended and extended in the early 1990s. As a result, the European Community had already established a range of programmes in the field of education and training by the beginning of the 1990s. These programmes took the diverse role of education in the European integration process into account and aimed not to maximise economic potential and scientific innovation in the EU, but also to stimulate cultural and social activities (Manning, 1994b, p. 138). Therefore, the programmes were aimed at a diverse range of subject areas, target groups and institutions. Various types of projects and actions were supported.13 In the field of vocational education and training Comett II 11 For detailed analyses of the impact of these cases on the EU policy see Lonbay (1989), Hochbaum (1989), Rudden & Wyatt (1994, chapter 22), and Barnard (1992 and 1995). 12

There is a variety of publications dealing with pre-Maastricht European educational projects and programmes, for instance, Preston (1991), Funnell & Müller (1991, chapter 4), and Kirby & Lamb (1997). 13 For an overview of educational sectors, subject areas and types of action covered by seven of the programmes see Figure 2.

168

HUBERT ERTL

began in 1990 and Petra II was launched in 1992, following an agreement of the Council of Ministers in 1991. In addition, the Force programme (Action Programme for the Development of Continuing Vocational Training in the European Community) was launched in 1991. These programmes in vocational education and training must be regarded as closely linked to the Community’s commitment to the principle of converging working conditions and workers’ living conditions throughout all Member States, as set out in the 1989 Social Charter. Although the Charter has no legally binding character, it stipulates in Article 15 the right of every worker to access vocational training (Barnard, 1995, p. 21). Further aims of EU policies in vocational education and training and the programmes in this field include improved re-integration of unemployed people into the world of work, transnationally recognised vocational qualifications, enhanced responsiveness of workers to the technical modernisation process of workplaces, and increased exchange of information and experience across national training systems (Jordan, 1992, pp. 503f.). Financial resources for the immediate integration of the eastern German Länder into the EU framework and for the transition process were released. 3.2 The scope of the EU programmes in the transition period In 1991 the European Union established a special fund for the eastern German Länder (see Figure 1). The fund aimed to address the need to make up for the shortage of cooperation, mobility, and competence in western European languages and in educational management. At the same time it provided assistance and backing for the restructuring of the training system and its connection to a transformed economy. These dual tasks of the EU supportive measures (integration of education and training in the former GDR into west European provision and assistance in the restructuring process) did not necessarily have the same objectives. As early as 1993 this potentially disadvantageous discrepancy was one of the working hypotheses of a research project by WIFO (Wissenschaftsforum Bildung und Gesellschaft – Research Forum Education and Society) which examined the part played by EU programmes in support of education and training (Manning, 1993, pp. 61f.).14 Furthermore, it was regarded as a precondition that the mechanisms of EU programmes in education and training as they had been developed in the western German Länder had to be transferred quickly to the east (Manning, 1994b, p. 149). The fund included the following resources for the extension of the Union’s education and training programmes to the eastern part of unified Germany: 14

Moreover, WIFO evaluated exchange and co-operation projects funded by Petra from 1993 to 1995 (Jordan, 1996). Some of the interpretations in this section are based on the quantitative data of these projects.


169

The intervention was made on the basis of the operational programme structure of the EU as agreed in May 1991 and aimed to pave the way for the eastern Länder to participate in the regular programmes as soon as possible. It represents an example of the Commission policy of ‘positive discrimination’ in favour of disadvantaged regions and target groups (Kehr et al., 1996, p. 125). The special fund for participation in education and training programmes was part of the European Social Fund which had the overarching aims of tackling unemployment and integrating young people into the world

15 Sources: BMBW, quoted in Kehr et al. (1996, p. 124); and diagram in Manning (1992, p. 499). Note that the funds were only available at the beginning of the academic year, that was in autumn of 1991. Following a decision of the European Parliament at its conference in Dresden (18 to 20 May 1992), the financial means of supportive measures for the eastern Länder was increased by 70 per cent from 1993 onwards. Following this increase, the total support rose from 63 ECU to 140 ECU per citizen annually (Jordan, 1992, p. 505). The comparison of the expenditure on the programmes seen in the diagram and the total expenditure on these programmes in all Member States shows that the share allocated to Lingua in particular was substantially overproportional. Moschonas (1998, pp. 58f.) gives an overview of the share of the distribution of EU expenditure by education and training programme in the period 1987-1996: Erasmus (27.1 per cent), Comett (16.3), Lingua (8.5), P. tra (8.5), Youth for Europe (5.8), Force (4.5), Arion (and Eurydice) (0.5), and Eurotecnet (0.4). The framework programmes SOCRATES (15.6 per cent) and LEONARDO DA VINCI (12.8), which were launched only in 1995, accounted for the remainder.

170

HUBERT ERTL

of work.16 The educational objectives also included assistance for the integration of the education and training sectors in eastern Germany. Therefore the emphasis of the supporting measures was on the dissemination of west European foreign languages, on mobility of pupils, students, teachers and trainers, on information on the development of education and training structures in the other Member States, on further education and retraining, and on institutional and transnational co-operation (Manning, 1993, p. 62). By the end of 1993, 85 per cent of the EU special fund (see Figure 1) provided for the eastern Länder had been used for projects and initiatives. Only approximately 1.5 million ECU of the budget of Erasmus and Lingua remained unallocated (BMBW, 1992). However, at the time it was diagnosed that too few people benefited from the assistance provided, that the share of institutions participating in programmes was too low, and that the impact of the supportive measures on the transition process was therefore very limited (Manning, 1993, p. 65). Some of the main reasons for this partial failure of the EU programmes are discussed in section 3.5. 3.3 Categorisation and implementation of EU programmes The individual programmes can be categorised according to the educational sector, the content areas, and the types of action they cover:

16 For details on the assistance for the eastern Länder from other EU structural funds (Regional Fund and Agricultural Fund) see Manning (1992, pp. 499ff. and 1994b, p. 143). Although the EU support for the eastern Länder was substantial in total it was relatively small compared with the enormous financial resources provided by the Federal Government and the eleven western Länder. Their shared initiative ‘Development East’ (Aufbau Ost) alone provided in the three years after unification five billion Marks for investment in public services such as schools and training centres (BMBF, 1995, p. 48). 17

Sources: Manning (1994b, p. 139), Piehl & Sellin (1995, pp. 214f.), and Moschonas (1998, p. 146). For a different categorisation of these programmes see Hantrais (1995, pp. 46-51).


171

This categorisation shows that the special fund covered programmes and projects which were created at different points of time to promote different aims and that their target groups and contents overlapped. This action-oriented approach, which has created a diverse and complex range of possibilities, had its origin in the aim of convergence of west European education and training systems. As will be shown later, this approach could not be sufficiently changed in order to match the requirements of institutions and individuals facing the unprecedented transitional situation in east Germany (Manning, 1994b, p. 138). Many of the problems with the programmes were the direct consequence of this dilemma. At the EU level, the co-ordination of the programmes lies with the Commission in Brussels and the Task Force Human Resources within it, which is responsible for questions of academic and vocational education and training as well as youth policy. It is mainly the Task Force that co-operates with the bodies responsible for the programmes in the national contexts of the Member States. In the Federal Republic of Germany, the competencies for the programmes in education and training are divided between the Federal and the Länder Governments. Expressed rather simplistically, the latter have the responsibility for the school sector, including vocational schools (following the constitutional principle of autonomy of the Länder in cultural matters), the former controls the in-company part of vocational training. Higher education is a ‘joint task’ of

172

HUBERT ERTL

both the Federal and the Länder Governments (Mönikes et al., 1997). The organisational patterns of the EU programmes correspond to this structure. In many cases there are more or less institutionalised modes of co-ordination between Federal and Länder governments. For example, the Federal Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Technology (BMBF) even monitors programmes which are clearly under the administration of the Länder ministries (such as Arion and Lingua). The following overview of the organisational and administrative structure of EU programmes can therefore only provide an approximate outline of the institutions responsible:

18 Source: EU material and programme descriptions and Müller-Solger et al. (1993). Note that the overview does not mention the substantial number of contact, information and advice offices at EU, Federal and Länder level.


173

With unification this structure of responsibilities and the mechanisms for transmitting EU programmes were adopted by the eastern part of Germany. Whereas the western Länder had had years to develop the administrative structure for all the programmes on offer, in the east these structures had to be implemented almost overnight. For programmes dealing with vocational education and training the Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung (Federal Institute for Vocational Training) became the main regulative and administrative body. 3.4 The introduction of Petra II into eastern Germany Petra II was the most important and extensive EU programme for the enhancement of initial training prior to its incorporation into the framework programme LEONARDO DA VINCI in 1995. The second phase of the programme had substantially more financial resources at its disposal than Petra I (Moschonas, 1998, p. 126). With the incorporation of the exchange programme for young employees (Young Workers’ Exchange, not included in Petra I), the target group of the programme included all young people under the age of 28. When the programme was initiated in the eastern Länder, most of its elements had already been well established throughout the EU Member States because Petra II continued the actions of the first generation of the programme.19 On the other hand, the exchange activities and a few other areas in which structural changes had taken place were still in the extension phase. It was expected that for these activities similar structures could be developed for eastern and western Germany (Jordan, 1992, p. 507). Petra II was aimed at trainees in initial training, trainers, training companies, teachers, vocational schools, chambers and other organisations involved in the training process, including local authorities and schools and colleges of further education and training. By offering help and assistance to projects initiated by these groups of individuals and/or institutions it envisaged achieving a number of objectives at the level of national training systems. These objectives were to: ensure that all young people are able to receive at least one year’s vocational training upon completion of compulsory schooling, raise the standard of initial training and improve the preparation of young people for adult life and continuing education, support the diversification of training, so as to make it suitable for all young people and to ensure that it leads to recognised qualifications,

19 Petra I was launched in 1988 on the basis of Council Decision 87/569/EEC of 1 December 1987 and amended (Petra II) by Council Decision 91/387/EEC of 22 July 1991.

174

HUBERT ERTL enhance the capacity of training systems to adapt to economic, social and technological change, and to develop a European dimension in initial vocational training (cf. Preston, 1991, pp. 119f).

The programme outline identified four areas of action (BMBF, 1996, pp. 1f.): Action I: Exchange and transnational training and work experience placements. This action provided trainees and young workers with an opportunity to experience living and working conditions in another Member State; to develop skills for adult and working life, including how to relate to individuals from different cultural backgrounds; and to develop an awareness of a common European identity. Action II: European network of training partnerships, Youth initiative projects. This part of the programme aimed to support organisations from different Member States in stimulating practical co-operation in the Community, to establish networks of training partnerships, and to raise awareness of European needs and opportunities. The second part of this action was concerned with supporting projects in which young people themselves were responsible for a major part of the planning, organisation and implementation of a project. The exchange of training staff and teachers was also part of Action II. Action III:Co-operation in the field of vocational information and guidance. The third element aimed to develop co-operation in research and guidance and to improve the effectiveness of practice in the field of initial vocational education at the European level. The Petra Technical Support Unit published a directory of projects and organised contact workshops for staff from research institutes. Action IV: Complementary measures. Under this part of the programme study visits for experts in the field were administered by the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP). From 1992 onwards, a number of Petra projects were initiated in the eastern part of unified Germany. Most of them were part of Action I and Action II and were evaluated by a research project conducted by WIFO (Wissenschaftsforum Bildung und Gesellschaft – Research Forum Education and Society). In spring 1992, only two of the 55 German applications for exchange projects (Action I) came from the eastern Länder (BIBB, 1992b). This means that in 1992 only one in twenty trainees interested in spending some


175

of their training time abroad came from the eastern Länder.20 Increased efforts concerning information and advice (for instance, information workshops at vocational schools, advice weeks at training centres) changed this low interest in exchanges only to a very limited extent (Jordan, 1992, pp. 508f.). Contrary to the general Petra II provisions, the resources for the eastern part of Germany also included special funds for the linguistic preparation of exchange applicants. However, the low level of interest prevented this from having a significant impact. Of 56 Petra projects for training partnerships (Action II) in which German partners were involved, 11 partners were based in the eastern Länder.21 Four projects dealt with the training of trainers, thus utilising the disseminator effect of training staff. Two projects each were aimed at improving training in the crafts sector and at the European dimension of key qualifications. The remaining projects covered the following areas: ecology in the training process, commercial and language training in the practice company, and the possibilities for Petra II in the eastern Länder. There were significant differences in the regional distribution of the projects (Jordan, 1992, pp. 509f.). The exchange and study visits of training practitioners (also part of Action II) aimed to provide them with first-hand experience of the vocational systems in different Member States and to give them an overview of possible activities funded by Petra II. For 1992, CEDEFOP (then based in Berlin) initiated a special Petra project for such visits of trainers and training staff in the eastern part of Germany. This project met with a high level of interest from the start: about 45 training practitioners had opportunities to visit Spain, Ireland and France; many more applications had to be rejected because of lack of funding (Jordan, 1992, pp. 511f.). This represents a substantial participation rate of experts from eastern Germany, considering the total number of about 250 exchange visits funded by Petra EU-wide annually. Seen in connection with the aforementioned emphasis on projects concerned with the training of trainers, the special funds for study visits demonstrates the aim of support for the eastern Länder to compensate for the lack of information on EU programmes. Moreover, it focused on the most important point of the training system: those directly responsible for training.22 They were able to make contact with potential partners for future co-operation within transnational projects. In 20

In 1992, the ratio of newly concluded training contracts in the western and the eastern Länder was approximately one to five (BMBF, 1998a, p. 11).

21

Following a different count by BIBB, by the end of 1992 there were 70 networks and training partnerships (Action II) in which German partners were involved; 19 of these were based in the eastern part (BIBB, 1992b).

22

This focus was also supplemented by the Force project which was closely related to Petra but focused more on further education and training. As it started only in 1991, the first special funds for eastern Germany were only allocated in 1992. Because of this special fund it was possible that eleven out of 16 German projects which were accepted by the Force programme in 1992 were initiated in the eastern part of Germany (Manning, 1994b, pp. 146f.). The further training of trainers was one of the main emphases of these projects.

176

HUBERT ERTL

retrospect, this strategy aimed at the medium-term success of EU projects seems to have been the right one. The quantitatively equal distribution of EU projects funded by the LEONARDO programme, which succeeded Petra from 1995 onwards, across Germany is a clear indication in support of this finding.23 3.5 Evaluation of the EU programmes in the transition process The implementation problems typical of the EU programmes in the western Länder were also evident in the eastern Länder. Nevertheless, there were areas in which particular problems occurred, mainly due to different socio-economic circumstances and the ongoing transformation process in the east. A few of these particular problem areas will be discussed here. The complexity of EU administration and bureaucracy Firstly, there were difficulties in dealing with the at times extremely complex EU bureaucracy. While representing an important obstacle for the implementation of EU programmes in all Member States, it had a particularly adverse effect on the circumstances in eastern Germany where far-reaching legal and administrative restructuring took place. Facing a tangle of administrative channels, regulations, application forms, recourses to legal action, and stages of appeal, many individuals and institutions – despite undeniable competence in the relevant subject – were unable to make the most of the opportunities provided by EU programmes. Simplified and shortened procedures would not only have been helpful in the eastern Länder but would also have been beneficial for the whole of the EU (Manning, 1994b, p. 147). The complexities of the federal system in Germany added – as we have seen in Subsection 3.3 – a further dimension of difficulties to the creation of a suitable framework for the implementation of EU programmes. The lack of know-how and operable information Closely related to the complicated application procedures was the lack of appropriate information on programme and support provisions. The research project conducted by WIFO in 1991/92 showed that most teachers and staff responsible for training in the former GDR were not familiar with the programmes and that their level of information did not go beyond that of ‘I have heard of it’ (Jordan, 1992, p. 505). There was and is no 23

Among the 59 projects chosen for funding by the German LEONARDO agencies, twelve featured coordinators based in eastern Germany (cf. BIBB, 1998a). Considering the fact that the relation between trainees in eastern and western Germany is approximately one to five, this quantitative distribution of LEONARDO projects seems to be advantageous for the eastern Länder.


177

lack of EU publications concerning the objectives of programmes, different kinds of actions and initiatives, descriptions of political aims, and listings of declarations of intent; on the contrary, the flood of such materials often leads to misinformation and discouragement of potential applicants. Only individuals with experience and a high degree of self-initiative are able to extract the relevant information from these kinds of materials. After forty years of state-planning and central prescription of detailed regulations for almost all areas of life in the former GDR, it can be argued that these qualities were often lacking immediately after unification. There were no or only very few sources of information that took the particular needs of institutions and individuals in the eastern Länder into account. Operable instructions for the application process and the running of projects were often lacking. The regionally different degrees of familiarity with the EU programmes and the fact that information opportunities followed ad hoc rather than systematically planned patterns were underestimated or neglected for too long.24

Events in which target groups in the east of Germany were informed about the supportive measures of the EU and in which the particular situation after unification was addressed came too late in the majority of cases (Jordan, 1992, p. 515). Conferences and workshops of this kind seemed to have influenced the situation positively from mid1992 onwards. The most prominent example of these events was the ‘Understandingbus’ project that promoted the possibilities represented by Petra II in the eastern Länder (Jordan, 1992, p. 515). This project provided practical assistance in the search for potential partners abroad. It seems that such assistance was particularly necessary as contacts with EU Member States had been strictly forbidden before the Berlin Wall came down. A lesson that should be learned in a broader context is that information on EU programmes is only helpful if it is responsive to the particular situation of the target group and if it is sufficiently accessible and operable. The difficulties of the reorganisation of education and training institutions The difficulties of the overall transition process pushed the potential benefits of EU support into the background. The restructuring process, oriented almost exclusively towards western German models, affected all education and training institutions profoundly. The wider perspective of European models of education and training or the European dimension was in most cases not paramount. The wider view of the European integration process as an important condition in which the transition of training and education in the eastern part of Germany took place was mostly neglected (Manning, 1993, p. 62). Consequently, the interest in programmes supporting these models was not 24

The findings of the WIFO research indicated significantly lower levels of information in Sachsen and Sachsen-Anhalt (cf. Jordan, 1992, p. 519).

178

HUBERT ERTL

very high. Transitional problems like institutional reorganisation, continuous reductions in staff, uncertain proprietary rights, and the privatisation of formerly state-owned corporations created a sense of insecurity which made medium and long-term strategic thinking and transnational co-operation difficult.25 The potential benefits of EU contacts for the reform process were regarded as of secondary importance. In the area of higher education, many partnerships with east German universities were initiated by western European institutions which seized the opportunity to enlarge their existing exchange schemes (Manning, 1994b, p. 148). There was, for instance, specific information for universities in western Germany regarding how to incorporate eastern German institutions of higher education into existing exchange partnerships (Kehr et al., 1996, p. 124). In the field of vocational education and training, however, the co-operation schemes operating at the time of German unification seemed too inflexible in many cases to incorporate partners from the eastern German Länder. Specific information for institutions in the west of Germany were lacking. The comparatively high participation rates of institutions and individuals from the eastern Länder in EU programmes for higher education compared to programmes for training reflect inter alia the better information strategies in this sector.26 The language problem Prior to unification, only a very few east German schools were involved in transnational partnerships and exchange schemes. The partners were almost exclusively based in the communist countries of eastern Europe. A considerable inhibition threshold of trainees and of training staff and teachers towards western European languages was therefore not surprising. Nevertheless, the need to improve language competence and to get to know west European cultures seemed to be a strong motivation for people and institutions in the eastern Länder to participate in the programmes.27 There were also indications that 25

The WIFO project identified substantially different priorities in the reform process on the one hand and in EU assistance on the other. In particular the two areas identified as the highest priorities by educationists in eastern Germany (‘institutional reform’ and ‘job security’) did not feature very strongly in the EU support immediately after unification (Manning, 1993, p. 63). A similar finding was suggested for higher education institutions. ‘Priorities of institutional reorganisation and reform’ was the most important reason cited for the lack of participation in Erasmus, followed by ‘changes and uncertainties concerning personnel’ and by the ‘lack or inadequacies of the necessary infrastructure’ (Kehr et al., 1995). 26

The participation of east German universities in the Lingua and Erasmus programmes even exceeded the expectations of the EU Commission: In 1994, 80 per cent of the eligible universities in east Germany took part in these programmes, compared to only 64 per cent in west Germany. In the same year, the mobility rate of east German students reached the level of their west German counterparts (cf. Kehr et al., 1996, pp. 122ff.). 27

In a survey conducted by Kehr et al. (1995) in 1992 and 1993, the most frequently mentioned reason for participation in the Erasmus programme was ‘international contacts and co-operation’ followed by


179

potential partners in other EU Member States had reservations about incorporating partners from eastern Germany because of their lack of international experience and particularly because of their lack of language competency (Kehr et al., 1996, p. 125). There were particular support provisions for young people from the east who took part in exchange projects. These aimed to level their disadvantaged situation in terms of proficiency in English and French, whereas their knowledge in Spanish, Italian, Greek and Nordic languages was similar to their west German counterparts (Jordan, 1992, p. 508). Nevertheless, it has been argued that the improvement of language skills needed even greater emphasis in the special fund of 1992 as language proficiency is a precondition for the running of exchange schemes and transnational networks.28 The aforementioned ‘Understandingbus’ project provided linguistic assistance for target groups in the application process; however, it could not compensate for the general lack of language proficiency in the short term (Jordan, 1992, p. 515). Nevertheless, it seems encouraging that young people from eastern Germany who had the opportunity to participate in an exchange quickly achieved levels of proficiency comparable to their western counterparts (Kehr et al., 1996. pp. 132f.). The financial constraints and the low level of participation A particular problem of programmes concerned with initial training seems to be the low level of involvement of young people in the funded projects. For instance, only 200,000 young people participated in the Petra programme between 1988 and 1994, which represents about 0.8 per cent of the total number (Moschonas, 1998, p. 69). Jordan shows that in 1990 the proportion of trainees in the dual system of the western Länder of Germany who received the chance to complete a part of their training in another Member State was between 0.5 and 1 per cent (Jordan, 1992, p. 504). Manning has calculated that at the end of the 1980s the EU provided on average 12 ECU per student

‘improvement of foreign language competences’ in second place and by ‘getting to know western European countries’ in fourth place. 28

Manning points out two potential dangers if the necessary language skills are lacking: standard, nonlanguage-specific supportive measures are misused to improve language skills, or the people involved in the projects gain much less from the measures than they would with appropriate language skills (Manning, 1994b, p. 146). For an investigation into language problems in Petra-funded training co-operation projects see Jordan (1996, pp. 106ff.). One of the conclusions of this investigation is that long-term, transnational co-operation creates institutional learning which covers among other things the language competence of the staff involved. These learning processes only started in many eastern German institutions after unification as these institutions either had only just come into existence or had no links to partners in western Europe prior to 1989. Language problems not only at an individual level but also at an institutional level were therefore not surprising (Jordan, 1996, p. 108).

180

HUBERT ERTL

in higher education and only 0.3 ECU per head of young people in vocational training (Manning, 1994b, p. 142). The proportion of participants in the programmes mirrors this unequal distribution of finances: From 1992 to 1994 it was envisaged that one in ten students in higher education could take part in a European exchange scheme (Manning, 1992, p. 498).29 The corresponding ratio for trainees in vocational education was one in 500.30 This shows a distinctive difference not only in the status of the programmes but also in the way they affect the national provision. Programmes in higher education aim to include a relatively small number of potential future management staff. In vocational education, the impact of the programmes relies heavily on the utilisation of so-called disseminator effects; this means for instance that the ideas of European-oriented vocational training are spread by the further training of trainers rather than by a large number of trainees. In the case of the special fund for eastern Germany, the focus was also clearly on higher education and mobility of students at university level; supportive measures for vocational education and training were funded to a much smaller extent (see Figure 1). As a consequence the impact of the support was bound to be very limited. It can be argued that the supportive measures would have been more effective if they had been spread more evenly across the educational sectors. A further problem affecting EU support adversely particularly in small and mediumsized companies is the practice that the programmes covered only up to half of the costs of projects and initiatives. The remainder had to be provided by federal or Länder funds or the training companies (Manning, 1994b, p. 143). At a time of immense financial strain on training companies, vocational schools and other training providers caused by the overwhelming task of reorganisation and restructuring, this practice certainly prevented many institutions from proposing projects and initiatives.31 At the individual level, young people in the east were deterred from taking part in EU exchanges because they had to expect additional financial burdens since the basis for the financial assessment of exchange studentships was lower than for their counterparts in the western part of Germany. They also had to deal with substantially higher costs of living in many of the exchange countries compared to the low costs in the eastern Länder in the years after unification (Kehr et al., 1996. pp. 132ff.). A clear indication of 29

This ratio represents the EU objective and the basis for budget calculations. In reality the rate of mobility of German students who took part in exchange programmes was only seven per cent, with this figure covering exchanges funded by Erasmus and also by Lingua (cf. Kehr et al., 1996. p. 123). 30

In the three years from 1993 to 1995 only 630 German trainees had the opportunity to participate in a Petra II exchange scheme (Jordan, 1996, p. 113). 31 In the survey conducted by Kehr et al. ‘inadequate financial resources’ were mentioned most frequently as a problem in the participation of east German universities in Erasmus activities, followed by ‘inadequate language skills’ and ‘lack of experience or co-operation’ (Kehr et al., 1995).


181

the negative effect of these obstacles at an individual level was the low participation of young people in the exchange programme for students in higher education, Erasmus. In 1992, only four per cent of all German students taking part in an Erasmus exchange came from the eastern Länder, despite the fact that one third of the east German universities already had the exchange scheme in place (Kehr et al., 1996. pp. 122f.). This shows that obstacles for individuals can hinder readiness to participate in a programme even if that programme has been implemented at an institutional level. The structural problems of the training market With the unification of Germany the transition of the centrally planned economy in the east to the market-oriented economic system of the west took place. Inter alia, this meant the break-up and privatisation of the large nationalised companies and combines of the former GDR from 1991 onwards (Burkhardt & Kielwein, 1992, p. 15). These companies and combines trained most of the trainees during GDR times. The skilled industrial worker represented the leitmotif of the entire training sector (Sloane, 1997b, p. 366). Companies in these sectors trained substantially more young people and employed many more trained workers than their counterparts in the west (see Figure 4 and the detailed analysis of Werner, 1992). On the other hand, training in the commercial sector was underdeveloped.

182

HUBERT ERTL

Faced with the severe competition of western German and international companies and with the resulting economic difficulties, many large companies decreased the number of training places drastically from the training year 1990/91 onwards. The strong emphasis of the GDR economy on industry and agriculture contributed to this trend as these sectors were particularly hard hit by the need for reconstruction. With the discontinuation of training capacities in industry and agriculture, the infrastructure of the whole training system was damaged. Newly set up businesses in the craft and service sector only made up some of the losses in the other sectors. This structural difference between the two Germanies is also reflected in the size of the training companies: in the GDR 37 per cent of all people in work were trained in companies with more than 500 employees, the corresponding figure in the former Federal Republic was only 11 per cent. In the west two-thirds of trainees were trained in companies with fewer than 50 employees, and in the GDR this group of companies accounted for the training of only one quarter of all trainees. As a consequence, trainees in the east were much more likely to be trained in groups than in the west: In the east each training company employed on average 70 trainees at a time (MPI, 1994, pp. 581 f.). Furthermore, the substantially different sizes of the average training company in the east as compared to the west also affected the allocation of roles for the training personnel. In the west, trainers in small and medium-sized companies often only have a few hours per day or even per week to supervise their trainees as training is only one of a number of work tasks. Although there were also many of these part-time trainers (Lehrfacharbeiter / Lehrbeauftragte) in the former GDR, they always had a superior, full-time trainer (Lehrmeister) for whom training issues represented the sole responsibility. These full-time trainers created the framework for the training process and assisted the part-time trainers (Neubert, 1999). Utilising the potential benefits offered by EU programmes was certainly more difficult for these smaller enterprises as compared with larger companies. Whereas in the larger companies there are whole departments or at least several trainers devoting all their working hours to the training process, in smaller companies the responsibility for training lies mainly with members of staff for whom the training process is only a parttime task. In these circumstances applications for EU programmes are often prevented by lack of time. In cases of successful applications of small and medium-sized companies the time pressure and the lack of experience of the training staff led to uncertainties particularly in the preparation and the first steps of the programme implementation (Jordan, 1992, pp. 516ff.). Increased financial assistance and more opportunities for the exchange of experiences would have been necessary to open the potential benefits of EU programmes to the newly-established small enterprises of the eastern Länder, a lesson also valid for comparable companies outside Germany.


183

The conceptual problems of EU programmes With unification the eastern Länder were faced with a complex framework of EU programmes in the field of education and training. This framework has developed since the mid-1980s as a consequence of political decision-making processes of the EU Member States and the bodies of the Union, most importantly of the European Commission. The framework was created as an answer to education and qualification questions of western Europe and as a means to contribute to the convergence of the education and training provision of established Member States. In the field of vocational education and training the aim was primarily to create a system of high quality training in all Member States and a structure for the mutual recognition of vocational qualifications. The same framework of programmes was used to ease the transition process in the former GDR. Therefore, questions about the conceptual appropriateness of the overall framework and of individual programmes for the east German context seem to be more justified (Manning, 1994b, p. 135). On a more practical level it has been argued that the multitude of programmes is difficult to co-ordinate and to administer (Manning, 1994b, pp. 144f.). Whereas the other Member States could develop appropriate mechanisms and structures for these tasks step by step, the eastern Länder were faced with the task very suddenly. Moreover, they had to create institutions for the implementation of the programmes when the whole institutional landscape was under reconstruction. In these conditions organisational problems were inevitable in the years immediately after unification. Attempts were made to come to terms with these conceptual problems by promoting the European dimension via regional centres in eastern Germany which then co-operated directly with individual institutions. With this mechanism it was hoped to distribute the available financial resources equally among the five eastern Länder and to take into account the specific regional problems (Jordan, 1992, pp. 506f.). The experience with this mechanism could form a useful basis for the introduction of EU programmes in the new Member States in central and eastern Europe, which will also face the task of establishing the administrative and institutional structures necessary for the implementation of EU programmes. 4. CONCLUSIONS European Union programmes have certainly influenced the transition of vocational education and training in the eastern Länder of Germany. The financial resources provided in the period immediately after unification were used for a wide variety of projects and initiatives. The participation rates in programmes reached west German levels in most areas and the patterns of participation quickly became very similar to those in the western Länder (Kehr et al., 1996. pp. 135f.). The problems faced resembled

184

HUBERT ERTL

to a certain degree the difficulties of the first implementations of the programmes in the other Member States.33 Undoubtedly, however, the difficulties of the institutional and political reform process constrained the potential benefits of the supportive measures of the EU. The far-reaching structural reforms in the years after unification made it difficult to implement responsive information and advice networks. The confusing mass of EU material and sources developed for the established Member States did not help in the specific eastern German situation (Jordan, 1992, p. 519). Information responsive to the transition process was only developed slowly. The relatively low participation rates in EU training programmes in the years immediately after unification (as compared to the corresponding rates in higher education, which show a rapid levelling of east and west German rates) prove that the Commission policy of ‘positive discrimination’ in favour of regions and target groups particularly worthy of support has to be supplemented by specific information in the established Member States promoting the incorporation of new partners. In the envisaged enlargement of the European Union towards the east this double strategy could be particularly important. However, experience with the part of Petra II which deals with exchange schemes shows that it is not sufficient to implement programmes at an institutional level. Obstacles at an individual level can still adversely affect participation. There was certainly a lack of responsiveness of the EU support towards the needs of training and education institutions in the immediate transformation process. This can be explained by the aforementioned discrepancy between the aims of the transition processes initiated by Germany on the one hand and by the European Union on the other. Whereas the EU programmes mainly targeted the development of training provision in line with the European integration process and aimed at the creation of cooperation and partnerships between eastern German institutions and their EU counterparts, the eastern Länder needed support in improving financial resources and addressing the serious problem of the lack of training staff (Manning, 1993, p. 63). The EU measures were limited by the boundaries set by the overall unification process. For the training market it can be concluded that the specific model of dual training structures transferred from the west to the east of Germany in the process of unification has not been consolidated. The EU programmes have added a European dimension to this overall process but had neither the scope nor the potential to influence its general direction. The growing shortage of training places (see Table 1) and the dependence on state-subsidised school-based training capacities demonstrate that the supply side of the training market has not yet recovered from the shocks of the transition 33 For instance, the implementation of Lingua and Erasmus in the eastern Länder in 1991 resembled the patterns observed at the start of the programmes in West Germany in 1987: Erasmus was dominated by language exchanges and the most popular host country for Lingua was Great Britain. These preferences weakened a few years after implementation. In the eastern Länder, the programmes showed similar patterns of development in the first years after implementation (cf. (Kehr et al., 1996, pp. 130f.).


185

process. Culpepper (1999, p. 51) has termed the situation of the eastern German training market a ‘subsidized disequilibrium’. The opportunities opened up by EU programmes have certainly contributed to the attractiveness of the dual system in eastern Germany after unification (Jordan, 1996, p. 112). The crisis on the supply side can be explained by the inevitable problems caused by the enormous task of transforming a whole economy from a centrally planned to a market-oriented system. EU structural funds aimed to enhance the development of a market-oriented economy in eastern Germany; however, the economic support had similar limitations to those related to assistance in education and training. Owing to the prolonged economic depression in the eastern Länder the early hopes that the market forces would soon ease the tensions in the training market and that the relatively stable conditions of the western Länder would be soon achieved were not fulfilled (Werner, 1992, pp. 231f.). The restoration of a system that had been highly criticised and subject to reform attempts in the west could not solve the problems caused by the unique situation in the east. The transfer of west German administrative structures for EU programmes into the eastern Länder follows the same rationale and is therefore open to the same criticisms. Ignoring forty years of development in the training sector in the former GDR – irrespective of whether or not one approves of these developments - seems to represent a lost chance to create solutions responsive to the circumstances in the eastern Länder. Instead, the problems of the training sector in the west were exported to the east (Wordelmann, 1992, p. 27); and in the same way the problems of implementing the EU programmes were exported. The fact that the relevant evaluations showed that the first wave of EU-financed projects were faced with the same initial problems as the first projects in the west several years before leads to the conclusion that implementation procedures for EU programmes such as Petra II were not flexible enough (Jordan, 1996, p. 109). The envisaged transfer of the dual system, the centrepiece of the German ‘high skills model’ (Green, 2001), to the eastern Länder by the inclusion of institutions and individuals in EU-funded programmes and projects was therefore only partly successful.

186

HUBERT ERTL

References Anweiler, Oskar (1991): ‘Die Herstellung der Einheit Deutschlands und das Bildungswesen in den neuen Bundesländern. Dokumentation’, in: Bildung und Erziehung, Vol. 1, pp. 101-120. Arnold, Rolf (1993): ‘Das duale System’, in: Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 2027. Barnard, Catherine (1992): ‘The Maastricht Agreement and Education: One step forward and two steps back’, in: Education and the Law, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 123-34. Barnard, Catherine (1995): ‘The Treaty on European Union, Education and Vocational Training’, in: Phillips (1995a), pp. 13-28. BIBB (Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung) (ed.) (1992a): Neue Länder – neue Berufsausbildung?: Prozess, Probleme und Perspektiven des Übergangs der Berufsausbildung in den neuen Bundesländern; ein Reader mit Beiträgen aus Forschung, Wissenschaft und Praxis (Berlin: BIBB). BIBB (ed.) (1992b): Magazin für Petra in Deutschland (Berlin: BIBB). BIBB (ed.) (1998a): Leonardo da Vinci Kompendium 1997. Pilotprojekte, Multiplikatorprojekte, Erhebungen & Analysen (Berlin: BIBB). BMBF (Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie) (ed.) (1992): Berufsbildungsbericht 1992 (Bonn: BMBF). BMBF (ed.) (1995): Die neuen Länder: dynamische Wissenschaftsregion und Werkstatt der Innovation. Erfolge beim Aufbau Ost – eine Zwischenbilanz des BMBF (Bonn: BMBF). BMBF (ed.) (1996): Förderung europäischer Berufsbildung in Deutschland durch das Petra-Programme. Ergebnisse der Wissenschaftlichen Begleitung zu Petra-Pilotprojekten (Bonn: BMBF). BMBF (ed.): (1997c): Ausbilden im Verbund. Tips und Anregungen für kleine und mittlere Betriebe (Bonn: BMBF). BMBF (ed.) (1998a): Berufsbildungsbericht 1998 (Bonn: BMBF). BMBF (ed.) (1999a): Berufsbildungsbericht 1999 (Bonn: BMBF). BMBF (ed.) (2000a): Berufsbildungsbericht 2000 (Bonn: BMBF). BMBF (ed.) (2001): Berufsbildungsbericht 2001 (Bonn: BMBF). BMBW (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Wissenschaft) (ed.) (1991): Die EG und die neuen Länder – Perspektiven der bildungspolitischen Zusammenarbeit. Dokumentation der Sondersitzung des EGBildungsausschusses am 22./23. November 1990 in Berlin und Potsdam (Bonn: BMBW). BMBW (ed.) (1992): ‘EG-Bildungsprogramme im Osten gut angelaufen’, in: Informationen Bildung Wissenschaft, Vol. 4. Bulmahn, Edelgard (1999): ‘Interview’, in: Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis, Vol. 28, No. 1, 1999, pp. 3-6. Burkhardt, Dieter & Kielwein, Kurt (1992): ‘Entwicklung überbetrieblicher Berufsbildungsstätten in den neuen Bundesländern’, in: Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 15-22. Culpepper, Pepper D. (1999): ‘The Future of the High-Skill Equilibrium in Germany’, in: Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 43-59. CYRCE (Circle for Youth Research Cooperation in Europe) (ed.) (1995): The Puzzle of Integration. Series: European Yearbook on Youth Policy and Research, Vol. 1/1995 (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter), Damm-Rüger, Sigrid (1994): Ausbildung und Berufssituation von Frauen und Männern in Ost und West: Ergebnisse aus der BIBB/IAB-Erhebung 1991/92 (edited by the BIBB) (Bielefeld: Bertelsmann). Degen, Ulrich (ed.) (1993): Ausbildungsgestaltung in den neuen Bundesländern. Materialien und Diskussionsbeiträge eines Workshops (Berlin: BIBB). Degen, Ulrich / Neubert, R. / Wordelmann, Peter (1990): Betriebliche Ausbildungsgestaltung in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland – ausgewählte Aspekte zum Vergleich der Ausbildungsqualität, Wiss. Diskussionspapier Nr. 2 (Berlin: BIBB).


187

Ertl, Hubert (2000d): ‘Vocational Education and Training in Eastern Germany: Some Reasons and Explanations for Current Problems’, in: Phillips (2000), pp. 125-151. Funnell, Peter & Müller, Dave (eds.) (1991): Vocational Education and the Challenge of Europe. Responding to the Implications of the Single European Market. Series: New Developments in Vocational Education (London: Kogan Page). Green, Andy (with Akiko Sakamoto) (2001): ‘Models of High Skills in National Competition Strategies’; in: Brown, Phillip / Green, Andy / Lauder, Hugh (eds.) (2001): High Skills. Globalization, Competitiveness and Skill Formation (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 56-160. Hantrais, Linda (1995): Social Policy in the European Union (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan). Hochbaum, Ingo (1989): ‘Das ERASMUS-Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs’, in: Mitteilungen des deutschen Hochschulverbandes, Vol. 4, 1989, pp. 156-189. Holldack, Egon / Manning, Sabine / Thomas, Rudolf (1996): ‘Konzeptionelle Positionen’, in: WIFO (1996), pp. 3-13. Hörner, Wolfgang (1996): ‘Das deutsche Bildungswesen zwischen Ost und West’, in: Geissler, Erich & Huber, Sylvia (1996): Pädagogik im sich einigenden Europa (Frankfurt a.M., etc.: Lang), pp. 49-57. Jordan, Sigrid (1992): ‘Bildungsprogramme der Europäischen Gemeinschaft und die neuen Bundesländer’, in: BIBB (1992a), pp. 503-519. Jordan, Sigrid (1996): ‘Das EU-Förderprogramm Petra in Deutschland in seiner Wirkung auf das nationale Berufsausbildungssystem’, in: WIFO (ed.) (1996), pp. 99-121. Kehr, Wolfgang / Manning, Sabine / Thomas, Rudolf (1995): ‘Die Beteiligung ostdeutscher Hochschulen an Erasmus – Erkenntnisse aus einer Begleituntersuchung’, in: Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, Vol. 3, pp. 235-256. Kehr, Wolfgang / Manning, Sabine / Thomas, Rudolf (1996): ‘Erasmus an ostdeutschen Hochschulen – Erkenntnisse über die Wechselwirkung von EU-Förderung und Umgestaltung’, in: WIFO (ed.) (1996), pp. 122-137. Kirby, Simon & Lamb, Muriel (1997): Travelling, Studying, Working and Living within the European Union. Factsheet (London: Representation of the European Commission in the United Kingdom). Kodron, Christoph et al. (1997): Vergleichende Erziehungswissenschaft: Herausforderung, Vermittlung, Praxis. Festschrift für Wolfgang Milter zum 70. Geburtstag (Köln: Böhlau Verlag). Lonbay, Julian (1989):‘Education and Law: The Community Context’, in: European Law Review, December 1989, pp. 363-387. Manning, Sabine (1992):‘EG-Förderprogramme für Bildung und Beschäftigung im Überblick’, in: BIBB (1992a), pp. 495-502. Manning, Sabine (1993): ‘Die Rolle der EG-Bildungsprogramme in den neuen Bundesländern’, in: Bildung und Erziehung, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 61-72. Manning, Sabine (1994b): ‘Bildungsprogramme der EG in den neuen Bundesländern’, in: Schleicher & Bos (1994), pp. 137-150. Mönikes, Wolfgang / Faber, Klaus / Gieseke, Ludwig (1997): Gemeinschaftsaufgaben von Bund und Ländern im Hochschulbereich. Rechtliche Texte mil Einführungen und Hinweisen. Series: Hochschulrecht des Bundes, Vol. 7 (Bad Honnef: K. H. Bock). Moschonas, Andreas (1998): Education and Training in the European Union (Aldershot: Ashgate). MPI (Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung – Arbeitsgruppe Bildungsbericht) (1994): Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Strukturen und Entwicklungen im Überblick (Reinbeck: Rowohlt). Müller-Solger, Hermann / Czysz, Armin / Leonhard, Petra / Pfaff, Ulrich (1993): Bildung und Europa: Die EG-Fördermaßnahmen (Bonn: Economica Verlag). Neubert, Renate (1999): ‘Ausbildende Fachkräfte in Ostdeutschland’, in: Schmidt-Hackenberg, Brigitte (1999): Ausbildende Fachkräfte – die unbekannten Mitarbeiter (Berlin and Bonn: Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung), pp. 95-107. Phillips, David (1992): ‘Transitions and Traditions: educational developments in the New Germany in their historical context,’ in Phillips, David & Kaser, Michael (1992): Education and Economic Change in

188

HUBERT ERTL

Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Series: Oxford Studies in Comparative Education Vol. 2, No. 1, (Wallingford: Triangle), pp. 121-136. Phillips, David (ed.) (1995a): Aspects of Education and the European Union, Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Wallingford: Triangle). Phillips, David (ed.) (2000): Education in Germany After Unification. Series: Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Wallingford: Triangle). Piehl, Ernst & Sellin, Burkhart (1995): ‘Initial and Continuing Vocational Training in Europe’, in: CYRCE (1995), pp. 197-215. Preston, Jill (1991): EC Education Training and Research Programmes. An Action Guide (London: Kogan Page). Rudden, Bernard & Wyatt, Derrick (eds.) (1994): Basic Community Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Schleicher, Klaus & Bos, Wilfried (eds.) (1994): Realisierung der Bildung in Europa. Europäisches Bewußtsein trotz kultureller Identität? (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). Schober, Karen (1991): ‘Umfang und Struktur der Ausbildungsnachfrage im Mai 1991. Erste Ergebnisse der Zusatzerhebung zum Arbeitsmarkt-Monitor in den neuen Bundesländern vom Mai 1991’, in: Enderle, Jovita / Rosenbladt, von Bernhard / Schober, Karen (1991): Ausbildung in den neuen Bundesländern. Series: Beiträge zur Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung, BeitrAB 154.1, (Nürnberg: Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung der Bundesanstalt für Arbeit), pp. 9-55. Schober, Karen (1993): ‘Jugend, Ausbildung und Arbeit in den neuen Bundesländern. Ausgewählte Ergebnisse der 3. Erhebungswelle des Arbeitsmarkt-Monitors, Zusatzerhebung Ausbildung vom Mai 1992’, in: Bärbl Kohler & Schober, Karen (1993): Ausbildung in den neuen Bundesländern. Series: Beiträge zur Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung, BeitrAB 154.3, (Nürnberg: Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung der Bundesanstalt für Arbeit), pp. 7-45. Schöngen, Klaus & Tuschke, Heidrun (1999): ‘Nach der Ausbildung fehlt die Arbeit. Beschäftigungssituation und Berufsverlauf von Ausbildungsabsolventinnen und -absolventen aus den neuen Bundesländern’, in: Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 12-16. Sloane, Peter F. E. (1997b): ‘Alte Theorie – neue Praxis – neue Theorie? "Innenansichten" von Berufsschullehrern und Ausbildern’, in: Kell, Adolf & Olbertz, Jan-Hendrik (1997): Vom Wünschbaren zum Machbaren. Erziehungswissenschaft in den neuen Bundesländern (Weinheim: Beltz), pp. 351 -372. Strohmeier, Rudolf (1994): ‘Der bildungspolitische Entscheidungsprozeß auf der EG-Ebene’, in: Schleicher, Klaus & Bos, Wilfried (eds.) (1994): Bildung in Europa: Europäisches Bewußtsein trotz kultureller Identität? (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft), pp. 46-62. Ulrich, J. G. & Westhoff, G. (1994): ‘Die Ausbildung absolviert, den Umbruch auch?’, in: Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 16-21. Uthmann, Karl-Josef (1991): ‘Vocational Education and Training in Germany after Unification’, in: European Journal of Education, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 5-12. Waterkamp, Dietmar (1985): Das Einheitsprinzip im Bildungswesen der DDR. Eine historischsystemtheoretische Untersuchung. Bildung und Erziehung, Beiheft 3 (Köln and Wien: Böhlau). Waterkamp, Dietmar (1987): Handbuch zum Bildungswesen der DDR (Berlin: Arno Spitz). Waterkamp, Dietmar (2002): Strengths and Weaknesses of the Apprenticeship System in Central European States (paper given at the Comparative and International Education Society Annual Meeting in Orlando, Florida, March 2002). Weissflog, Ingrid (1992): ‘Ostdeutsche Berufsausbildung im Übergangsprozeß – Probleme, Standpunkte und Lösungsansätze zu ausgewählten Sachfragen’, in: BIBB (1992a), pp. 105-119. Werner, Rudolf (1992): ‘Struktur der Ausbildungsberufe vor und nach der Wende’, in: BIBB (1992a), pp. 215-232. WIFO (Wissenschaftsforum Bildung und Gesellschaft e.V.) (ed.) (1996): Bildung im Wandel zwischen Ostdeutschland und Westeuropa. Erkenntnisse aus Forschungsprojekten (Berlin: WIFO). Wilson, David N. (1997): ‘The German Dual System of Vocational Education and Training: A Comparative Study of Influence upon Educational Policy in Other Countries’, in: Kodron et al. (1997), pp. 437-447. Wordelmann, Peter (1992): ‘Zwischenbilanz des Übergangs der Berufsausbildung in den neuen Bundesländern’, in: BIBB (1992a), pp. 11-28.

BETTINA DAHL

THE IMPACT OF EU EDUCATION AND TRAINING POLICIES IN SWEDEN 1. INTRODUCTION

This paper will examine what has happened in Swedish education policy and education practice since Sweden joined the EU in 1995. It will discuss Swedish EU educational policy, and the effects of EU education policy on national education policy in terms of, for instance, the curricula and syllabuses, and the influence at local level on policy and practice. This will include a description and a discussion of how Sweden administrates EU education and training programmes, particularly SOCRATES and LEONARDO. 2. SWEDISH EU EDUCATION POLICY

Traditionally Sweden has emphasized the fact that education is a national matter. There was for example an intensive debate in Sweden in 1996 about the Commission’s White Paper “Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society” of 1995 (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1996c). In response, the Swedish Ministry of Education and Science published a Green Paper in 1996 (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1996a) and agreed here in principle with most of the five general objectives in the White Paper, but found that the ways suggested to achieve these aims were too bureaucratic. Furthermore it was stressed that education policy is and should always remain to a great extent a national concern, but the response stated that in the areas of adult education and vocational training, as well as in multicultural education, European co-operation was important. The Commission’s Green Paper “Education, training, research: The obstacles to transnational mobility” (1996) stated that there were still many obstacles to the freedom of movement, and a number of courses of action were mentioned (EU-Bulletin, Supplement 5/96). In Sweden free mobility is considered to be of great importance and various steps have been taken to facilitate mobility for Swedish students and researchers. The general view is that it is not necessary to harmonize legislation and examinations, but the Member States should recognise each others’ qualifying examinations (Salin & Waterman, 2000, p. 347). The EU, particularly since the Maastricht Treaty (1992), has acquired specified responsibilities for education and training policy, and stills continue to develop it. Taking this into account, Sweden now tries to give EU education policy a Swedish 189 David Phillips & Hubert Ertl (eds.), Implementing European Union Education and Training Policy: A Comparative Study of Issues in Four Member States, 189—212. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

190

BETTINA DAHL

(Nordic) shape (see Dahl, in this present volume). This was seen during Sweden’s presidency of the EU in the first half of 2001. 2.1 The Swedish EU presidency 2001

This section will discuss and describe some of the major decisions in education within the Swedish EU presidency. A particular focus will be the Stockholm Summit held on March 23-24, 2001, where education was at the top of the agenda. The period following the Summit will also be considered. 2.1.1 The EU Summit in Stockholm 2001

Leading up to the Stockholm Summit, the European Commission agreed on 28 February 2001 on a strategy to build a new European Labour market by 2005. The strategy is backed by a policy approach to remove barriers to mobility and to raise the skill levels of the European workforce. Lifelong learning is seen as the key to solve gaps and mismatches in the labour markets. Education and training are therefore at the top of the EU agenda, and the EU aims at becoming the world’s most knowledge-based economy within ten years. The aim is to ensure sustained economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.1 The EU ministers of education and research have also discussed how interest among young people in the natural sciences and technology can be stimulated and how the recruitment to education and research in these areas can be increased. The demand for competence and skills at all levels is predicted to continue to grow as a result of very rapid technological and economic development. It was furthermore stressed that ways to stimulate recruitment must comprise a general renewal of pedagogy and good links to working life and industry through the whole educational system (Press release, 2 March 2001, Education and Youth Affairs).2 At the EU Summit in Lisbon in March 2000, it was agreed that one of the most important ingredients of a dynamic and knowledge-based economy is full employment. This was also one of Sweden’s main priorities during her Presidency, and it was the main topic of discussion at the EU Stockholm Summit. There is no EU legislation on these issues, and the practice has been rather to compare the results of the individual Member States and for them to learn from each other.3 This is therefore in line with Swedish ‘defensive’ EU interests, namely that the principle of subsidiarity should apply to the education area. The European leaders reviewed progress since Lisbon when they met in Stockholm. In Lisbon, a new method of coordination was agreed between the Member States, and this agreement addressed factors such as employment, economic reforms, social cohesion, research, and 1

http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/top_agend a.html

2

http://www.eu2001.se/eu2001/news/news_read.asp?iInformationID=12545

3

http://www.eu2001.se/static/eng/Stockholm_summit/ommotet_socialafragor.asp

THE IMPACT OF EU EDUCATION AND TRAINING POLICIES IN SWEDEN

191

innovation. The method agreed on set common targets and deadlines. It emphasized comparisons of national situations and the exchange of experience. However, it was also agreed that what will matter more than just a flow of information is to create knowledge through research, to share knowledge through education and training, and to apply knowledge through innovation. The aims of the education policy are to boost mobility of students, teachers, trainers, and apprentices, and to develop a better and more transparent approach to the recognition of diplomas, qualifications, skills, and know-how acquired from experience. The take-up of e-learning in Europe is now being actively promoted. It is also emphasised that the education systems are closely related to the national cultures and identities and therefore reflect the diversity of the Member States. The education ministers want to preserve diversity in Europe, but the various countries are facing similar challenges at a time of rapid change.4 Sweden agrees with that; talk about greater social cohesion sounds good to Swedish Social Democratic ears. Furthermore, the challenges from the rapid changes globally also affect Sweden. The EU approach here is, however, not supranational, and this is in line with the Swedish view. The conclusions from the Stockholm Summit in the area of education, training and skills were: (10) Improving basic skills, particularly IT and digital skills, is a top priority to make the Union the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world. This priority includes education policies and lifelong learning as well as overcoming the present shortfall in the recruitment of scientific and technical staff. A knowledge-based economy necessitates a strong general education in order to further support labour mobility and lifelong learning (11) The Council and the Commission will present a report to the Spring European Council in 2002 containing a detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems, including an assessment of their achievement in the framework of the open method of coordination and in a worldwide perspective; special attention must be given to ways and means of encouraging young people, especially women, in scientific and technical studies as well as ensuring the long-term recruitment of qualified teachers in these fields.5

The Summit has thus created a basis for how to transform the EU into the most competitive region in the world.6 To raise competitive power and improve the economy, etc., is not against Swedish interests; it is only novel that it is now being discussed within the education framework of the EU. 2.1.2 Some implications of the Stockholm Summit

The Council of Education and Youth held on 28 May 2001 a debate on the implications for the education and training sector of the conclusions of the 4

http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/top_agenda.html

5

http://www.eu2001.se/static/pdf/conclusions/conclusions_eng.PDF

6


192

BETTINA DAHL

Stockholm Summit. One conclusion was to promote further development of cooperation and the exchange of good practice between Member States (point 3). It was further agreed to produce a draft work programme which was to be discussed by the Council on 29 November 2001 (point 4). It was also emphasised that the work programme should aim at strong general education in order to strengthen lifelong learning in accordance with a permanently evolving society (point 5). It was agreed too that the work should start in the areas of Basic Skills, Information and Communications Technology (ICT), and Mathematics, Science and Technology (point 6).7 The Education Ministers also welcomed a recommendation on mobility for students and teachers, and they adopted a resolution on eLearning based on a presentation of the Commission’s “eLearning Action Plan”. The resolution was inter alia influenced by the Swedish initiative on IT in schools, the “ITiS-project” (Press release, 28 May 2001).8 Furthermore, the EU Ministers for Youth Affairs decided unanimously to adopt a Swedish Presidency proposal for a declaration on the fight against racism and xenophobia on the Internet. The declaration emphasised the important role of schools in increasing young people’s knowledge of racism and xenophobia and the possibility for young people to critically scrutinise such material on the Internet (Press release, 28 May 2001).9 The latter fits with the Swedish view of the school as having an important role in education in democracy: something that so far has not been stressed in EU education policy. Quality assurance and participation of students was a focus for the education ministers at a meeting in Prague on 19 May 2001. Education Ministers from 32 European countries agreed on a number of goals and measures to help achieve the aims of the Bologna process.10 The Education Ministers stressed that in a knowledge-based society and economy, strategies for lifelong learning are necessary both to increase competitiveness and to improve social cohesion, equal opportunities, and the quality of life. The ministers asserted that building a European Higher Education Area is a condition for enhancing the attractiveness and competitiveness of higher education institutions in Europe. In addition the ministers stated the necessity of increasing the development of modules, courses and curricula at all levels with a European dimension. This concerns particularly modules, courses 7


8

http://www.eu2001.se/eu2001 /news/news_read.asp?iInformationID=15282

9


10 The Bologna Declaration on the European space of higher education was signed on 19 June 1999 by the education ministers from 29 European countries. Besides the EU countries, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Norway, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, and the Swiss Confereration signed it. It is a commitment freely taken by each country to reform its own educational system in order to create overall convergence at European level. It is about the development of a Europe of knowledge, and the education of individuals who feel related to Europe as a common social and cultural area, increase in student, teacher and researcher mobility, and professionalism of higher education. In a meeting in Prague on 19 May 2001 three more countries signed the document: Croatia, Cyprus, and Turkey. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/bologna_en.html.


193

and degree syllabuses offered in partnership by institutions from different European countries and leading to a recognised European Joint Degree (Press release, 19 May 2001).11

A rather similar way of arguing is seen within Sweden. Owing to a high level of unemployment in Sweden, the government initiated a considerable extension of the adult education sector during the Five-year Plan for 1997-2001. The argument was that the rapid changes in society and working life and the development towards an increasingly knowledge-intensive society make it important to ensure that the adult population has a broad knowledge base. This investment in the adult education programme might furthermore show how Sweden, within the EU, wants to use education to reduce unemployment and to create economic growth (Salin & Waterman, 2000, p. 362). In this area there is therefore a similarity between the Swedish and the EU emphasis on using educational means to reduce unemployment and create economic growth, raising the level of adult education and the recruitment to the natural sciences, ICT skills, etc. This, together with the Bologna process signed by 17 countries outside the EU, shows that these actions seem to be the “obvious” general response to common problems and challenges. The notions of lifelong learning, internationalisation, changes in working life, and the consequences of new technologies existed in Sweden long before they came on to the EU agenda: a possible effect of Swedish influence in the EU, or simply the only response to a common challenge? 3. IMPLICATIONS FOR SWEDISH NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY

This section will examine reforms in the Swedish school system since the 1980s. It will focus on the change of structure, the values and the goals, and will investigate the role of the European dimension and the EU in curricula and syllabuses, as well as effects on practice. 3.1 Reforms in the Swedish school system in the 1980s and 1990s

First I will look at the change in the overall structure of the school system, then at the values and goals underpinning the curricula and syllabuses. 3.1.1 Change of structure

The Swedish school system in the 1980s was deregulated and decentralised. Sweden began to use goal-setting and the monitoring of outcomes as planning tools. The government and parliament set up the aims for the schools and then monitor and evaluate the results of the teaching. There are three administrative levels in Sweden: the slate, the county, and the municipality. The County Councils are responsible for 11 http://www.eu2001.se/eu2001/news/news_read.asp?iInformationID=15096 & http://www.eu2001.se/eu2001/news/news_read.asp?iInformationID=15094

194

BETTINA DAHL

the training of nurses and for upper secondary education in agriculture, forestry, horticulture, some care occupations, and the folk high schools. Municipalities are responsible for education at all other levels except university. The compulsory school (grundskolan) for pupils aged 7-16, the upper secondary school (gymnasieskolan) for pupils from 16-19, and adult education (vuxenutbildningen) received a new curriculum, course plan, and assessment system in 1994. Municipalities have the full responsibility to carry out the teaching with help from the National Agency for Education (Skolverket) that was set up in 1991. They have also complete responsibility for employing school personnel, headteachers, teachers, directors of studies, and vocational guidance officers, and for their terms of employment and salary levels. The state only regulates the qualification requirements. Teachers have considerable freedom to decide both the content of their teaching and the methods. The goals are stated in the curricula of 1994, which is a document of only 37 pages for the entire Swedish school system. Each school has its own local work plan drawn up by the school staff and approved by the headteachers (Salin & Waterman, 2000, pp. 344-356). The syllabus of the compulsory school sets out the goals of education but not the methods of teaching. It states the minimum ‘goals to attain’ that all in the school have to reach, as well as the general direction of additional ambitions, the so-called ‘goals to strive for’ (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1996b, p. 5). The state also lays down the minimum guaranteed teaching hours. There is now greater emphasis (compared to previously) on basic skills, languages, pupil options, and school options (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1996b, p. 6). International agreements are only mentioned once in the information material about the new curriculum for the compulsory school; in two lines on page 11 (of 26): “The international declaration and agreements that Sweden has undertaken to observe in the field of education also apply in the school” (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1996b, p. 11). The gymnasieskola offers theoretical education, as a preparation for higher education, and vocational education, as a preparation for working life. It is not compulsory, but about 98% of the pupil population attend (Salin & Waterman, 2000, p. 358). Language education is extensive, all pupils have to study English, and many pupils, including those in vocational programmes, choose another foreign language (Salin & Waterman, 2000, p. 360). Swedish is only understood by about 20 million people in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden), and so to be able to make contact with other countries, English was introduced in the compulsory school as early as the 1940s. A relatively large number of pupils who are enrolled in vocational programmes in the upper secondary school now study a second foreign language (Salin & Waterman, 2000, pp. 370-371). Sweden here “agrees” with the EU’s strong emphasis on language education; however, it does so independently of the EU since this has been Swedish policy since the 1940s. In a separate curriculum for the pre-school from 1998 (Lpfo98, see Swedish Ministry of Education, 1998) it is stated that the purpose of the pre-school is to develop the child’s ability to function and act socially responsibly, and to make sure that solidarity and tolerance are learnt at an early stage, and to counteract traditional sex roles. This is also stated in the curriculum for the school in general.


195

The government states that the Swedish economy and labour market have been through a difficult period, with deep economic depression and at the same time the surrounding world has changed dramatically. Both society and working life are changing with ever-increasing speed. The body of knowledge grows and new technology is introduced more frequently than before. This means that an increasingly large number of jobs require a university education and lifelong learning is today a condition for the development of society and working life (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1997b, pp. 5-7). Therefore the university college needs to educate more students (from 300,000 to 360,000 places between 1997 and 2000) and researchers, as well as to break the strong male dominance within research. In 1997, 92% of all of the professors in Sweden were male, and an increase in the share of women among the highest level researchers is assumed to influence the levels below (ibid. p. 19). There has been a great effort to raise the level of interest in the natural sciences and technology among young people. New, more problem-based pedagogy has resulted in more women embarking on education in these fields (ibid. pp. 21-22). There must also be increased recruitment of pupils from a working-class background and among immigrants. A development of the university colleges is of national interest and is seen as a condition for the development of the whole country (ibid. p. 13). 3.1.2 Values and goals

On 1 July 1995 the new curricula came into force for the compulsory and noncompulsory school. The so-called Lpo94 is the curriculum for the whole compulsory school system, i.e. the compulsory school, the Sami school, the school for pupils with impaired hearing/vision and physical disabilities, and the school for the mentally handicapped (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1996b, p. 1). This is the first time these different types of compulsory school have a single curriculum with the same goals, and the same basic values (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1996b, p. 2). Internationalisation is stated as one of the overarching goals for the school: The internationalisation of the Swedish society and increasing cross-border mobility, place great demands on people’s ability to live together and appreciate the values that are to be found in cultural diversity. Awareness of one’s own cultural origins and sharing a common cultural heritage provides a secure identity which it is important to develop, together with the ability to empathise with the values and conditions of others. (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1994a, p. 5)

The school is therefore to represent and impart the values of the inviolability of human life, individual freedom and integrity, the equal value of all people, equality between women and men, and solidarity with the weak and vulnerable. It is argued that together with Christian and Western humanistic ethics, this should create a sense of justice, generosity of spirit, tolerance, and responsibility in the pupils. Democratic awareness and social development are seen as being dependent on pupils in the school being given the opportunity to exercise influence and take responsibility. The school and the home must also co-operate as a result of their joint responsibility for pupils’ education. The compulsory school must work toward close co-operation with both the upper secondary school and working life (Swedish

196

BETTINA DAHL

Ministry of Education, 1996b, p. 3). Goals to strive for in the compulsory school are that all pupils: develop a sense of curiosity and the desire to learn, develop their own individual way of learning, strengthen the habit of independently formulating standpoints based not only on knowledge but also on rational and ethical considerations, acquire good knowledge in school subjects and subject areas, develop a rich and varied language and understand the importance of cultivating it, learn to work both independently and together with others, learn to communicate in foreign languages, acquire sufficient knowledge and experience to be able to make wellconsidered choices [about] further education and vocational orientation, learn to use knowledge as a tool in order to formulate and test assumptions as well as solve [on] problems, reflect experience and critically examine and value statements and relationships. (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1996b, p. 17) Goals to attain are: have a mastery of Swedish and [be able to] actively listen and read as well as express ideas and thoughts in the spoken and written language, have a mastery of basic mathematical principles and [be able to] use these in everyday life, know and understand basic concepts and contexts within the natural sciences as well as within technical, social and humanistic areas of knowledge, have developed their ability to express themselves creatively and become more interested in participating in the range of cultural activities that society has to offer, are familiar with central parts of our Swedish, Nordic (including the Samic), and Western cultural heritages, have developed their understanding of other cultures, can communicate in speech and writing in English, know the basis for society’s laws and norms as well as their own rights and obligations in school and society, have knowledge about the interdependence of countries and different parts of the world, know the requirements for a good environment and understand basic ecological contexts, have fundamental knowledge about the requirements for good health and also understand the importance of life-style for health,


197

have knowledge about the media and their role, have deeper knowledge within some individually chosen subject areas. (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1996b, p. 18) The ‘goals to strive at’ are by nature broad, whereas the ‘goals to attain’ include some international elements and reference to cultural heritage and learning about other cultures. The curriculum for the non-compulsory school, Lpf94, applies to the upper secondary school (gymnasieskola), the upper secondary school for the mentally disabled, municipal adult education, the national school for adults, and adult education for the mentally handicapped. The basic values of the school and its tasks are common to the whole of the non-compulsory school system. The fundamental values are to a great extent common to those of the compulsory school system (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1994b, p. 3). Among the main tasks of the noncompulsory school is furthermore that students shall acquire a foundation for lifelong learning (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1994b, p. 8). The non-compulsory school should also seek to develop pupils’ knowledge as a preparation for working life or for study at for instance a university or university college as well as to prepare them for adult life as a member of society and for taking responsibility for their own lives (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1994b, p. 10). 3.2 The role of the EU in the reforms This section will first examine in more detail what the syllabuses stress about the goals of teaching, and here specifically seek evidence of a European dimension. It will also cover policy in practice and the effect the EU might have had here. For a thorough description of the development of the concept of a European dimension in education I shall refer to Ertl (chapter 1 in this present volume). Briefly, the concept was first mentioned in the Janne Report of 1973 (EC-Bulletin, Supplement 10/73) but was formally defined in the Resolution of 6 July 1988 where the intention was to strengthen young people’s sense of European identity as well as their knowledge of the EC and its Member States. Young people should also be made aware of the advantages of the EC as well as the challenges (Official Journal of the European Communities C 177/5-7, 6 July 1988). The European dimension is also mentioned in Article 126 in the Maastricht Treaty, 1992 (renumbered as Article 149 in the Amsterdam Treaty, 1997). Among other aims, it is stated that Community action shall be aimed at: “developing the European Dimension in education, particularly through the teaching and dissemination of the languages of the Member States”. 3.2.1 The curricula and syllabuses The Lpo94 (compulsory) and Lpf94 (non-compulsory) curricula were adopted in 1994, before Sweden joined the EU. In the syllabuses (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1995) for the compulsory school there are two types of targets, the targets ‘to aim at’ define the broad and general direction teaching should take, whereas the ‘attainment targets’ define the minimum knowledge to be attained by

BETTINA DAHL

198

the fifth and ninth year in the school respectively (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 1). For evidence of the impact of EU education policy on national education policy in Sweden, I looked for references to the European dimension or demand for knowledge about the EU in the syllabuses for History, Social Studies, and Geography. History In the History syllabus, Europe is not often mentioned. As one of the general targets to aim for, the teaching should ensure that pupils “gain a broad and sound awareness of historical cultural heritage from a European perspective, starting with the history of Sweden and the Nordic area and knowledge about the historical heritage which people from other countries bring with them” (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 44). Here one can see traces of the European dimension in the talk about cultural heritage from a European perspective, but it is also stressed that it should start from a Swedish-Nordic perspective and be on what people from “other” cultures bring with them. A further ‘target to aim for’ is to “learn about important historical events, figures and periods in Sweden and the Nordic area and other parts of the world”. In the section about the structure and nature of the subject, it is stated: “Special attention should be devoted to Swedish and Nordic culture including Sami culture, which has shaped individual and collective historical identity” (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 44). In the section about a common frame of reference, which is part of the section describing the ‘targets to aim for’, we find: Learning about one’s own history, the history of one’s home district and the fundamentals of Swedish and Nordic history are activities which all pupils should participate in. Pupils should understand significant periods, events and personalities in Swedish and Nordic history up to the present day while looking back and comparing with earlier events. Sagas, legends and songs from the Nordic area can provide knowledge about the ways people lived before. Events in Swedish and Nordic history such as the Viking age, the Middle Ages and Sweden’s time as a great power all belong within a common frame of reference. Teaching must also deal with general history, particularly European including ancient history, and provide a view of other early cultures and some of the important non-European cultures. (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 46)

Here is seen a very strong emphasis on the Nordic identity; there is no mention of a European identity. The common frame of reference for the Swedes is clearly stated as being Swedish and Nordic. On the other hand, as seen above, the curriculum also talks about pupils gaining a broad and sound awareness of historical cultural heritage from a European perspective. The question is then whether this trace of European dimension has been written because of the then possible future EU membership or would it have been there anyway as a result of general internationalisation? As internationalisalion is stated as one of the over-arching goals for the school, this might suggest that it would have been there in any case. One of the targets to have attained by the end of the fifth year is “to know the basic features of ancient Swedish and Nordic history and be able to make comparisons with some other countries” (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 47). And by the end of the ninth year pupils should “be able to describe important


199

events and be familiar with personalities, ideas and changes in Swedish and Nordic historical development and to be able to make comparisons with other countries” (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 48). There seems to be some similarity between being Swedish and being Nordic, while being European is more distant, not a part of the Swedish identity. Europe is not even mentioned, only the vague “other countries”. Thus, there is evidence of a “weak” European dimension in the ‘aims tasks’ of History, but not in the ‘attainment tasks’. This suggests that the European dimension has a low priority. Social Studies The syllabus for Social Studies also does not make much mention of Europe. In general: “The subject should give pupils such deep and broad knowledge that they can reflect over and independently determine their views on not only national, but also international social conditions and questions, and actively take part in the life of society” (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 71). In the section on the structure and nature of the subject, which is part of the section describing the ‘targets to aim for’, it is stated: “Living patterns and social organisations in other countries and cultures are also part of social studies. Conflicts and their resolution, Sweden’s relations with the surrounding world, as well as other international relations, not only legal questions, disarmament, and the work of the UN to prevent armed conflict are also part of the subject” (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 73). The only organisation that is mentioned is the UN, not the EU. However, it is stated that the pupils should have knowledge about international social conditions, where naturally the EU is a part, but the aim is wider than the EU. A target to have attained by the end of the ninth year is to “understand why Sweden is involved internationally, be familiar with the main features of Swedish foreign and defence policy, as well as be oriented to international co-operation and conflict issues” (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 75). This will undoubtedly include a discussion about the EU and therefore provide knowledge about it. However, it does not include giving pupils a sense of European awareness/identity, which is also part of the notion of the European dimension. Geography The syllabus for Geography does not mention the EU or European issues. The subject is mainly about nature in relation to society, maps, landscapes, ecology, distribution of resources, etc. The general introduction states: “The subject should also help to build a foundation for understanding the natural conditions of various regions, and their cultural, social and financial characteristics. In addition geography should promote the pupils’ interest in becoming familiar with different living conditions. This contributes to better understanding and respect for the culture, values and way of life that others have” (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 31).

200

BETTINA DAHL

Lpf94 In the curriculum for the non-compulsory school one of the goals to strive for is that the school shall among other things “assess events from Swedish, Nordic, European and global perspectives” (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1994b, p. 13). In terms of the fundamental values of the curriculum, it is stated that: “The school shall contribute to people developing an identity which can be related to and encompass not just Swedish values but also those that are Nordic, European and global” (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1994b, p. 7). 3.2.2 EU influence on policy? Well, yes and no Salin and Waterman argue in connection with central government documents: “It is probably correct to state that so far Sweden’s membership of the European Union has not had much influence on central government policy for schools” (Salin & Waterman, 2000, p. 345). I would not be a strong supporter of this view. There is evidence of a European dimension in a few places in the curricula and syllabuses. The strongest is seen in the general attainment task for History: to “gain a broad and sound awareness of historical cultural heritage from a European perspective, starting with the history of Sweden and the Nordic area and knowledge about the historical heritage which people from other countries bring with them” (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1995, p. 44). In Lpf94 (p. 13, quoted above) as well as one of the goals to attain in compulsory education, that the pupils be “familiar with central parts of our Swedish, Nordic (including the Samic), and Western cultural heritages” (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1996b, p. 18), there seems to be a recognition of Sweden being culturally a part of Europe. But in other places, where it would have seemed obvious, such as in the attainment tasks for History, the evidence is as good as nonexistent. The statement in the Lpf94 (p. 7, quoted above) seems weak. It mentions everybody’s values, refusing to prioritise, unless the sequence here is a prioritisation in more than a geographical sense. On the other hand, this may be an effect of the general goal of internationalisation. Even though the evidence of a European dimension is not strong, this may only reflect the fact that the concept of a European dimension, even in the EU at that time, was weak, and to some extent still is (Skolverket, 2000, pp. 66-67). It is interesting though that ‘Nordic’ is mentioned here as something specific, something not necessarily a part of a European identity. A Swede is first and foremost Swedish and being Nordic is something that distinguishes Swedish identity. Being European seems mostly to be something to do with geography and not with culture. But, all these curricula and syllabus decisions were made before Sweden became a member of (or voted Yes to join the EU in the referendum in November 1994). Sweden had applied for membership in 1991, the final agreement between the EU and Sweden being reached on 1 March 1994, and according to Miles (1997, pp. 210, 229, 233, 246) the Swedish population was against membership in opinion polls from the autumn of 1992 until the last week before the referendum. Fear of the outcome of the referenda could have put a damper on the government’s wish to refer


201

officially to a European dimension, since one of the fears of the population was, and still is, loss of sovereignty. In that sense, even the negligible reference to a European dimension could reflect a much stronger wish to incorporate EU education policy: as absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Therefore, the task set forth in the beginning of this section, namely to investigate “the role of the EU in the reforms” may have seemed straightforward: read the curricula and syllabuses and see if and how the EU is mentioned and if the ‘European dimension in education’ is part of this. But it is not at all straightforward. There seem to be various interpretations of these documents. Salin and Waterman (2000, p. 345), quoted above, seem clearly to say “No” to the question of EU influence on the curricula and syllabuses. Other interpretations of these documents reveal an even greater breadth of interpretation. For instance, if we look at the report from the National Agency for Education on the European dimension in Swedish schools (Skolverket, 2000), it is stated in a chapter about how the European school co-operation affects the development of the local school that the actual activity in the schools clashes with the visionary goals (in the curricula) to do with the internationalisation of the school and the intentions behind the EU programmes. Furthermore, while talking about the EU programmes, it is stated that even though internationalisation is put into the curriculum as a goal to strive for, in practice it becomes an activity lacking a purpose (Skolverket, 2000, p. 77).12 This is contained in a report evaluating the European dimension in the Swedish school, and it seems that the National Agency for Education interprets the curricular statements about internationalisation as being something which “fits” with the goals of the EU programme that among other things are to strengthen the European dimension. Therefore one could argue that the ‘European dimension in education’ can easily be deduced from statements in the curricula and syllabuses about internationalisation. At least it is mention of internationalisation in the curricula which seems to legitimate the promotion of the European dimension in the Swedish school system through the EU Action Programmes. In conclusion we can say that the European dimension plays some indirect role. 3.2.3 Policy in practice

One can see some signs in Sweden of a practical influence of the EU in education. For instance, certain experimental vocationally orientated courses have been run for students who have completed a three-year upper secondary course. This has followed the EU recommendation to establish closer co-operation between the education system and the world of industry and commerce. Another example is that an argument used in favour of introducing an upper secondary school examination is 12 In Swedish: “Avsnittet om skolutveckling visar på hur den faktiska verksamheten i den pedagogiska praktiken bryts mot de visionära målen om skolans internationalisering och EU-programmens intentioner. Även om internationalisering finns inskrivet i läroplanens målbeskrivningar och då i huvudsak anges som mål att sträva mot så kan det i praktiken bli en verksamhet som säknar ändstation” (Skolverket, 2000, p. 77).

202

BETTINA DAHL

that Sweden is the only country in the EU which does not have a qualifying examination at the end of the upper secondary school. It has also to do with the fact that students often pursue part of their studies at a foreign university, often as part of the ERASMUS programme. European teachers’ organisations have furthermore been united in the European Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE) to influence the EU’s education policy. This work could be assumed to contribute to the internationalisation of education as well as strengthening the European dimension (Salin & Waterman, 2000, p. 372-373). Furthermore Sweden took an active part in the European Year of Lifelong Learning in 1996. More than fifty courses, conferences, and co-operation projects were supported with EU grants and more than a hundred with only Swedish grants (Salin & Waterman, 2000, p. 345). Before Sweden joined the EU in 1995, she became member of the European Economic Area (EEA) which was an agreement signed in 1992, and coming into force in 1994. During the 1970s and 1980s the EC adopted several directives to recognise educational provision areas. This means that the EU puts up minimum requirements to be acknowledged by the Member States. For instance, the education of doctors must take a minimum of six years and that of nurses at least three years. There are also specific requirements in relation to the education of dentists, veterinary surgeons, pharmacists, and midwives. When the EEA Agreement came into force, these requirements also applied to Sweden (Winklerfelt, 1994, p. 97). Other areas seem to have been less influenced. For instance, Swedish universities and university colleges have comprehensive co-operation with neighbouring countries around the Baltic, mainly Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. In 1991-1996 over 1,500 projects were carried out here (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1997b). This has happened in parallel with the existence and development of educational programmes within the EU. The EU programmes seem therefore mainly to be a supplement to the existing policy in Sweden. EU cooperation is not mentioned in the government’s statement of the status of the university colleges (ibid.) before page 39 (of 42). In half a page it is stated that a small, but not unimportant, part of the financing of Swedish research happens through the EU. Sweden participates now with about 1,100 research groups in the fourth framework programme; here 450 projects relate to the university college sector. Again EU policy is simply an extra element of an existing Swedish policy. The EU contribution therefore only quantitatively changes Swedish policy; it does not change it qualitatively. In the Summary of the National Development Plan (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1997a) the EU is not mentioned. It is stated (p. 2) that the quality of education is of national strategic interest, and of vital importance for the growth of the Swedish economy and future welfare. For this reason it is important that Sweden keep in step with developments in the surrounding world. High quality in preschool, school, and adult education is an issue centering on equivalence and equity. It is said (ibid. p. 3) that the Swedish school today does not meet the high ambitions. On the positive side Sweden as a knowledge nation is in a strong position, but there are nevertheless shortcomings. One problem is that there are increasing differences between schools as well as between groups of pupils particularly in reading, natural


203

sciences, and English. A problem that has emerged (ibid. p. 4) concerns the lack of initial knowledge of those beginning their upper secondary education. Many of these Swedish problems are similar to the EU’s concerns stated in the previous section. With or without the EU, Sweden has dealt with the issues involved. The “integration” is therefore not just the result of a wish to improve trade and employment (the so-called “functional spill-over” effect) or the EC/EU actors’, particularly the Commission’s, general political vision (the so-called “political spillover” effect). These visions have (following Beukel’s (1992, pp. 80-88) thoughts of years ago) never been enough to create integration; the critical factors have been the political and economic changes inside and outside Europe, for instance the growing competition from the USA and Japan. The Commission, and others, have been able to use these circumstances, not create them. 4. VARIOUS EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMES

In the 1990s, particularly since the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, the EU became engaged in questions of competency and employment. Various education programmes were initiated with the aim of learning from one another and working together across borders. The International Programme Office for Education and Training (henceforth the Programme Office) is a Swedish national agency supporting schools, universities, companies, organisations, and individuals who wish to take part in international co-operation of various forms. The Programme Office began its activities on 1 July 1995. This central way of administrating the EU programmes is unique for Sweden; the other EU members have chosen a different form of organisation (Programkontoret, 1998, pp. 3 & 5; see also Ertl (chapter 9 in this present volume), for a comparison of Sweden, France, Germany, and the UK). The Programme Office covers activities such as international co-operation projects in education and competence development, placements and studies abroad, and exchange programmes for young people and teachers. The Programme Office is responsible for the two large EU education and training programmes, SOCRATES and LEONARDO, as well as a number of other international and national programmes and activities. The Programme Office also provides advice on what opportunities are available; it processes applications; and it disseminates and publishes the best examples of transnational co-operation. (See for instance Programkontoret, 1996 & Skardeus, 1998). The Programme Office also assists countries in Central and Eastern Europe which have applied for EU membership, to participate in LEONARDO and SOCRATES. The goal of the Programme Office is to contribute to the internationalisation of education through information about and marketing of the programmes, to increase the number of projects and the benefits arising from them, and to function as an organ of co-operation between Sweden and the EU. During 1995-1999 many EU-financed projects began in various places in Sweden and more than 6,000 people participated in exchange and co-operation across borders. The Programme Office was evaluated in 1998 by the Statskontoret (Office of State). The original reasons for having one central Programme Office were: (1) it

204

BETTINA DAHL

was easier for the “customers” if all the programmes were placed in one organisation; (2) a joint Programme Office would provide better opportunities to build up special competencies; (3) joint administration would make it possible with synergy and co-operation between education programmes and programmes aimed at the labour market; (4) there is no natural Swedish authority where it would be obvious to place several of the programmes (Statskontoret, 1998, p. 13). The report concluded that the Programme Office should be maintained, but that it needed some changes as a result of new targets for the EU structure funds, Community initiatives and education programmes. Statskontoret also concluded that the Swedish model has clear advantages through its joint organisation. Furthermore an EU target for future programme periods is, for instance, to achieve a stronger integration of programmes in education and programmes aimed at the labour market. For that purpose the Swedish model is seen by the Commission as well as other countries to be a future possible model (Statskontoret, 1998, p. 7-10). 4.1 The education programmes administered by the Programme Office

The Programme Office is responsible for the projects mentioned below. The projects are financed in different ways, where the EU sometimes pays everything, sometimes a percentage, and sometimes only the travel and living expenses. Some of the projects are not EU projects. Most EU projects require three partners from three different countries, but the partners do not all have to be educational institutions. The information is taken from Programkontoret (1998) and the homepage of the Programme Office.13 SOCRATES

LEONARDO DA VINCI

EU-USA AND EUCANADA

The overall programme for all levels within the education area. There are several programmes within SOCRATES: COMENIUS, ERASMUS, GRUNDTVIG, LINGUA, MINERVA, OBSERVATIONS AND INNOVATION, ARION, JOINT ACTIONS, ACCOMPANYING MEASURES (see Siedersleben & Dahl, in this present volume). The programme for vocational education and competency. It covers the whole field from basic vocational education to further education. A central feature is lifelong learning. A side effect has been that the pupils’ interest in learning foreign languages has risen in the schools that participate in trainee service exchange (Programkontoret, 1998, p. 13). (See Siedersleben & Dahl, in this present volume). Aim at finding methods to improve and develop co-operation within the education area and contribute to understanding between the citizens of the countries concerned. The programmes are aimed at students at universities, for instance through student exchange.

13 http://www.programkontoret.se (almost only in Swedish). See also the EU official homepage http://europa.eu.int.

THE IMPACT OF EU EDUCATION AND TRAINING POLICES IN SWEDEN

205

This is a Nordic Council of Ministers14 programme, to make it possible for pupils between 16 and 19 in high schools and their teachers to spend time in a school in another Nordic country. The purpose is that pupils and teachers personally can get to know the other Nordic countries’ culture and feel connected to the North. A YEAR IN FRANCE, The programmes make it possible for high school pupils in their SPAIN, OR first or second year who study French/Spanish/German as second GERMANY foreign language to study for a year in a French/Spanish/German high school. The Swedish and French/Spanish/German education ministries support the projects. The EU does not finance these three programmes. The purpose it that more people should learn EU languages to promote understanding and a sense of solidarity among the citizens of the EU. The programmes for Germany and Spain have been established since 1997. RESOURCE CENTRE To support instructors in their work of informing about studies and FOR INSTRUCTION trainee service abroad. It also participates in the transnational network of resource centres within the EU. INTER PRACTICE This is a Swedish programme, which gives unemployed people between the ages of 20 and 30 the possibility to participate in a trainee service within a company or an organisation abroad for up to six months. The purpose is to develop the unemployed vocationally, culturally, and personally. IAESTE (International An international exchange programme for students at universities within the areas of natural science and technology. It gives the Association for the opportunity for a trainee to experience service abroad of between Exchange of Students for Technical two and 18 months. IAESTE has 90 Member States and has existed Experience) since 1948. By the end of 1997, over 270,000 trainee places have been arranged, 14,000 for Swedish students. The Programme Office took over the administration of IAESTE in October 1997. In 1999 Sweden had exchanges with 47 countries, 35 of which were outside the EU. The largest number of exchanges is within the EU. ALFA A programme between the EU and Latin America. The programme should contribute to a better understanding between the citizens in these two parts of the world. ALFA focuses on research within medicine, technology, economics, and the social sciences. The Programme Office distributes scholarships to further the SCHOLARSHIPS internationalisation of schools. The scholarships are for all who work within child-care or schools. NORDPLUS-JUNIOR

14

The Nordic Council was founded in 1952 as a forum to strengthen co-operation between the Nordic countries. Delegations from the national parliaments meet on an annual basis to discuss matters of common interest. The Nordic Council can only issue recommendations but usually the countries follow these. It also takes initiatives and controls a number of the joint Nordic projects. The Nordic Council of Ministers was founded in 1971 as an informal co-operation between the governments. It presents suggestions to the Nordic Council and administrates the Nordic Council’s recommendations and the joint Nordic activities (Laursen & Olesen, 1998).

206

BETTINA DAHL

EUROPASS

Regardless of age and education level, students can take part of their vocational education in any one of the EU or EEA Member States. The Europass is a document that ensures that this can be approved as a part of Swedish education. It does not provide any financial support.

LINNAEUS-PALME

A Swedish exchange programme for teachers and students at universities. Students can be away for one or two terms and have their studies recognised as part of their Swedish education. Teachers can be allowed to teach at basic level at other universities. The purpose is to strengthen the Swedish education institutions’ co-operation with universities in developing countries. The programme is financed by SIDA (Swedish International Development Co-operation Agency). Institutions for higher education, industries, and other enterprises in the EU can co-operate with similar institutions from the former Soviet Union, Mongolia, and the non-associated countries in Central and Eastern Europe. The co-operation projects support education in the transfer period to a market economy and a democratic society. The purpose is to develop the systems for higher education and to enable the education system to co-operate with economic life and the rest of society in a better way.

TEMPUS

4.2 The importance of the EU programmes In this section the EU programmes will be discussed in terms of their role in the future plans for Swedish education; I shall also consider how the Swedish population sees the programmes, what effect the programmes have had so far on the development of Swedish schools, and finally examine the consequences of the programmes for the pupils participating.

4.2.1 The future of the EU programmes in Swedish national education policy In terms of the future of the Programme Office activities it is stated in SOCRATES (Programkontoret, 2000-2003) that the Programme Office will co-operate with Skolverket and Högskoleverket,15 and that this means that the programmes will become a more integrated part of basic and higher education. In the Ministry of Education and Science an investigation has been under way to analyse the relationship between Swedish education and international education programmes. The purpose is to integrate the EU programmes more visibly into Swedish education policy (Programkontoret, 2000-2001, p. 5). In LEONARDO (Programkontoret, 2001-2002) there is a list of the ways in which future publications and other activities of the Programme Office can be managed; for instance, via an extra

15 Skolverket is the National Agency for Education and works actively to ensure that national objectives for childcare and the school system are achieved. In order to gain insight into the various activities and to contribute to development it carries out follow-up, evaluation, development, research and supervisory work. Högskoleverket is the National Agency for Higher Education.


207

newsletter, fact sheets, mailings, information days, conferences, and seminars. It is also emphasised that the accepted projects should have a good geographical spread, increasing the number of participating university colleges and universities, and the number of participants from small and medium-size companies. In the future the EU will therefore influence Swedish policy even more. This is not a requirement from the EU, but something the Swedish government chooses to do. 4.2.2 The Swedish population’s interest in the EU programmes Even before membership Swedish students were allowed to participate in the ERASMUS exchange programme. There has been a large number of teacher and pupil exchanges with schools in Europe. Contacts with the south of Europe were rare before membership, but there has now been established a large number of cooperative projects. It difficult for Swedish pupils to take part in LEONARDO and SOCRATES as there is no real differentiation between general and vocational education in the Swedish system. Of the sixteen national programmes in the gymnasieskola, three are mainly theoretical (social sciences and humanities; natural sciences and technology; and aesthetics). But within these programmes the pupils can choose courses with a vocational orientation. The other thirteen programmes are mainly vocational, but they also include a rather high proportion of general education subjects (Salin & Waterman, 2000, pp. 359-360). It is a requirement that the student is enrolled in a recognise d educational establishment for the principal purpose of following a vocational training course and that he furthermore is covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State (Council Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993). Many pupils in vocational programmes in the upper secondary school now study a second foreign language. Their motivation is reinforced by the possibility of contacts or exchanges with schools in other EU countries and later, jobs (Salin & Waterman, 2000, pp. 370-371). The Swedish people have in general a positive attitude to learning foreign languages, and also to making exchanges with other EU countries. In the second year of Sweden’s membership, there were not enough grants available to meet the demands made by Swedish schools, pupils, and teachers who wanted to participate in COMENIUS and LINGUA (Salin & Waterman, 2000, p. 371). This speaks for a practical impact of the EU programmes and that the Swedish population, usually sceptical towards the supranational elements of the EU, supports the programmes. 4.2.3 The EU programmes’ effect so far for the development of the Swedish school In Programkontoret (1998), it is stated that since the EU Programmes SOCRATES and LEONARDO began, a development has been taking place which would not otherwise have been possible. By 1997, more than 10% of Swedish schools had participated in projects, and this has stimulated the development of knowledge across borders (Programkontoret, 1998, p. 29). In the universities and university colleges the work involves many sorts of international contacts. Research is often of

208

BETTINA DAHL

international character, and foreign students, researchers, and teachers are common. The internationalisation of university education and research is seen as an important quality factor. In 1995/96 some 20,000 Swedish students studied abroad, and about 3,000 of them participated in the EU programme ERASMUS. At least 5,000 foreign students studied in Sweden (Swedish Ministry of Education, 1997b, p. 28). One could, however, argue that despite these statements of the Programme Office, it seems that the EU has only had a minor impact in terms of internationalisation. It has merely contributed to a process already started. The Programme Office argues that it is through the many personal meetings between people from various countries that the European dimension can develop a content, and it is therefore important that as many people as possible have the opportunity to meet colleagues and other young people. It is furthermore stated that it makes an impact on Swedish education inasmuch as some thousands of teachers and school leaders visit schools in other EU countries. In relation to young people, it is clear that it is not only the visit to the school that provides important experience but also living in another country. Many young people and teachers also learn to appreciate the Swedish school system even more after a trip abroad (Programkontoret, 1998, p. 11). One might argue that the latter does not contribute to the European dimension as the aim of the European dimension was to create a general European awareness. The Programme Office has furthermore felt that vocational education in the high school becomes more attractive and gains a higher status if pupil and teacher exchange become a natural part of everyone’s experience. Salin and Waterman (2000, p. 345) argue in this connection that through participating in EU projects, etc., a large number of Swedish schools, teachers, and pupils have made good contacts in Europe which have created awareness of a European identity. Education has therefore been more influenced at local level by Swedish membership in the EU than appears in the documents. 4.2.4 Consequences of the co-operation for the pupils and schools It places great demands on the pupils’ knowledge to be part of any European school co-operation. It may be very tough for weak pupils to participate. Participation also takes time away from the usual teaching. Some teachers find that this time is better devoted to other competencies; others find that these different competencies are more relevant. Some teachers experience that it can be difficult to engage the pupils and there is furthermore some evidence that suggests that internationalisation produces its contrast: more internationalisation happens in parallel to creating more local clubs. In schools with many immigrant children there can be specific problems as to what is seen as important: the EU or the third world. Even though internationalisation is part of the syllabuses and is formulated as a ‘goal to strive for’, it is in practice something which receives the lowest priority, often owing to economic constraints. What is more, various actors have different views about what is important and what is good for the pupils. There is also variation between various regions and different schools in relation to the importance of the development of the local school. The schools which succeed in incorporating European school co-


209

operation into their school culture seem to be better at facilitating effects for the pupils than schools where it is only a few souls who are the moving force behind the projects. It furthermore also depends on co-operation from the local society as well as the local community’s attitudes as to how far it is possible to co-operate with other schools in Europe. This seems to be easier in smaller regions (Skolverket, 2000, pp. 61-67). 4.3 From political intentions to local action Even now there is not an unambiguous straight line from the EU’s highest priorities, via national interpretation, down to the classroom (Skolverket, 2000, p. 77). A study of the European dimension in education in Sweden made by Skolverket states that in spite of the EU rhetoric and the intentions of the EU programmes there are many unclear areas in terms of what is expected to be the result of European co-operation in education. The European dimension has a content which is difficult to grasp. It therefore becomes difficult to measure the results. A single person at the local level is very often the moving spirit, but they are often in an exposed position owing to an internally weak rooting of the idea of the project in the individual school. The EU school projects rarely have a strong connection with the general development (plan) of the school. European school co-operation is often in strong competition with other projects at the local level. A certain project-tiredness can also be noted, as the Swedish school reforms of the 1990s have also to be implemented. Furthermore internationalisation coincides with economic pressures for most schools. Development of schools within the framework of European school co-operation requires a great degree of knowledge, support from educational leaders, and good guidance from the places that formulate the intentions and provide the funding. These things are rarely seen in practice (Skolverket, 2000, pp. 33-39). To a great extent the parts of the country with little participation in European School cooperation are also the places with very high economic costs for their schools - often villages and distant municipalities. Long distances also of course increase travel expenses (Skolverket, 2000, p. 85). European school co-operation has a big influence for those who are active in the projects. If European school co-operation is to lead to school development it is necessary that the municipalities and schools know what is actually expected of them. The schools’ reasons for getting involved in the projects are more in terms of concern for the pupils and less for pedagogical reasons or to ensure a European perspective. The European school co-operation efforts in themselves are seen as a peace project, but study has shown that the actual school meetings rarely become creative meetings that can influence pedagogical practice in spite of the importance of this for the development of a school (Skolverket, 2000, pp. 87-92). There seems therefore to be a dilemma between one EU objective of seeing the meetings as part of a peace project and another EU objective of improving the acquisition of knowledge.

210

BETTINA DAHL 5. CONCLUSION

This contribution has dealt with issues around the impacts of EU education policies for Sweden. Swedish membership of the EU came more or less at the same time as the launching of the major education and training programmes SOCRATES and LEONARDO and only a few years after the objectives of, for instance, strengthening the European dimension in education were included in the Maastricht Treaty (1992). At the same time Sweden, and the rest of Europe, experienced the need to create mobility and a dynamic and knowledge-based economy to create full employment. We can therefore identify similarities with what happens within Sweden, for instance the emphasis on adult education, IT skills, etc., with the purpose of increasing Sweden’s competitive power and what is agreed at EU level. Sweden therefore before becoming a Member State initiated co-operation programmes with foreign countries in the education area, and the goal of internationalisation was written into the curricula as early as 1994. Whether this notion of internationalisation as well as some weak reference to what looks like a ‘European dimension in education’ is an effect of EU policy and to what extent the curriculum actually supports a European dimension in education, is not clear. As stated above, the European dimension plays some role in the documents, but the evidence is sometimes contradictory and the role it assumes probably depends on the various ways in which it is seen. These policies seem to have happened in parallel; at least there seems to be agreement between the EU common agreements and internal Swedish policy. This “clash of events” makes it difficult to judge which policy actions taken after Swedish membership have been caused by the EU and which would have been policy actions in any case as a response to a changing world. This also goes for the effect for Sweden of the EU programmes. According to the Programme Office’s own publication, the EU programmes have started a process which would not otherwise have been possible. On the other hand, looking at the number of pupils in EU programmes and these in non-EU programmes, one sees that for instance in 1995-1996, some 20,000 Swedish pupils studied abroad, “only” 3,000 within ERASMUS. It is an exaggeration to state that the EU programmes have begun a process that would not otherwise have been possible. The EU policy is simply an extra element of an existing Swedish policy, and the EU contribution therefore only quantitatively changes Swedish policy; it does not change it qualitatively. From 1994, when the EEA Agreement came into force, some EC directives requiring a minimum length to various courses also applied for Sweden. This happened before Sweden became a member of the EU and was the “price” Sweden had to pay to gain access to the Internal Market. The EU therefore influenced Sweden to some extent even before Sweden became a member. In terms of the future, the programmes will become a more integrated part of basic and higher education. The government aims at integrating the EU programmes more visibly into Swedish education policy. This is, however, the “free will” of the Swedish government to do so. There is no EU legislation on these issues. The practice has been rather to compare the results of the individual Member States and to learn from each other. This is therefore in line with Swedish ‘defensive’ EU


211

interests, namely that the principle of subsidiarity should apply in matters pertaining to education.

212

BETTINA DAHL

References [References to EU-Bulletins and specific WebPages given in full above are not included here.] Beukel, Erik (1992): Uddannelsespolitik i EF (Education policy in the EC) (Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag). Council of the European Union (1993): Council Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for students, in: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1993/en_393L0096.html. Laursen, Johnny N. & Olesen, Thorsten B. (1998): ‘A Nordic Alternative To Europe’, in: CORE working paper Vol. 2, Copenhagen Research Project on European Integration (Copenhagen: Copenhagen University). Miles, Lee (1997): Sweden and European Integration (London: Ashgate). Programkontoret (1996): Comenius – Transnationella partnerskap mellan skolor, European Educational Partnership (Stockholm: Svenska EU Programkontoret). Programkontoret (1998): Utveckla arbetsliv och skola med EU-stöd – Svenska EU Programkontorets verksamhet 1997 (Develop working life and school with EU financial support) (Stockholm: Svenska EU Programkontoret). Programkontoret (2001-2002): Arbetsplan 2001-2002 Leonardo da Vinci, Sverige (Working plan Leonardo da Vinci, 2001-2001) (Stockholm: Internationella Programkontoret för utbildningsområdet i Sverige). Programkontoret (2002-2003): Arbetsplan för Sokratesprogrammet 2000-2001 & 2001-2003, (Working plan for Socrates 2000-2003) (Stockholm: Internationella programkontoret för utbildningsområdet i Sverige). Salin, Sven & Waterman, Chris (2000): ’Sweden’, in: Colin Brock & Witold Tulasiewicz (2000): Education in a Single Europe, 2nd Edition (London: Routledge, 2000). Skardeus, M. (1998): God praxis (Good practice) (Stockholm: Svenska EU Programkontoret). Skolverket (2000): Den europeiska imensionen i svensk skola (The European Dimension in Swedish schools), Repport No. 184 (Stockholm: Skolverket). Statskontoret (1998): Svenska EU-programkontoret för utbildning och kompetensutveckling – en utvärdering (Swedish EU Programme Office for education and development of competences – an evaluation) (Stockholm: Statskontoret). Swedish Ministry of Education (1994a): Curriculum for the compulsory school system, the pre-school class and the leisure-time centre (Lpo94) (Stockholm: Ministry of Education and Science), http://www.skolverket.se/pdf/lpoe.pdf. Swedish Ministry of Education (1994b): The 1994 Curriculum for the Non-Compulsory School System Lpf94.(Stockholm: Ministry of Education and Science). Swedish Ministry of Education (1995): Syllabuses for the compulsory school (Stockholm: Ministry of Education and Science). Swedish Ministry of Education (1996a): Grönbok (Green Book) (Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet). Swedish Ministry of Education (1996b): Information Lpo94. Information on The 1994 Curriculum for the Compulsory School System Lpo94 (Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet). Swedish Ministry of Education (1996c): Vitbok: Lära och Lära ut – på väg mot kunskapssamhället (White Book; Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society) (Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet). Swedish Ministry of Education (1997a): Summary of the National Development Plan for Pre-school, School and Adult Education – Quality and Equivalence (Stockholm: Ministry of Education and Science). Swedish Ministry of Education (1997b): Den nya högskolan (The New University College) (Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet). Swedish Ministry of Education (1998): Curriculum for the pre-school (Lpfo98) (Stockholm: Ministry of Education and Science), http://www.skolverket.se/pdf/lpfoe.pdf. The International Programme Office for Education and Training, Official homepage: http://www.programkontoret.se/ Winklerfelt, Margareta af (1994): EU, Sverige och utbildningen (EU, Sweden, and Education) (Stockholm: Fritzes).

HUBERT ERTL

EU PROGRAMMES IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING: DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION IN GERMANY, SWEDEN AND THE UNITED KINGDOM 1. INTRODUCTION

In the discourse on European integration, a great deal of attention has been given to the process of policy formulation and the outcomes of these policies at the European Union (EU) and the national levels. However, the interrelated system of actors involved in the practical transfer of policies into actual activities at the micro-level is often neglected. This seems particularly valid for EU policies in the field of education and vocational training. This chapter investigates the structures of institutional implementation of EU education and training programmes. At the national level, these structures vary greatly from country to country. ‘Some member states separate responsibility for European policies, which is a matter for the relevant ministry, from the management and administration of European programmes, which they may choose to contract out to agencies’ (Field, 1998, p. 106). There are differences in the organisation and scale of national implementation bodies. For example, in the mid-1990s, the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges (and its host agency the British Council) was by far the largest. By contrast, France’s Agence des Relations Internationales de l‘Enseignement Supérieur (ARIUS) had a staff of just five (Dickey, 1994, p. 9). This chapter focuses on the institutional implementation structures of the two major EU programmes in education and training – SOCRATES and LEONARDO DA VINCI. It is assumed that knowledge of the structures in which the implementation of policies takes place is one important prerequisite for all discussions about the outcomes of policy formulation processes. This chapter is conceived as a basis for further discussion of EU politics and policies in education and training. As a first step, the conceptual background for the implementation of EU educational programmes is described. In particular the growing importance of the principle of subsidiarity in EU legislation and policy is emphasised. Second, the development of programmes as a means of implementing EU policies in the fields of education and vocational training is outlined, since the evolution of programmes provides valuable insights into the way they influence national educational provisions. Next, a descriptive overview of the implementation of SOCRATES and LEONARDO at the EU level is given. It is argued that certain structures and procedures in the administrative work of EU bodies impede the effective 213 David Phillips & Hubert Ertl (eds.), Implementing European Union Education and Training Policy: A Comparative Study of Issues in Four Member States, 213—264. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

214

HUBERT ERTL

implementation of the two programmes. Then, two general models for the implementation of EU programmes at the national level are characterised. On the basis of these models, the implementation patterns of SOCRATES and LEONARDO are investigated in three EU Member States: Sweden, Germany and the UK. A particular emphasis is placed on the changes of national implementation practices that occurred when the two programmes entered their second phase at the beginning of 2000. In a concluding section, the three different executive and administrative structures are compared and some tentative explanations as to why the programmes are implemented differently in different EU Member States are attempted. The last section speculates about the consequences of these differences. These differences are also put into the context of the evolution of EU programmes in the fields of education and vocational training. 2. BACKGROUND In the field of education governments are faced with the task of formulating policy that has to be transmitted via a wide variety of subsidiary competences to the institutional levels at which it is for the most part implemented. Policy decisions are transmitted with varying degrees of urgency and authority, and are subject to differing degrees of interpretation at various stages of the transfer process from governmental to local and institutional levels. This transfer process is highly complex, even in the case of national policy formulation and interpretation. When it comes to supranational policy much greater complexity can be expected, especially whenever such policy – exemplified here by the education and training policy of the European Union (EU) – is not binding on individual governments. There was no specific reference to educational co-operation in the Treaty on European Economic Community (Treaty of Rome), where reference was made only to training. The founding father of the European Community, Jean Monnet, is quoted as saying that if he could have started again he would have begun with education (Sprokkereef, 1995, p. 340). If true, this would imply a remarkable retrospective reorientation of the whole concept of the Community, whose raison d’être was primarily economic: hence the (logical) inclusion of training (Art. 118 and 128, Treaty on EEC; cf. Moschonas, 1998, pp. 12-15). For general education, the findings of the Janne Report (For a Community Policy on Education) of 1973 stimulated the Education Action Programme passed by the Council of Ministers in 1976 (cf. Neave, 1984), which can be seen as the foundation of EU co-operation in general education (Commission, 1993, p. 17; Delgado & Losa, 1997, pp. 131ff.; Brock & Tulasiewicz, 2000, p. 26). However, it was the ruling of the European Court of Justice which interpreted Article 128 of the Treaty on the EEC in favour of extended competencies of Community bodies that encouraged the Community to initiate more activities in education and training from the mid-1980s. The Gravier and Erasmus cases can be seen as the most influential rulings in a series of verdicts that have helped to establish certain rights and expectations (cf. Ertl, pp. 19ff. in this present volume).

THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF EU PROGRAMMES

215

As a result of the extended competencies awarded by the Court to the European Commission, the Community launched a series of programmes in education (cf. section E3). These programmes, such as Petra and Erasmus, provided opportunities for an increasing number of young people to gather experience in a European environment. As the legal basis for these programmes seemed somewhat unclear, the Treaty on European Union (TEU) established a new legal basis for EU activities in education (Art. 126 TEU) and training (Art. 127 TEU). As a result of the formulation of Articles 126 and 127 and the overarching principle of subsidiarity, EU education and training policy can, it seems, be interpreted in an extremely wide range of different ways. As a consequence of these provisions there is an imperative for the interpretation of EU policies within the Member States, and a consequent expectation that such interpretation will differ from one Member State to another. It may be expected that these differences will in some cases be the result of clearly formulated policy emerging from individual ministries; in other cases they may result from a distinct lack of involvement by the ministry, since in terms of the implementation of EU education and training policy national ministries are bypassed in many instances (Field, 1998, p. 112). Field (1998) argues that the ‘bottom-up’ approach of the Erasmus programme is an instance of such bypassing of competency; so too is the contracting-out of responsibilities for EU policy matters to various sub-national agencies. Hantrais (1995, pp. 56ff.) contends that there is a limited and uneven impact of EU programmes for education and training because national ministries and/or agencies have reacted to programme directives differently. The notion of a ‘Europe of the Regions’ (embodied in the work of the Committee of the Regions, established in 1994 following provisions in the Maastricht Treaty) is also of significance in this context as it aims ‘[...] to bring the European Union closer to the people, involving locals in the development and implementation of EU policies at a regional level’ (Brock & Tulasiewicz, 2000, p. 5). These developments facilitate direct contact between Brussels and sub-national agencies with localised responsibility. The principle of subsidiarity is at the heart of the debate about the relationship between national sovereignty and the convergence of national provision in education. This creates considerable uncertainty on the part of national ministries as they attempt to interpret EU policy (Delgado & Losa,1997; Jover, 1997). Koch (1998b) argues that subsidiarity does not lead to a clear division between national and EU competencies, but is subject to interpretation in political decision-making and implementation processes. Identification of successful practice in any one jurisdiction is likely to have implications for change in practice in others. At a time when the evident tendency towards globalisation in so many areas of human activity is creating tensions vis-à-vis the desire of nation states to preserve sovereignty in decision-making it is of interest to examine the processes of policy transmission. In particular, it seems important to investigate these processes as they exist in the organisational structures of a variety of countries endeavouring to interpret policy formulated at a supranational level for their own circumstances. The following sections present an example of such an investigation.

216

HUBERT ERTL

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF EU PROGRAMMES AS A MEANS OF IMPLEMENTING POLICY IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING 3.1 The first generation of programmes: 1974 – 1995 The chronology of EU programmes in education and training does not begin until nearly twenty years after the European Economic Community (EEC) was established by the Treaty of Rome in 1957. In the mid-1970s the European Community launched the first programmes concerned with vocational training and, to a certain degree, with education. Article 128 of the Treaty of Rome provided a relatively clear basis for dealing with vocational training. On the basis of this Article, general principles for a common vocational training policy were established in 1963. Until the mid-1980s the Ministers of Labour and Social Affairs bore sole responsibility for vocational training at the European Community level. The EC Ministers of Education met for the first time in 1971, although there was no legal basis for the meeting in the Treaty of Rome.1 Thus, the meeting was held within the Council of Education Ministers, not as the Council of Education Ministers (McMahon, 1995, p. 8). The resulting Resolution on co-operation in education initially covered five topics: co-operation between universities with particular reference to student exchanges, equal opportunities for girls in secondary education, education of second-generation immigrant children, effective transition of young people form school to adult and working life, and promotion of closer relations between educational systems in Europe (Ministers, 1974). As a consequence, the first Education Committee was established to facilitate cooperation in the areas covered by the Resolution (Brock & Tulasiewicz, 2000, p. 26). Later, the so-called European dimension in education and co-operation between higher education, business and industry was added (Sellin, 1999, p. 18). In a second Resolution in 1976, the Education Ministers extended the 1974 Resolution and went into much greater detail in all areas stipulated in the first Resolution (Ministers, 1976). On the basis of these agreements and Article 128 of the Treaty of Rome, the first Action Programme for education was launched in 1976. It aimed to facilitate the transition of young people from compulsory school to the world of work, improvement of educational provision for immigrant workers, promotion of language instruction,

1 The Ministers responsible for vocational training policies met for the first time in 1963 at a European level (Hingel, 2001, p. 5).


217

co-operation in the field of higher education, inclusion of knowledge about the European Community in teaching provision, information on educational systems of the Member States of the Community, and documentation of educational structures and developments in Europe (cf. Bardong, 1994, p. 64). The Action Programme ran for three years and was later extended for a further three years. Following the patterns set by the 1976 Action Programme, a host of other programmes were launched from the mid-1970s onwards, most of them initiated as a means of combating increasing youth unemployment. For instance, Strømnes (1997, p. 218) notes that 28 EC programmes and projects in the field of education and training were introduced in the ten years after 1976.2 In particular, the programmes consolidated and expanded the existing vocational training infrastructures in regions that were struggling economically at the time (for instance, southern Italy, Ireland, Northern Ireland). In the 1980s, the European Court of Justice interpreted Article 128 in a series of rulings in such a way as to give the European Community institutions the right to adopt legislation in the fields of vocational training and education that would be binding on the Member States.3 In particular, the Court interpreted the term ‘vocational’ more extensively. This gave the Commission the right to assume competencies in the fields of higher and continuing education. The Court also ruled that the 1963 general principles on vocational education and training formed part of the EC Treaties and that, therefore, the EC had far-reaching regulative powers in vocational training policy. These decisions encouraged the Commission and the Council from the mid-1980s onwards to organise a number of projects and programmes (Schink, 1993, pp. 174-177). The Court accepted that these initiatives were based on Article 235 of the Treaty of Rome which allowed the Council to take appropriate legislative measures to attain the Union’s objectives even if the Treaty did not provide the necessary powers (Sprokkereef, 1995, p. 342). In addition, the challenges of new information technology and the consistently high levels of youth unemployment, which were no longer seen as a temporary problem as had been the case in the 1970s, were considered to be important reasons for the creation of action programmes in the following years. The earliest of these projects, Comett (European Community Action Programme in Education and Training for Technology) was launched in 1986. Comett was joined in 1987 by Erasmus (European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students), and shortly afterwards by

2

For a different count of these programmes see Fogg & Jones (1985, pp. 293-296).

3

For detailed analyses of the impact of these cases on EU educational policy see Lonbay (1989).

218

HUBERT ERTL

Petra (European Community Action Programme for the Vocational Training of Young People and Their Preparation for Adult and Working Life), Eurotecnet (European Technology Network for Training), Lingua (Programme for the Promotion of Foreign Language Knowledge in the European Community), and Iris (European Community Network of Training Programmes for Women). Thus, a whole new spectrum of programmes developed gradually covering the field of education and training with the exception of compulsory schooling. Despite their ambitious aims, the programmes were funded modestly in comparison with the EC’s substantial Social Fund (Field, 1997, pp. 98-101). Erasmus can be seen as an exception both in terms of the funds made available and of the high number of participants (cf. Sellin, 1999, p. 19). As a reaction to the Single European Act (SEA) of 1986 the programmes were reorganised and restructured. Although the SEA itself contained no new provisions on education and training, ‘[...] it opened the way for a new wave of policy initiatives’ (Milner, 1998, p. 160). For instance, some of the aforementioned EC programmes were amended and extended prior to the establishment of the Single European Market in 1993: Erasmus II and Comett II began in 1990; the agreement on Petra was amended in 1991, and as a result Petra II began in 1992; and Force (Action Programme for the Development of Continuing Vocational Training in the European Community) began in 1990 (Funnell & Müller, 1991, p. 75; Europäische Kommission, 1996, p. 89).4 All of the programmes that began between 1974 and the mid-1990s were based on three legal foundations: Article 128 of the Treaty of Rome; the general principles on vocational education and training of 1963; and the 1974 agreement on cooperation in education in the aftermath of the first meeting of the EC Ministers of Education (McMahon, 1995. p. 17). Therefore, this first generation of EC programmes in the field of education and training mirrors the somewhat unclear legal situation in which the European Court of Justice had to decide what actions were in the realm of the Union and what actions were incompatible with the aim of preserving sovereignty of the Member States in matters of education and training. Generally speaking the projects and programmes of the first generation aimed to enhance Europeanised learning opportunities through the exchange of participants (for instance, students, trainees, skilled workers), promotion of joint pilot projects and transnational initiatives, promotion of the exchange of information about educational practices in other countries, and implementation of comparative studies among the countries involved (see for instance Field, 1997; Sellin, 1999). 4

For an overview of the EU programmes at the beginning of the 1990s see Figure 1 in chapter 7 in this present volume.


219

The first generation programmes achieved the objectives to a certain degree in all these areas (Müller-Solger et al., 1993, pp. 24f.). However, its success was limited in many cases to the people and institutions directly involved in the projects funded by the programmes. The transfer of positive outcomes of the projects to the standard systems of education and training proved to be much more difficult. Trade unions argue that EU programmes contribute to rising employment figures only if innovations developed by EU-funded projects find their way into standard practice. In the view of the trade unions this has not been the case for most of the EU programmes in the field of vocational training (Lübke, 1999 and Vojta, 1999). The reasons for the transfer problems included the inadequate dissemination of project outcomes by the EU and Member States, the lack of support for project participants, the resistance in Member States to externally proposed reforms and innovations resulting from the EU projects, the lack of external evaluation of programmes and projects, bureaucratic obstacles at EU or national level (Ertl, 2000b, pp. 482-487), and the lack of involvement of policy-makers in initiating the transfer of project outcomes to other contexts (Sellin, 1999, p. 20). Further, the projects supported by the first generation of EU programmes only lasted for up to three or four years and in many cases no follow-up financing was available. From the outset, the financial resources for the first generation programmes were strictly limited. For instance, the resources suggested by the European Commission for the wave of programmes initiated in the late 1980s (Comett, Erasmus and Petra) were substantially reduced by the European Council (Bardong, 1994, p. 68). In these circumstances a direct impact of the programmes on national systems of education and training seems unlikely (Ryba, 2000, p. 252).5 A further lesson from the first generation programmes is that the programmes have a greater chance of initiating or influencing the direction of reform in areas that are not subject to national regulation. For instance, the programmes in the areas of continuing and further training had a more significant impact than those in the field of initial training, where the scope for innovation in reform in most European countries is limited by various mechanisms of co-determination between the social partners. Also, programmes in higher education, such as Erasmus, proved to be easier to initiate (Milner, 1998, p. 159) and more successful than those in general education or in the training sector (Sprokkereef, 1995, p. 343; Teichler et al., 1999). Participation rates in exchange schemes can be regarded as one indication of the success of programmes. Participation rates in exchange schemes in higher education are traditionally higher than in similar schemes within training programmes. This has not changed since the first generation programmes: from 1995 to 1999 the Erasmus programme was used by about 90,000 higher education students annually to spend some time studying abroad. The corresponding figure for young people taking part in exchange schemes under EU training programmes was only 25,000 (cf. Teichler et al., 1999, p. 17; Commission, 2000f, p. 25 and 2000h, p. 15).

5

Impact in this context can be defined as longer-term effects of programme outputs on various groups and areas of education and vocational training (cf. Commission, 2000h, p. 18).

220

HUBERT ERTL

Despite the relative success of EU-funded mobility schemes in higher education, the middle-term objective that one in every ten European students will spend some time studying abroad has not been achieved (Sprokkereef, 1995, p. 343). The better funding of higher education programmes and the relatively far-reaching autonomy of universities (as compared to, for instance, schools) seem to be the most important factors in this context.

3.2 The introduction of SOCRATES and LEONARDO: 1995 The next generation of EU programmes in education and training was based on a new Treaty: the Treaty on European Union (TEU, often referred to as the Maastricht Treaty). The TEU dealt with vocational education and training (Art. 127, which replaced Art. 128 of the Treaty of Rome) and with general education (Art. 126). In fact, the term education appeared for the first time in an EU Treaty with the implementation of the TEU. The general principles on vocational education and training of 1963 became obsolete with the regulations in the Maastricht Treaty (Lenaerts, 1994, p. 7). Therefore, the Treaty established a new legal basis for both vocational training and general education. In 1995, the programmes SOCRATES and LEONARDO DA VINCI were launched as a consequence of the ratification of the TEU. These second generation programmes eventually replaced all the aforementioned first generation programmes. SOCRATES was initiated on the basis of Article 126 TEU and covers general and higher education. LEONARDO was initiated on the basis of Article 127 TEU and covers vocational training. The Youth for Europe programme can be considered as a second generation programme too since it was also introduced on the basis of the Maastricht Treaty and it covers some areas that had formerly been covered by programmes mentioned in the previous section. However, it is not further investigated in this study since it does not deal with formal education and training but instead offers opportunities for partnership and cooperation projects involving young European people. At the national level, the Youth for Europe programme was administered by National Agencies nominated by the national ministry responsible for youth affairs, not by National Agencies nominated by the national ministry responsible for education as is the case for SOCRATES and LEONARDO (Commission, 2001g and 2001h). Apart from their new legal foundation, the second generation programmes are characterised by a number of aspects which differ from their predecessor programmes.6 First, both programmes preserved and consolidated most of the actions and objectives of their forerunners but added new emphases such as co-operation in the fields of lifelong learning and multimedia. The fact that LEONARDO and SOCRATES continued most of the activities of their predecessor programmes was one of the reasons for their complex and often inaccessible structure (Commission, 2000h, p. 8). A representative of the German employers’ association argued that at 6

For a structural outline of the contents and objectives of the first phase of SOCRATES and LEONARDO see Sellin (1995a, pp. 127-134).


221

the outset LEONARDO was not much more than a compound of all former programmes, lacking coherence and innovation (Gerstein, 1999, p. 2). A further example of the difficult transition from the first to the second generation programmes is the Erasmus programme. Although the European Council decided to include Erasmus in the SOCRATES framework from 1995, controversies about this decision postponed the adaptation and incorporation of Erasmus into the new framework programme until the academic year 1997/98 (Teichler et al., 1999, p. 7). Second, the programmes had a stronger emphasis on a ‘bottom-up’ approach by encouraging practitioners in the field to submit their project ideas following annual calls for proposals. Exceptions to this general practice were measures such as ‘exchange of comparable data’, where the Commission applied a ‘top-down’ approach to implement statistical procedures and work programmes. The latter approach was more common in the first generation programmes (Commission, 2000h, pp. 6f.). Third, the Member States and representatives from the social partners (employers and workers) became more involved in the application and selection processes of the programmes; as we shall see in the next sections, this trend continued when SOCRATES and LEONARDO were re-conceptualised for a second phase. Fourth, the selection processes for projects seeking funding from the programmes were organised by way of public tender. This made the process more transparent since discussion and definition of clear selection criteria now became necessary. However, the combination of increased involvement on the part of both the Member States and the social partners made the application and selection procedures slower and more expensive. As a result, the financing of the projects under the second generation programmes was delayed in many cases. Fifth, the second generation of programmes introduced the principle of complementary funding. This means that SOCRATES and LEONARDO only provide for up to 75 per cent of a project’s overall budget. The applicants have to obtain the remaining funds from other sources, for instance from national and/or regional or local bodies (Commission, 2000h, p. 7). The first generation programmes normally refunded the total expenditure of projects. This change in the financing regulations was introduced not only to be able to fund more projects but also to ensure compatibility of projects with national/regional priorities in education and training, and therefore to increase the chance of a direct innovative impact of the projects on the development of national/regional systems. However, the need to obtain complementary funding for a project from other sources represents a strong deterrent for potential applicants. This is particularly true in times of restrictions on national and regional budgets. As a result of the new legal basis established in the Treaty of Maastricht, the second generation programmes provided a better framework for EU activities in the field of education and training. The new programmes were able to build on almost two decades of experience with transnational co-operation in education and training in Europe. The projects funded by the programmes of the second generation went beyond the vague notion of the exchange of experience, as had been the case in first

222

HUBERT ERTL

generation projects. A greater proportion of partners involved used the opportunity to develop innovative projects.7 One of the main aims of the second generation programmes was to improve the transferability and dissemination of project results and their impact on national systems of education and training (Bildung für Europa, 2000a). Lenaerts refers to this aim as ‘voluntary’ harmonisation through the granting of financial aid by the Union (Lenaerts, 1994, p. 35). As outlined in this section, however, the steps taken to achieve this aim, such as increased power of the Member States in the selection of projects, involvement of policy-makers and social partners, and the introduction of complementary funding, seem to have produced new problems. Further, the transfer of outcomes and results produced by projects funded by SOCRATES and LEONARDO still seemed to be the major problem of the programmes of this generation.8 In the three countries covered by this section this led to demands for increased effort concerning the transfer and dissemination of project results in the second phase of LEONARDO and SOCRATES (cf. Winter, 1999, p. 3; DfEE, 1999, pp. 83f.). It seems that the problem of the programmes’ unsatisfactory impact has less to do with their structure and organisation than with the context in which they are set. Sellin (1999) for instance, argues that the systems of education and training in larger EU Member States (such as France, the UK and Germany) are steeped in the culture and traditions of their own national contexts. The governments in these countries regard themselves as a safeguard for the education and training systems. Therefore, EU policies and programmes have had little impact beyond the institutions and individuals engaged in EU-funded projects (cf. Commission, 2000h, p. 18). In contrast, in smaller EU countries that initiated far-reaching educational reforms as a result of economic development (for instance, Ireland, Denmark and The Netherlands), or political change (for instance, Portugal), EU funds contributed to the restructuring of education and training provisions. In these cases national systems of vocational training were adapted with explicit reference to the EU debate (Sellin, 1999, pp. 21f.). For instance, the investigation of the implementation of modular structures in the training sector has shown that new training frameworks were introduced that applied the EU systems of levels of training to the modularised structures in The Netherlands, Scotland and Spain (cf. Ertl, 2001a). Thus, it seems that the degree to which national systems of education and training are already regulated and regarded as part of the ‘national culture’ is an important determinant for the impact of EU programmes in the Member States. 7 This represents the opinion of a senior representative of the German employers’ association. She concludes for the first phase of LEONARDO that ‘[...] the co-operation has been consolidated, the European partners know each other in Europe’ (Gerstein, 1999, p. 2). 8

This was the impression given by senior officials at the National Agencies and relevant Ministries during interviews conducted towards the end of the life-span of the first phase and the beginning of the second phase of the programmes. (Interviews in Berlin, November 1998; Bonn, May 1999; and London, September 2000.) According to the officials in the UK and Germany, the National Agencies have made considerable efforts to promote the publication and dissemination of project outcomes. However, the results of these efforts was assessed by the officials in both countries as not yet satisfactory.


223

Following this line of argument, the first phase of SOCRATES and LEONARDO also provided an important impetus for the reform of education and training provisions in pre-accession countries in central and eastern Europe. These countries were eligible for SOCRATES I and LEONARDO I in education and training and continue to be so for the second phase programmes (Commission, 2000c, p. 7). In Romania, for instance, the LEONARDO programme is explicitly associated with the reform of initial training and with recent draft legislation on continuing training (Commission, 2000h, p. 19). 3.3 The second phase of SOCRATES and LEONARDO: 2000 – 2006 After the initial five-year period between 1995 and 1999, the SOCRATES and LEONARDO programmes were extended for seven more years with increased funding and slightly expanded activities. SOCRATES II and LEONARDO II are based on the same legal foundations as their predecessors and do not represent a radical departure from the programmes introduced in 1995. Therefore, it only seems justified to speak of a new ‘phase’ of the second generation programmes, rather than a new generation. Like SOCRATES and LEONARDO, the Youth for Europe programme (as the third of the second generation programmes) was updated for a second phase. This was done by launching the new programme Youth which builds on both the Youth for Europe and the European Voluntary Service Programmes. Therefore, Youth integrates for the first time all on-going activities in the youth field at Union level and complements the activities covered by SOCRATES II and LEONARDO II (Council, 2000b and Commission, 2001i). For the seven-year period starting at the beginning of 2000, the SOCRATES and LEONARDO programmes were redesigned, taking into account some of the weaknesses outlined for the first phase. In summary, these changes aim to streamline the programmes in order to make them simpler, more flexible and more accessible. In particular, the following changes were introduced: extension of the duration of the programmes from five to seven years to improve their impact; concentration of objectives (four instead of nine for SOCRATES and three instead of nineteen for LEONARDO); simplification of programme design and administrative procedures (for instance, reduction in the number of selection procedures, simplification of reporting requirements); improvement of user-friendliness and transparency; further decentralisation of management; increased flexibility (for instance, flexible handling of the principle of complementary funding); inclusion of open and distance learning;

224

HUBERT ERTL more emphasis on the use of new information and communication technologies, on lifelong and adult learning, and on the dissemination of good practice, and strengthening of the links between programme actions and between the programmes in the field (for instance, introduction of ‘joint actions’ as a separate programme action) (Commission, 2000f, p. 19; 2000g, pp. 2f.; and 2000h, pp. 7ff.).

The changes in the programmes were the result of complex negotiations between the Member States and the EU Commission. The proposals of the Commission for the second phase of the programmes were substantially changed in these negotiations. A comparison of the initial proposals by the Commission (Commission, 1998c and 1998d), the provisional common position of the Council and the Parliament, and the eventual Decisions of the Council (in the case of SOCRATES II jointly taken with the European Parliament) (Council, 1999a, 1999b and 2000a) indicates how much the positions of the Commission and the Member States differed.9 The difficult negotiations also mirrored the public criticism of the administration of the programmes within the EU Commission. In particular, the LEONARDO Technical Assistance Office faced severe public criticism and played an important role in the notorious ‘Cresson Affair’ which led to the resignation of Édith Cresson, the Commissioner for education, training, innovation, research and youth, and eventually to the resignation of the whole Santer Commission (Winter, 1999). In 1999, the Commission even refused to renew the contract with the LEONARDO Technical Assistance Office owing to its dissatisfaction with the Office’s execution of tasks for the implementation of the programme. This led to the temporary interruption of the programme’s implementation (Commission, 2000g, p. 5). On top of the accusations in connection with the ‘Cresson Affair’, the LEONARDO Technical Assistance Office was accused of incompetence in its implementation of the programme at the Union level. For instance, in an evaluation conducted for the UK final report of the LEONARDO I programme project contractors used expressions such as ‘appalling’, ‘chaotic’, ‘useless’, and ‘grossly incompetent’ to describe the services of the Technical Assistance Office (DfEE, 1999, p. 39). The changes and simplifications in LEONARDO are particularly stark. They reflect the criticisms regarding the complicated administrative procedures, and the delays in financing projects and individuals, stated by applicants, participants, and project initiators, as well as administrators. Complaints about the complicated administrative procedures were a constant theme in the interviews conducted at the National Agencies in Germany and the UK (Interviews in Berlin, November 1998; Bonn, May 1999; and London, September 2000). Similar complaints were voiced by the German employers’ association (cf. Gerstein, 1999). In particular small and medium-sized companies were often overburdened by the – in their view – 9

This point was also raised in an interview with a senior German official who took part in the negotiations, Berlin, November 1998


225

excessive bureaucracy at all levels of application and administration procedures in the framework of LEONARDO I (Weidmann, 1999). While larger companies and institutions are generally able to ‘absorb’ late payments by the EU, small and medium-sized companies and institutions rely on prompt payment. This factor was a strong deterrent for smaller companies to participate in the programmes (Winter, 1999, p. 3; DfEE, 1999, p. 85). The late arrival of mobility stipends was also top of the list of Erasmus students’ complaints (Teichler et al., 1999, p. 27). The reduction of the number of objectives from 19 to three and of the number of measures from 23 to seven is the most striking expression of this simplification of LEONARDO. The application and administration procedures were also simplified. Most importantly, the so-called decentralised selection procedure for project applications was extended to more areas within SOCRATES and LEONARDO. This means that the vast majority of projects funded by SOCRATES II and LEONARDO II are selected, administered, monitored and evaluated by the National Agency responsible. During the first phase of the programmes, most projects were subject to a centralised application and administration procedure in which the European Commission assumed most of the regulative powers. A German ministerial official estimated that in the second phase of LEONARDO and SOCRATES the Member States will assume 80 per cent of the responsibilities for implementing the programmes whereas the European Commission will fulfil 20 per cent of the tasks (Schüller, 2000, p. 2). For the first phase of the programmes these shares were reversed (cf. also Commission, 2000g, p. 10; 2000h, p. 13).10 The move towards the decentralisation of the programmes will simplify their management since it reduces the need for co-ordination between the administrative bodies at the European and the national levels. A stronger emphasis on decentralised project selection may also improve the impact of the programmes. The Member States are likely to select projects that have potential to influence the development of policies and practices in their education and training systems. However, there is a danger that the selection of projects will be dominated by motives of national selfinterest rather than by motives of European-wide interest. In other words, EU programme funds could be misused for the financing of projects that are high on the national agenda without contributing to the European dimension of education and training. Almost all interviews at Ministries and National Agencies gave the impression that the potential benefit of projects for the development of national provision for education and training was the single most important factor for decentralised project selection. This was particularly obvious in institutions for which the development of national policies represented the main task, and the implementation of EU programmes represented only a minor task (Interviews in Berlin, November 1998; Bonn, May 1999; and London, September 2000). A certain level of monitoring of decentralised selection procedures at a European level is, therefore, necessary to 10 For a detailed description of the decentralised and centralised procedures and the scope of their application see, for SOCRATES: Commission (2000k, pp. 9-15); for LEONARDO: Commission (2000d, pp. 12ff.).

226

HUBERT ERTL

avoid the danger that EU programmes are utilised merely to finance national priorities in the field (cf. Sellin, 1995b, p. 188). The negotiations for the new SOCRATES programme were also far from straightforward. Mainly due to the looming crisis of the Commission headed by Jacques Santer, the decision for SOCRATES II was not taken until 24 January 2000, that is to say more than three weeks after the intended starting date of the new programme (Commission, 2001f). As a result, the activities under SOCRATES II only started in autumn 2000 in the UK (DfEE, 2000b). For both programmes it remains to be seen to what extent this difficult start to the new phase has damaged the potentially positive impetus of the restructured configuration of the programmes. For the important issue of transfer and dissemination of innovation developed by the programmes it seems that a concept of what constitutes innovation is still lacking. Only once such a concept is fully developed will it become clear if and how projects can add value to current education and training provisions in Member States. The UK Final Report on LEONARDO I by the DfEE points out that the word ‘innovation’ is used extensively throughout the documentation (guidelines, good practice guides, application forms) associated with the programme. However, many projects are still described as innovative simply because they ‘are on the internet’. Therefore, it is necessary to make clear what is meant by the term ‘innovation’ (DfEE, 1999, pp. 49 and 85). The SOCRATES II programme

SOCRATES encourages co-operation in the field of general and higher education. Opportunities are available for schools, colleges, universities and other organisations to work together on European partnerships, projects and professional development. Compared with the first phase of the programme (1995-1999), the second phase of SOCRATES (2000-2006) incorporates increased opportunities in the fields of lifelong learning, adult education, new information and communication technologies and open and distance learning (Council, 1995 and 2000a). The aims of the programme may be summarised as follows: to strengthen the European dimension in education at all levels, to improve knowledge of European languages, to promote and facilitate co-operation and mobility in education, to encourage innovation in education, and to promote equal opportunities in all sectors of education (cf. Commission, 2000c and 2000j, p. 3). Over the seven-year duration of SOCRATES II the EU is due to spend 1,850 million Euro on the programme. The initial budget for the five years of SOCRATES I was 850 million Euro. However, a feasibility study at the half-way stage resulted in an increase to 930 million Euro (Commission, 2000f, p. 5). The main parts of SOCRATES II are:


227

school education (Comenius) – actions aimed at encouraging co-operation in school education, adult education and lifelong learning (Grundtvig) – other educational pathways, teaching and learning of languages (Lingua) – measures to promote the teaching and learning of foreign languages, observation and innovation of education systems and policies (Arion) – study visits for decision-makers in education, open and distance learning (Minerva) – information and communication technologies in the field of education, opportunities for higher education (Erasmus) – student mobility schemes, joint actions with other European programmes (with LEONARDO and the Youth programmes), and accompanying measures – activities to raise awareness of European cooperation in education, such as conferences, symposia, the dissemination of project results and materials and co-operation with non-participating countries and international bodies (cf. DfEE, 2000b; Commission, 2000i; and British Council, 2000b). Three of these eight main actions are sub-divided in the Annex of the SOCRATES II Decision (Council, 2000a and Central Bureau, 2000): Comenius comprises school partnerships, training of staff involved in school education, and networks related to school partnerships; Erasmus comprises European inter-university co-operation, mobility of students and university teachers, and thematic networks, and Observation and innovation comprises observation of education systems, policies and innovations, and innovative initiatives responding to emerging needs. These SOCRATES measures are implemented through a number of different types of initiatives, including support for transnational mobility, for the use of information and communication technologies, for the development of transnational co-operation networks, for the promotion of language skills, and for the support of innovative pilot projects (Council, 2000a, Art. 3(2)).

The LEONARDO II programme The LEONARDO II programme contributes to the implementation of a vocational training policy for the EU, which – according to Article 127 TEU – supports and supplements the actions of the Member States. It aims to promote new approaches in vocational training policies. For the seven years of its duration, the European Union has allocated 1,150 million Euro (compared to 794 million Euro for the five years of LEONARDO I). At the outset, 620 million Euro were allocated to LEONARDO I.

228

HUBERT ERTL

However, the budgetary authority raised the annual appropriations (Commission, 2000h, p. 14). The combined budget of the first phase of the two programmes, therefore, was 1,644 million Euro for the years 1995-1999. In comparison with, for instance, the EU Social Fund (1994-1999) of 57,191 million Euro, the programmes for education and training are regarded as ‘medium size Community programme[s]’ (Commission, 2000h, p. 14). Despite the increase in the combined budget for the second phase of SOCRATES and LEONARDO to 3,000 million Euro, this situation remains unchanged. For a comparison of the expenditure of the first generation programmes in education and training with expenditure for the European Social Fund between 1987 and 1992 see Milner (1998, p. 158). LEONARDO II is characterised by a substantially more streamlined structure than LEONARDO I. Instead of a multitude of aims and measures as in LEONARDO I, the new programme concentrates on a small number of overarching priorities such as the promotion of the European dimension and the quality of innovation in three main areas of vocational education (initial training, further training and competitiveness) (BIBB, 2000b). LEONARDO I defined four strands of actions that were then subdivided into no fewer than 23 measures. The number of measures for LEONARDO II was reduced to seven (UK National Agency, 2001b). For many of these measures the LEONARDO I decision defined a number of different priorities which contributed to the confusing structure of the programme (Council, 1994 and 1999a). LEONARDO II is structured into three overarching objectives and there are seven measures that aim to achieve them. The three objectives of LEONARDO II can be summarised as follows: Objective 1: improvement of skills and competences of people in vocational education and training at all levels, with a view to facilitating their integration into the labour market;

Objective 2: improvement of quality of, and access to, continuing vocational training and the lifelong acquisition of skills and competences, and Objective 3: reinforcement of the contribution of vocational education and training to the process of innovation, with a view to improving competitiveness and entrepreneurship (Council, 1999a). The seven types of measures which aim to achieve these three overarching objectives are: promotion of mobility (transnational placements, transnational exchanges, and study visits for the following target groups: young people in initial or further training; trainers, teachers and training experts; higher education students and graduates for periods of practical training); initiation of pilot projects, including ‘thematic actions’ (design, development, testing, evaluation and dissemination of innovative practices in the field of vocational education); promotion of language competences (teaching material and methods, language audits, language self-tuition);


229

development of transnational co-operation networks (joint work of partners from several countries regarding new approaches to training, exchange of good practice and innovation in training); development of reference material (creation and updating of surveys and analyses, observation and dissemination of good practice, exchange of information); joint actions with other EU programmes, and accompanying measures (establishment of national resource and information centres for vocational guidance, co-operation with non-EU countries) (Commission, 2000d and BMBF, 2000c). In contrast with the first phase of the programme, the projects funded by LEONARDO II can combine the content areas of different programme actions. This change aims to reduce the danger of segmentation within the programme (Bildung für Europa, 2000b). 4. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SOCRATES AND LEONARDO 4.1 Implementation at the EU level 4.1.1 The European Commission

The European Commission formally initiates and implements European Union legislation. Although Commissioners are political appointments, the European Commission acts as the ‘civil service’ of the Union, independently of national interests (Hantrais, 1995, p. 215). The EU Treaties assign the Commission a range of functions; these include initiating legislation, monitoring the implementation of the Treaties, and executing Union policies (Preston, 1991, pp. 28f.; Field, 1998, p. 21). In the field of education and training the European Commission has overall responsibility for the implementation and management of the SOCRATES and LEONARDO programmes. The Commission ensures that there is consistency of implementation throughout the Member States. This includes guaranteeing equal access to information and to the programmes in all the participating countries. Further, the Commission ensures that common criteria are applied in the evaluation and selection procedures. The Commission specifies the priority objectives for each of the Union calls for proposals. On the basis of these objectives the selection of applications is made. It draws up the lists of projects selected under centralised application procedures and signs contracts with the promoters of projects selected under the centralised selection procedure. At an internal, civil service (cf. Figure 1) level these competencies have been attributed to a number of departments called Directorates-General (DGs), supported by a number of specialised services. The DGs are mainly responsible for the technical preparation of legislation and its implementation. All of these departments

230

HUBERT ERTL

have developed distinct working methods and internal hierarchies (Wallace & Wallace, 1996, p. 48). Education as a policy area was included in this structure for the first time in 1973 when it was combined with research and science policy and placed under the ambit of DG XII. For the first time education figured as the explicit responsibility of a Commissioner (Neave, 1984, p. 8). Following a reorganisation of the Commission administration in 1999, there are currently 36 departments;11 the DG ‘Education and Culture’ is explicitly charged with implementing policies and programmes for education, training, human resources and youth. The reshuffle followed the appointment of a new Commission in September 1999. Previously the Commission administration comprised 24 DGs and 13 Services; DGXXII (Education, Training and Youth) was responsible for the implementation of SOCRATES and LEONARDO (Commission, 1999a). The DG ‘Education and Culture’ now comprises five units called Directorates. Within Directorate A (General Education) the Sections A-2, A-3 and A-4 are responsible for the implementation of SOCRATES. Section B-2 within Directorate B (Vocational Education) fulfils the same role for LEONARDO. All the other Sections in Directorates A and B contribute in varying degrees to the administration of the programmes. For instance, Section B-4 evaluates research projects funded by LEONARDO. The Commission is assisted by two committees in running the programmes: the SOCRATES Committee and the LEONARDO Committee. The legal basis of the SOCRATES Committee is Article 4 in the SOCRATES Decision (Council, 1995); for the LEONARDO Committee Article 6 in the LEONARDO Decision (Council, 1994).12 The Committees are chaired by a Commission representative. Both Committees are made up of two representatives from each of the Member States. Representatives of other participating countries attend the meetings of both Committees but do not have voting rights. The social partners (representatives of employers’ associations and trade unions) also have the right to attend the meetings of the LEONARDO Committee but do not have voting rights. The Committees discuss a variety of matters concerning the implementation of their respective programmes. These matters include the broad implementation guidelines, the annual schedule of work (including the Union call for proposals), the annual budget allocations and the selection lists for projects under the centralised selection procedures (Commission 2000f, p. 5 and 2000h, p. 12). The application and selection procedures set out for the two programmes vary depending on whether an action is centralised (which means it is managed by the European Commission) or decentralised (which means it is managed by the Member States). 11 For a more detailed account on the administrative reform of the European Commission see Commission (1999c and 1999d). 12

The Decisions on SOCRATES I and LEONARDO I (Council, 1995 and 1994) on the one hand and on SOCRATES II and LEONARDO II (Council, 2000a and 1999a) on the other are very similarly structured. Therefore, reference in the following sections is only made to the Decisions on the first phase of the programmes. In these cases, corresponding references can be found in the Decisions on the second phase of the programmes.


231

The main function of the Committees is to comment on the most important aspects of the implementation of the programmes as suggested by the EU Commission. The impact of these comments depends on the respective legal status of the Committees. In matters of general questions and priorities of the implementation of the programmes the Committees act under the ‘advisory committee’ procedure. This means that the EU Commission is required to take account of the opinions delivered by the Committees, but is not bound by them. In matters of the use of programme resources, of criteria for the selection of project applications, and of the transfer of programme results, the Committees act under the ‘management committee’ procedure. This means that in the case of a negative opinion by the Committees the matter is referred to the European Council which may substitute its own decision for that of the Commission [cf. Council, 1995, Art. 4(4),(5),(3) and Council, 1994, Art. 6(3),(5)]. This segmentation of decision-making powers follows the procedural requirements for the exercise of powers of implementation by the Commission under acts of the Council. A closed catalogue of such forms of procedure was established by Council Decision 87/373/EC. This is known as the ‘Comitology Decision’ because the different procedures all involve the submission of the Commission’s draft implementing measures to a committee composed of national officials (Wyatt & Dashwood, 1993, pp. 30f.; Wallace & Wallace, 1996, p. 47). The two Committees for SOCRATES and LEONARDO are supported by subcommittees. For SOCRATES there are two such subcommittees, one on higher education and one on school education. Like the SOCRATES Committee itself, both its subcommittees are composed of two representatives of each Member State. The SOCRATES Committee decides which questions are referred to the subcommittees and also ensures co-ordination between them [Council, 1995, Art. 4(2a)]. It can also establish working groups to assist itself or the subcommittees in specific issues; the Parliament and Council Decision mentions language learning as one such issue [Council, 1995, Art. 4(2b)]. For the implementation of LEONARDO there are subcommittees for initial training, for further training and for co-operation between industry and universities [Council, 1994, Art. 6(2)]. These subcommittees support the LEONARDO Committee in the areas in which it has only consultative status (Council, 1994, Art. 6(2),(3b) and Annex Part A). Subcommittees are composed in the same way as the LEONARDO Committee; 36 representatives of the social partners can attend the meetings as observers. Attached to the responsible Sections within Directorate A and B are the SOCRATES Technical Assistance Office and the LEONARDO Technical Assistance Office respectively which support the Commission in the implementation of the programmes on a day-to-day basis. These Offices do not have EU status and are semi-autonomous. They are inter alia concerned with information dissemination, project choice and project management, promotion of the European dimension in education, support for the co-operation of actors involved in education and training in the Member States (schools, universities, companies, social partners, training centres, research agencies), and the review of the programmes. They also organise

232

HUBERT ERTL

annual project calls in co-operation with the national co-ordination agencies (Commission, 2000h, p. 11). These Offices succeeded the separate technical assistance units which had helped to administer action programmes before SOCRATES and LEONARDO were established (Preston, 1991, pp. 36, 39). With the creation of the two framework programmes SOCRATES and LEONARDO the Commission was able to move staffing resources into the Directorate General. This arrangement can be regarded as one way in which the Commissioner responsible for the DG was given more room for manoeuvre (Field, 1998, p. 63). For all major education programmes, the Commission has established management or advisory groups which mainly have an advisory function regarding policy development and programme evaluation. Their impetus on programme implementation can therefore be regarded as indirect. The following diagram shows the Commission units and bodies immediately involved in the implementation of SOCRATES and LEONARDO:


233

4.1.2 The Council of the European Union The Union’s final decision-making body is its Council. In order to elaborate on the relatively complicated levels of responsibilities within the European Council it seems helpful to divide the Council’s internal structure into three levels:

13

Source: Commission Européenne (2000)

234

HUBERT ERTL

At Level 1 the European Council brings together the heads of state and government of the Member States. Although the legal basis for the meeting of the heads of states and government was only provided by the Single European Act of 1986, there have been biannual meetings of the heads of state and government since 1974. The Council’s role at this highest level is essentially political rather than executive because it determines the long-term strategic development and the overall political direction of the Union. At the level of Ministers or Secretaries of State (Level 2), the Council of Ministers deals with more specific policies regarding their respective areas of responsibility. This Council ‘[...] shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, authorised to commit the government of that Member State’ (Art. 146 TEU). In legal terms, the Council is a ‘unitary institution’. This means that it is the same institution with the same powers whatever the particular national responsibilities of the Ministers attending (Wyatt & Dashwood, 1993, pp. 20f.). The introduction of these ministerial Councils undermined the notion of a 14

Cf. Wallace & Wallace (1996, p. 50).


235

single Council early on (Wallace & Wallace, 1996, pp. 49f.). For instance, the Council of Ministers of Education first met in 1974, when the Ministers recognised the need to establish a basis for co-operation in the field of education (Moschonas, 1998, p. 80). Nowadays, the Ministers of Education meet on average twice a year. The Council’s increasing workload as a result of ongoing integration soon made it necessary for Ministers to delegate their powers to national officials and representatives who meet more regularly than the Ministers in so-called Council Committees (Level 3). The Education Committee, for instance, meets on a monthly basis. Its main task is to discuss policy proposals from the Commission, in particular proposals concerning the implementation of SOCRATES and LEONARDO. If Commission proposals are vetoed by the SOCRATES or LEONARDO Committee, it is the Council Education Committee that reviews them. The Education Committee is assisted by working groups. The Council has developed a substructure of about 150 such bodies dealing with all different policy areas; some deal with matters pertaining to education and training. The Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) is the link between the ministerial level (Level 2) and the level of national officials and representatives (Level 3). COREPER consists of the civil servants from the Member States who meet on a weekly basis. The legal foundation of COREPER’s activities is Article J.8(5) and Article 151 TEU. It operates at two different levels: COREPER I (Deputies) prepares technical and financial issues; COREPER II (Ambassadors) prepares Council of Ministers meetings and deals with overarching political issues. Essentially, COREPER acts as a ‘filter’ between the Council and the other Union institutions. Its most important task is to discuss proposals made by the Commission and to identify areas of potential agreement and conflict (Wallace & Wallace, 1996, chapter 2). In this context, COREPER supports the Council in cases in which detailed negotiations with the Commission are necessary. The conceptualisation and implementation of SOCRATES and LEONARDO can require such negotiations (Hantrais, 1995, p. 214). COREPER consists of specialist committees and working groups. In the field of education and training, the Education Committee (Level 3) reports to the specialist committees and working groups within COREPER and prepares the meetings of the Education Council of Ministers (Level 2). 4.1.3 Other EU bodies

At each step of the Union’s integration process the influence of the European Parliament (EP) was increased. In the 1970s the EP obtained decision-making powers in budgetary issues. In 1979, the first direct European elections took place. Since then, European citizens have elected their representatives in the EP every five years. The Maastricht Treaty substantially strengthened the role of the EP in the legislative process. The 1997 Amsterdam Treaty extended the EP’s powers further, not least regarding decisions in the field of education and training (Sellin, 1999, p. 25). In particular, the Treaty gave the EP greater influence in the supervision of the

236

HUBERT ERTL

Commission; for instance the President of the Commission can only be appointed with the approval of the Parliament. In the Amsterdam Treaty the EP’s role was also clarified. Most importantly, the hitherto ambiguous application of legislative procedures was regulated. For this purpose the number of legislative procedures was reduced to three: ‘co-decision, assent and consultation’. At this point, it is sufficient to explain the co-decision procedure as it gives the EP the strongest influence.15 The co-decision procedure places the Council and the EP on an equal footing. This means that by refusing to agree on a Commission proposal it can prevent implementation by the Council of Ministers (Hantrais, 1995, p. 216; Piehl & Sellin, 1995, p. 198). The co-decision procedure was significantly extended in scope in the Amsterdam Treaty and now comprises policy areas such as employment, social policy, the free movement of citizens, the internal market, structural funds and co-operation in research and development. In all these areas the EP can introduce amendments; one such case was the decision on the second phase of the LEONARDO programme in which the EP made a number of amendments to the Commission’s proposal and to the Council’s position (EP minutes of 05/11/98, A4-0373/98). These amendments to LEONARDO II can be regarded as an indication that the EP is increasingly prepared to engage with the Commission and the Council in matters of education and training. Most of the Parliament’s work is carried out by its standing committees which report back to the Parliament and make recommendations. The Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and Media is one of the twenty or so standing committees. The work of this Committee was instrumental in the decision on the amendments to LEONARDO II. The EP is also involved in the supervision and evaluation of LEONARDO and SOCRATES (Council, 1994, Art. 10; 1995, Art. 8; 1999a, Art. 13; 2000a, Art. 14). Most of this work is delegated by the EP to its Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and Media. Finally, the EU has created two consultative committees alongside its main institutions (Commission, Council, Parliament and Court of Justice) which have a more indirect influence on programmes in education and training. The members of both of these committees, the Economic and Social Committee (ESC) and the Committee of the Regions (CoR) are nominated by the Member States. The ESC is made up of 222 members, drawn from organisations representing employers, workers, farmers, small and medium-sized enterprises, commerce, crafts, co-operatives, mutual benefit societies, the professions, consumers, environmentalists, families, and ‘socially-oriented’ NGOs. Under the Treaty of Rome the ESC must be consulted in a number of areas, including education and training. Articles 126(4) and 127(4) of the Maastricht Treaty explicitly specify that the ESC must be consulted before the Council adopts measures to contribute to the achievement of the objectives referred to in the Articles. The ESC is divided into six sections which pool members’ specific areas of expertise and which develop the official opinion of the ESC. Section 4 for Employment, Social Affairs and 15 For an overview of the EU legislative procedures in the fields of education and training as regulated in the TEU see Bardong (1994, p. 75).


237

Citizenship deals with questions on education and training (ESC, 1999 and 2001). Similarly to the European Parliament, the ESC is involved in the supervision and evaluation of SOCRATES and LEONARDO (Council, 1999a, Art. 13; 2000a, Art. 14). The Committee of the Regions (CoR) consists of representatives from regional and local authorities in the Member States. Similarly to the ESC, the CoR must be consulted on a number of political issues. Article 198a of the Maastricht Treaty specifies that the opinion of the CoR must be consulted in the area of education but not training. Nevertheless, the CoR has created a working group on both education and training, Commission 7 on education, vocational training, culture, youth, sport and citizens’ rights (Field, 1998, pp. 22f.; CoR, 1999 and 2001). The main remit of the CoR is to formulate opinions where it considers that specific regional interests are involved. The result of the consultation process of both committees (ESC and CoR) is ‘official opinions’. Among the official opinions adopted by this Commission are opinions on SOCRATES and LEONARDO. Although the ESC and the CoR only have consultative status, the opinions of these bodies can influence the way in which SOCRATES and LEONARDO are implemented in the long run. 4.1.4 Résumé of the implementation at the EU level

The horizontal differentiation of powers between and within the EU institutions has resulted in fragmented decision-making resources. Further, the highly institutionalised negotiation patterns caused a lack of co-ordination of policy implementation at the EU level (Schink, 1993, p. 181). The problems in the implementation of LEONARDO I at the EU level as described in the previous sections provide an example of the negative consequences of this. In particular, the accountability of the variety of committees and subcommittees at the level of the European Commission seems, in many cases, unclear (Wallace & Wallace, 1996, p. 47). The phenomenon of ‘comitology’ seems to make it possible that obviously ineffective administration of EU programmes at the EU level can remain unnoticed by the general public for a long time. The case of the LEONARDO Technical Assistance Office provides an example of ongoing malpractice. Given the fragmentation in the policy-making processes and implementation structures, it is to some degree understandable that EU actions in the field of education and training lack coherence (Hake, 1999, p. 58). In addition, committees, such as the SOCRATES and the LEONARDO committees, that consist of members appointed by and accountable to their national governments, seem to threaten the supranational character of the Commission as a whole. 4.2 Implementation at the national level

The SOCRATES and LEONARDO programmes support and amend the policies of the Member States in education and training. This is a result of the introduction of the programmes on the basis of Articles 126 and 127 of the Maastricht Treaty (cf.

238

HUBERT ERTL

preambles of Council, 1995 and Council, 1994) which limit the Union’s activities accordingly: ‘The Community [...] shall support and supplement the action of the member states [...]’ [Art. 127(1) TEU; cf. a similar formulation in Art. 126(1) TEU]. As a consequence, the European Commission as the EU’s principal executive organ needs to co-operate closely with the Member States in terms of the implementation of the two programmes. Moreover, the Member States are in principle responsible for the implementation processes at the national level [Council, 1994, Art. 4 (3) and Council, 1995, Art. 5(3)]. The national ministries of education and/or labour act as the National Authorities. For the implementation of the programmes the National Authorities establish or nominate so-called National Agencies.16 The National Agencies co-operate with the European Commission, on behalf of the Member States, in implementing the programmes at a national level. More precisely, the National Agencies fulfil the following tasks: information, monitoring, evaluation and dissemination activities with a view to facilitating access to the programmes and improving arrangements for disseminating the results of the programmes; promotion of interaction between SOCRATES and LEONARDO and other EU programmes and activities concerned with education and training; co-operation with the Commission and with National Authorities and Agencies of the other Member States; information and advice for potential project applicants; preparing and applying decentralised selection procedures and concluding contracts with promoters according to the common rules and arrangements set out at EU level; monitoring, organising and evaluating projects under decentralised application procedures, and helping to disseminate and embed their results, and providing assistance, according to arrangements to be decided on with the European Commission, for the monitoring of projects selected under the decentralised selection procedure, and helping to disseminate and embed their results. The way in which the National Agencies are selected and organised is subject to the decision of the Member States, since they ‘[...] shall take the necessary steps [to implement the programmes] in accordance with national practice’ [Art. 5(2) of Council (1999a) and Art. 5(2) of Council (2000a)]. Interestingly, the phrase ‘in accordance with national practice’ was not used in Decisions establishing the first phase of SOCRATES and LEONARDO. This is a clear indication that the Member States have more scope for deciding the implementation arrangements of 16 During the first phase of the programmes these institutions were called National Co-ordination Units (NCUs) (Commission, 1998b, p. 13). The following publications provide lists of National Agencies for all EU Member States: LEONARDO I: Commission (1998e and 1999b), LEONARDO II: Commission (2001j), SOCRATES I: Commission (1998b), SOCRATES II: Commission (2000l and 2000e).


239

SOCRATES II and LEONARDO II. For the competencies for the first phase of the programmes see Article 4(3) of Council (1994) and Article 5(3) of Council (1995). The legal status of the National Agencies varies from private or semi-private organisations to ministries or inter-ministerial units. Although the National Agencies for SOCRATES and LEONARDO are selected by the National Authority responsible, the contractual relationship is directly between the Agency and the European Commission. The National Agencies are cofunded by the European Commission and the Member States (Commission, 2000h, p. 11). Due to the fact that the Member States are responsible for implementing SOCRATES and LEONARDO, the organisational structure of the National Agencies differs from one country to another. In general there are two models of organising National Agencies in operation: larger EU countries normally prefer a ‘specialist-agency-model’ (cf. Publications France, 1998; BIBB, 1998b), whereas a ‘generalist-agency-model’ can be found in most small- and medium-sized Member States (for instance, Sweden and Portugal, cf. Commission, 1999b). In the former model a number of specialised agencies are responsible for the different action areas of the programmes. The allocation of competencies for the different action areas to the agencies in most cases follows the system of responsibilities developed for the host of programmes preceding SOCRATES and LEONARDO. For instance, in most of the countries following the ‘specialistagency-model’ the agency that acted as the competent body for the implementation of the Erasmus programme is still responsible for the exchange of students in higher education as part of the SOCRATES programme. In the ‘generalist-agency-model’ a single agency acts as the National Agency for one of the programmes or even for all EU programmes and activities in education and training. In most cases these large agencies are divided into departments or sections which deal with the different action areas of the programmes. In some cases the expertise necessary to fulfil all the aforementioned tasks of a National Agency is bought in from external sources. For the implementation of LEONARDO I, for instance, generalist National Coordination Units existed in seven Member States and in most of the pre-accession countries which were also eligible for the programme or parts of the programme. In the remaining eight Member States several National Co-ordination Units were responsible for implementing the programme. The division of responsibility between the different bodies in these latter cases followed the division of the programme into various strands or was done according to geographical areas (Commission, 2000h, p. 10). In the following, these two implementation models are used to categorise the administration of SOCRATES and LEONARDO in Sweden, Germany and the UK. 4.2.1 Implementation patterns in Sweden

In Sweden the Ministry of Education – like the other national ministries – is small and deals almost exclusively with policy formulation. Executive powers therefore lie

240

HUBERT ERTL

with administrative agencies (Larsson, 1995. pp. 50f., 58f.) – in the case of the implementation of SOCRATES II and LEONARDO II with the International Programme Office for Education and Training (Internationella Programkontoret för Utbildningsområdet) (International Programme Office, 2001). Following the ‘generalist-agency-model’ the International Programme Office deals with most of the programmes related to education, training and competence development in which Sweden participates. The Office implements and co-ordinates educational and vocational programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO as well as structural fund programmes such as Objective 4. It is also responsible for certain other international programmes closely related to the areas covered by the EU programmes. The Office was given its present name in 2000 when SOCRATES and LEONARDO entered their second phase. Before this, it was called Swedish EU Programme Office (Svenska EU Programkontoret). The change of name indicates that the Office’s responsibilities were extended. Firstly, the Office has assumed the responsibility for a growing number of non-EU programmes.17 Secondly, in the EU sector the Office now also acts as the National Agency for programmes that were formerly not part of its remit, for instance the Tempus programme, the EU-Canada and the EU-USA programmes. Most importantly, the Programme Office now also implements the Erasmus programme. During the first phase of SOCRATES, Erasmus was administered by the National Agency for Higher Education (Högskoleverket).18 With the responsibility for all actions of SOCRATES and LEONARDO, for all other EU programmes in the field of education and training, and for non-EU programmes in the field, the Programme Office is the prototype of a generalist-agency. The Programme Office was established in 1995, the year Sweden joined the EU. It is financed by Swedish public funds and the EU. The establishment of twentythree regional offices shows a trend towards a more decentralised administration of the programmes. The Office’s Board of Directors decides the main directions of policies and the ways in which EU programmes are implemented. The Board is appointed by the government and consists of under-secretaries from several ministries and the head of the Programme Office. The Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Education and Science is chairman of the Board. This structure is intended to ensure that the Office’s operations are embedded in Swedish national policy (Svenska EU Programkontoret, 1997). The Programme Office is assisted by two Advisory Committees: one for school and youth issues, the other for competence development. The members of these committees include representatives from the National Agency for Education, the National Agency for Higher Education, the National Board for the Labour Market, 17

Email correspondence with a senior officer, February 2001.

18 This change was due to the strong political will of the Swedish government for one single agency covering all EU programmes and actions in the field of education and training. (Email correspondence with an EU Programme Office official, February 2001.) For the implementation of Erasmus during the first phase of SOCRATES see Högskoleverket (1997).


241

the National Board for Industrial and Technical Development, social and economic partners and local and regional authorities.

The decision to have a single administrative agency for EU programmes in education and training was based on a number of considerations: The customer’s perspective. The Programme Office acts as a central point of information on all the programmes for those who are active in the field of education and training. The Office administers a large number of programmes and so it can suggest the most propitious form of application for a particular project in order for it to have the greatest chance of obtaining EU support. The Office also offers information on the EU’s entire range of programmes for education, training and competence development. It therefore provides an overview for the customers and can also serve as a meeting point where ideas can be developed and exchanged. Collaboration across sectors. Many EU programmes contain elements which belong to both the educational and labour market fields. They may also have distinct industrial policy or regional aspects. In this perspective a single agency can fulfil the function of translating the cross-sector aspects of the programmes to the different structures of Swedish government authorities. With education, training and competence development as a common denominator, the Programme Office can also act as a link between the EU and the Swedish authorities. Co-operation between the sectors of education and training is also possible. For instance, a model for knowledge development which has been produced under the auspices of SOCRATES can have a practical use in the training process and could therefore be further developed by LEONARDO activities. A single agency seems to be best equipped to facilitate such cross-sector dissemination of project outcomes in Sweden. 19

Cf. Svenska EU Programkontoret (1997) and (n.d.).

242

HUBERT ERTL

Synergy and efficiency. Several programmes within the fields of training and competence development have similar aims and goals but different structures and contents, depending on the EU body responsible for them. By bringing several similar programmes together under a single agency synergy effects can be created and efficiency improved. The same effects can be utilised by bringing EU programmes together with other internationally-oriented activities concerning nonEU countries. Benefits of size. A single agency for EU programmes has greater influence with the EU, for instance when it comes to simplifying administrative processes. The large-scale agency can also serve to initiate broader collaboration across different sectors in both Sweden and the EU. The size of the Programme Office also makes it possible to retain specialists in various subject fields. As mentioned, Erasmus used to be the only exception from the ‘generalistagency-model’. This exception shows the weakness of the model. The exchange of students in higher education promoted by Erasmus make it necessary to evaluate foreign education, the courses of study, and the degrees awarded by universities abroad. This evaluation requires specialised knowledge of higher education curricula across Europe. A specialised agency responsible for the same area of education was seen as best equipped to develop and update this knowledge. Therefore, Erasmus was implemented by a specialised agency, namely the National Agency for Higher Education during the life-span of SOCRATES I (Högskoleverket, 1997, pp. 16ff.). The incorporation of the responsibility for Erasmus into the International Programme Office was met with resistance from those arguing for the ‘specialistagency-model’ particularly in the field of higher education. 4.2.2 Implementation patterns in Germany

For the implementation of SOCRATES I and LEONARDO I, Germany followed the ‘specialist-agency-model’. The Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF – Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung) as the National Authority for both programmes in the German context appointed as many as seven different agencies for the implementation of each of the two programmes:20

20 The structure for the implementation of SOCRATES and LEONARDO shows similarities with the implementation patterns of the preceding EU programmes at the beginning of the 1990s (cf. chapter 7 in this present volume).


21

Visualisation of a description in BIBB (n.d.).

22

Visualisation of a description in Eurpäische Kommission (1999).

243

244

HUBERT ERTL

These agencies are specialised bodies in their field of work and have a wide range of functions; the co-ordination of EU programmes is just one of these. The allocation of responsibilities to this variety of agencies followed a number of principles which must be seen in the wider context of the German legal framework and the administrative structure which has developed in the past decades. Firstly, there was a conviction that the agency which has the most expertise in the field should deal with the EU programmes. The somewhat diffuse and complicated allocation of co-ordinating functions concerning EU programmes makes much more sense if this ‘principle of expertise’ is kept in mind. For instance, the DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) had assisted student exchanges long before Erasmus was introduced in the 1980s. The Federal Institute for Employment (BfA), which is also the umbrella organisation for the local job centres at the federal level, deals with pilot projects in the area of work-relevant information and counselling within the framework of LEONARDO. The BIBB (Federal Institute for Vocational Education) sometimes referred to as the ‘Parliament of Vocational Education and Training’, is the most important body as regards all aspects of regulating and developing the so-called ‘dual system’ of vocational education. It therefore assumes overall co-ordination of the LEONARDO programme. In the field of training the deep-rooted ‘principle of consensus’ is regarded as an expression of a living democracy and of a high commitment to training within society (Schmidt, 1996b, p. 2). As a consequence, LEONARDO I was implemented by agencies which are strongly influenced by the social partners. For instance, all major committees of BIBB include an equal number of representatives of employers and trade unions. In these committees, decisions are made with mutual consultation of all groups involved. The general ‘principle of federalism’ in Germany was also mirrored in the implementation and administration of the EU programmes. The competencies for the programmes in education and training are divided between the federal and the 16 Länder governments. For the area of training, for instance, the latter have responsibility for vocational schools; the former has control over the in-company part of vocational training. The organisational patterns of the EU programmes correspond with this structure. In many cases there are more or less institutionalised modes of co-ordination between federal and Länder governments. For example, the PAD (Educational Exchange Service), which co-ordinates all school-related aspects of SOCRATES, is incorporated in the KMK (Standing Conference of Land Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs), the major decision-making body for school education. For vocational training all major committees of the BIBB comprise representatives of the federal and the Länder governments.23

23

For a discussion of the potential difficulties of implementing EU education policies in the federal structure of Germany see Schröder (1990).


245

The SOCRATES II programme

For SOCRATES II, Germany still follows the ‘specialist-agency-model’. Due to the streamlined structure of the second phase of the programme, the Ministry decided to reduce the number of National Agencies from seven to four and to restructure the responsibilities of these agencies:

Although the competencies for the new phase of the programme were clarified to a certain degree, the new implementation pattern still divides the responsibilities for some of the actions between two or more agencies. For the implementation of SOCRATES I, this was even more the case. For instance, the competencies for Lingua were divided between three different agencies for SOCRATES I (Europäische Kommission, 1999), while there are two Lingua agencies for SOCRATES II. The difficulties applicants faced in trying to find the appropriate agency led to serious complaints about the implementation of the programme.25 It remains to be seem whether the somewhat clearer division of competencies for the SOCRATES II actions will prevent complaints of this kind (BMBF, 2000d). The introduction of the National Agency Training for Europe for all overarching actions of SOCRATES II (accompanying measures and joint actions) and for some parts of Grundtvig, Minerva and Lingua, represents a clear step towards the simplification of implementation patterns (Bildung für Europa, 2000a). The new Agency is based at the Federal Institute for Vocational Education (Bundesinstitut für 24 25

Visualisation of descriptions in DAAD (2000a) and Commission (2000e).

Interview with an official at the Ministry for Education, Science, Research and Technology (Bonn, May 1999).

246

HUBERT ERTL

Berufsbildung – BIBB) and also assumes overall responsibility for the implementation of LEONARDO II. The introduction of this Agency should increase the coherence of the SOCRATES actions and also utilise synergy effects between the two programmes (Nationale Agenturen, 2000). The LEONARDO II programme For LEONARDO II, the restructuring process of the implementation patterns went even further. The Federal Ministry for Education, Science, Research and Technology has adopted a completely new structure for the co-ordination of the second phase of the programme. Instead of following the ‘specialist-agency-model’ as previously, LEONARDO II is co-ordinated and administered by a single institution, the National Agency Education for Europe, within the BIBB. The National Agency Education for Europe is responsible for the contract management of the essential parts of the programmes and for the co-ordination of pilot projects, language research and learning projects. It also serves as the central contact point for information and advice for all measures of LEONARDO II (BMBF, 2000c, pp. 3,16). The new Agency promotes the LEONARDO programme and is responsible for reporting on the programme (Bildung für Europa, 2000a). Similar to its role in the implementation of SOCRATES II, the Agency assumes competence for all overarching actions of the programme (joint actions and accompanying measures). Therefore, the Agency fulfils some of the criteria of the 'generalist-agencymodel'. The strong role of the new Agency may reduce the frictions caused by the high number of responsible agencies in the implementation of LEONARDO I (Schüller, 2000). However, in its role for LEONARDO the Agency is assisted by four other institutions, which have the status of ‘implementing agencies for LEONARDO DA VINCI on behalf of the Ministry for Education, Science, Research and Technology’ (DAAD, 2000b, p. 2). This structure is illustrated by the following diagram:


247

Judging by the numbers of project proposals in the year 2000, the new implementation structure has already been well accepted by applicants. In almost all areas of the programme the number of project applications reached the level of the previous year (Bildung für Europa, 2000c and BMBF, 2000c, pp. 4-7). This is untypical for the first year of a new programme and can be interpreted as an indication of the better accessibility of the new phase of LEONARDO and of the acceptance of the new implementation structure in the context of the strong position of one agency responsible for the overall promotion of the programme. The new implementation structure represents a clear step away from the ‘specialist-agency-model’. This step has not led directly to a different implementation model such as the ‘generalist-agency-model’. The role of specialist agencies for certain parts of the programme remains strong; the principles that resulted in a purely ‘specialist-agency-model’ for the first phase of both programmes are still influential.27 However, the National Agency Education for Europe may develop into a central service point for all questions concerning transnational co26 27

Interpretation of descriptions in Bildung für Europa (2000a) and DAAD (2000b).

A high-ranking official from the BMBF argues that the Ministry wanted a ‘Generalüberholung’ (general overhaul) of the implementation strategy, not a ‘Radikalkur’ (radical remedy) (Schüller, 2000, p. 2).

HUBERT ERTL

248

operation in the framework of EU programmes in the field of education and training (Schüller, 2000). For the future, therefore, the Agency could assume the role of a generalist agency for all EU programmes in the field.

4.2.3 Implementation patterns in the United Kingdom In the UK the Department of Education and Employment (DfEE) heads the National Agencies for the SOCRATES and LEONARDO programmes and has overall responsibility for their management and implementation. It achieves this task in conjunction with the devolved administrations in Scotland (Scottish Executive Education and Industry Department), Wales (the National Assembly for Wales Education Department) and Northern Ireland (the Department for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment).

The SOCRATES programme For the implementation of SOCRATES II, the DfEE nominated the Central Bureau for International Education and Training (formerly known as the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges) as the UK’s National Agency for five main sections of the programme: Comenius, Grundtvig, Lingua, Arion, Minerva (British Council, 2000a). Erasmus is co-ordinated by the UK SOCRATES-Erasmus Council (UKSEC), an agency set up by the DfEE and based at the University of Canterbury (DfEE, 2000b). Responsibility for the eight measures of SOCRATES II within the National Agency is divided as follows: DfEE: Central Bureau:

UKSEC:

Joint actions with other European programmes Accompanying measures School education (Comenius) Adult education and other educational pathways (Grundtvig) Teaching and learning of languages (Lingua) Observation and innovation of education systems and policies (Arion) Open and distance learning, information and communication technologies (Minerva) Higher education (Erasmus) (DfEE, 2000b).

The Central Bureau for International Education and Training is funded by the Department for Education and Employment, the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, and forms part of the British Council. It was originally established in 1948 and aims to improve educational provision by promoting and supporting the international and European dimension throughout the curriculum, particularly by promoting the learning of foreign languages (DfEE, 2000a). The Central Bureau has three offices (one each serving England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland) which offer


249

advice and information on the five parts of the SOCRATES programme administered by the Central Bureau (British Council, 2000a). Apart from its role as the National Agency for major parts of SOCRATES, the Central Bureau also administers a major part of the LEONARDO programme, organises courses in the UK for the Council of Europe, and co-ordinates UK participation in Council of Europe networks and courses. It administers a range of programmes which are aimed at UK education and training and seeks to raise standards through encouraging direct international experience (UK National Agency, 2001c). This combination of responsibilities and expertise puts the Central Bureau in a position in which it can provide collaboration across different educational sectors and across different programmes. The Central Bureau is supported in the implementation of SOCRATES by a Steering Committee of educational experts from schools, local and regional education advisers, representatives from governmental institutions, and other experts regarding foreign languages and the international dimension in education. This Committee meets approximately quarterly and offers expert advice and input from those to whom the Central Bureau offers international education and training opportunities. This advice aims to ensure that the Central Bureau’s work reflects the needs of potential target groups of the SOCRATES programme and provides added value to them.28 UKSEC acted as the National Agency for the Erasmus programme within both phases of SOCRATES. The Council was established a year after the Erasmus programme started in 1987, and long before the programme came under the SOCRATES framework in 1995 (UKSEC, 1999a). The DfEE selected UKSEC as the National Agency for Erasmus within SOCRATES I and II after public tender processes. As the National Agency for Erasmus, UKSEC is responsible for providing European Union funds to UK higher education institutions for the mobility of teachers and students in higher education. The decision as to whether a student is to receive an Erasmus grant is taken by the student’s university but UKSEC determines the size of every Erasmus grant.29 UKSEC is also responsible for promoting the Erasmus programme and for supporting the participation of UK higher education institutions in the programme. Therefore, it carries out information activities for institutions (for instance, workshops for university staff), and students (for instance, Erasmus student conferences).30 Contact with universities is usually made via the SOCRATESErasmus co-ordinator or European officers based at the universities.

28

Email correspondence with an information officer at the Central Bureau, conducted on 8 and 9 February 2001.

29

Email correspondence with the UKSEC information officer, February 2001.

30 The publication of reports on these activities and of statistical data on student exchanges from and to the UK is also a task of UKSEC within the implementation of Erasmus. For some recent examples see: reports on student conferences (UKSEC 1998a, 1999b), publications of statistical data (UKSEC 1998b,

250

HUBERT ERTL

UKSEC is supported in the implementation of Erasmus by a Steering Committee. This Committee consists of four university Vice-Chancellors, one principal of a higher education college, representatives of students’ organisations (such as the National Union of Students), representatives of the social partners’ organisations (for instance, the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry), and representatives of the National Agencies for LEONARDO and other EU programmes such as Eurydice and Naric. The Steering Committee offers advice on all important questions regarding the implementation of the programme.31

One aspect indicating the application of a ‘specialist-agency-model’ is the fact that both National Agencies for SOCRATES had been involved in exchange and transnational projects long before SOCRATES started. UKSEC was established in 1988 for the implementation of the first Erasmus programme. As we have seen, the Central Bureau was established as early as 1948. This is similar to the German case in that agencies such as the DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) assisted in student exchanges long before SOCRATES and Erasmus were introduced.

1999c), and for general information on the Erasmus programme published by the Council (UKSEC 1998c, 1999d). 31

Email correspondence with the UKSEC information officer, February 2001.

32

Visualisation of a description in DfEE (2000b) and UKSEC (2000).


251

The LEONARDO programme

The UK National Agency is responsible for the implementation of LEONARDO. It is headed by the DfEE which appointed two external agencies to help it administer LEONARDO: the Central Bureau and the Birmingham-based company ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd. The Central Bureau and ECOTEC were chosen after an open tender exercise before LEONARDO II started. Within the DfEE, the responsibilities are divided between the European Union Division (EUD 4) and HEQE 3 (Higher Education Quality and Employability, Division 3: Europe and Vocational Policy). The UK National Agency was established in 1995 for the implementation of the first phase of LEONARDO and named UK National Co-ordination Unit (DfEE, 1999). There was some continuity within the operational arrangements for EU programmes in the field of vocational education and training that preceded LEONARDO (such as Petra and Eurotecnet), but the National Agency was a new institution. Its establishment aimed to provide a unified structure for the implementation of the programme. During the first phase of LEONARDO the UK National Agency for the LEONARDO programme was divided between the DfEE, the Central Bureau and the Centre for Training Policy Studies (CTPS) based at the University of Sheffield (CTPS, 1999). Roughly speaking, ECOTEC took over those responsibilities for LEONARDO II that were assumed by CTPS during LEONARDO I (DfEE, 1999). For the second phase of LEONARDO the National Agency was restructured and given its current name.33 Within the current implementation structure, the DfEE holds overall responsibility for the implementation of the programme in the UK. The DfEE also assumes responsibility for the overarching aspects of the programme, such as the coherence of LEONARDO actions with other national and EU programmes. Actions concerning higher education are also administered by the DfEE: the HEQE 3 is the focal point for applications for EU funding from higher education institutions under the LEONARDO programme (HEQE, 2000). Apart from these tasks performed by the DfEE itself, it has entrusted major parts of the LEONARDO programme to external agencies specialising in various aspects of educational training (the Central Bureau and the CTPS for LEONARDO I, and the Central Bureau and ECOTEC for LEONARDO II). Although the contracted agencies have far-reaching autonomy in their respective areas of responsibility, the DfEE remains the decisive actor in the implementation process of LEONARDO and within the UK National Agency. The DfEE not only holds the overall decisionmaking powers but also determines the procedure for the tender of responsibilities for the programme and the results of the tender process. Responsibility for the seven measures of LEONARDO II within the National Agency is divided as follows: 33 For the transitional period between the two phases of the programme, the implementation responsibilities were regulated provisionally (UK National Agency, 2000b).

252

HUBERT ERTL

DfEE:

Overall programme responsibilities Reference materials Joint actions Accompanying measures (HEQE 3 for actions including higher education institutions; European Union Division (EUD 4) for the exchange of comparable data and reference materials, and for aspects of vocational guidance within LEONARDO)

Central Bureau: Mobility activities (transnational placements, transnational exchanges) ECOTEC: Pilot projects Language competences Transnational networks (UK National Agency, 2000a, 2001a, and 2001c).

This division of the responsibilities for the seven LEONARDO II measures is a simplification of the implementation structure of the programme as compared to the rather complex segregation of powers and tasks during LEONARDO I. This complex structure allocated the 27 measures to the actors involved. As this allocation was done across the four strands of LEONARDO I, a tangle of responsibilities resulted (DfEE, 1999). This confusing division of responsibilities in the implementation of LEONARDO I was one reason for the criticisms pointed out by project applicants. These criticisms included the excessive paperwork, the delays in receiving contracts and payments, and the lack of response to queries (DfEE, 1999, p. 39). A further major change in the implementation structure of the programme with the start of its second phase was the inclusion of the independent and international company ECOTEC in the UK National Agency. The DfEE decided that a private company should implement those measures of LEONARDO dealing with transnational pilot projects and networks. This move can be seen in the wider context of the increase of market forces in the education sector in the UK advocated by the DfEE. Aldrich et al. (2000, chapter 6) argue that the Education Department followed the ideology of an ‘enterprise culture’ in the education sector in the 1990s. Indeed, the creation of a Department that combines the responsibilities for employment and education (DfEE) in 1995 can be seen as a move towards a more labour market-oriented policy in the field of education and training (Aldrich et al., 2000, chapter 1). It remains to be seen how the change from a partly publicly-funded, universitybased research centre with a strong interest in training policies and the development of training systems (CTPS) to a private consultancy and research company (ECOTEC) will affect the interpretation and implementation of major parts of the LEONARDO programme. For ECOTEC, vocational training is only one among a number of spheres of activity. The company provides specialist services in the fields of economic,


253

environmental, social and innovation policy (ECOTEC, 2000 and 1997a). It has worked for international organisations, government agencies, non-governmental organisations and for the private sector since the early 1980s. The company undertakes assignments in all EU Member States, in the countries taking part in the EU programmes Phare and Tacis (mainly central and eastern European countries), and in the non-EU Mediterranean region (UK National Agency, 2001c). As well as its role in the implementation of LEONARDO, ECOTEC is involved in a number of other EU programmes. For instance, the DfEE has awarded ECOTEC the role of the UK Support Unit for the Union initiatives Employment, Youthstart, Horizon and Adapt. The company’s involvement in other EU actions could provide coherence between the projects funded by LEONARDO and other EU programmes. Further, its experience with projects in the EU Member States and many pre-accession countries may lead to effective future co-operation. Before becoming the National Agency for some of the measures in LEONARDO II, ECOTEC was in charge of the first external evaluation of LEONARDO I and the European Year of Lifelong Learning. Both evaluations were commissioned by the European Commission Directorate General XXII (ECOTEC, 1997b). ECOTEC has maintained a close relationship with the European Commission and its programmes since the company’s inception and is a frequent respondent to tenders from the Commission for research, evaluation and technical assistance contracts. Therefore, the company certainly had the advantage of inside knowledge of the workings of EU activities in the field of vocational education and training in general, and of the structures of the LEONARDO programme in particular. Further, experience with the tender process for EU-funded programmes certainly played an important role in the company’s successful application for responsibility for the implementation of LEONARDO II. The National Agency (DfEE, Central Bureau and ECOTEC) is assisted in the delivery of LEONARDO by the UK National Co-ordination Group (NCG). The NCG normally meets twice a year and comprises representatives from the following social groups and institutions: employers and trade unions, higher education and training institutions (universities, training organisations), local, regional and national authorities/governments (for instance, Scottish and Welsh Offices, government departments), and national agencies for other EU programmes and funds (SOCRATES National Agency, European Social Fund Unit). All three partners of the National Authority can nominate NCG representatives but the DfEE takes the ultimate decision on the composition of the body. The role of the NCG is to represent the views and interests of its members’ constituencies and advise the National Agency on the following issues: UK national priorities and proposals, UK selection procedures, and specific aspects of the implementation of the LEONARDO programme across the UK (DfEE, 1999, p. 27). Proposals for LEONARDO projects are evaluated in terms of their potential contributions to the UK LEONARDO priorities. During the six-year term of

254

HUBERT ERTL

LEONARDO II, the National Agency and the NCG will decide three times on a number of UK priorities for the programme calls. For the call for proposals for the 2000 to 2002 period these priorities were employability, partnership, social inclusion, adaptability and entrepreneurship, new technology, and transparency (UK National Agency, 2000a, pp. 3ff.). The NCG advises the National Agency on policy matters, on liaison with other groups and networks and on the promotion of the programme. Further, the NCG nominates the members of the project boards. These boards are convened to assist the National Agency with the selection of project proposals. The role of the boards in the selection process is to provide expert appraisal of the proposals’ potential contribution to the development of and innovation in vocational education and training in the UK and their value in relation to the areas of intended activity, degree of innovation and potential impact. The role of the NCG covers all measures of the LEONARDO programme.34 The following diagram shows the bodies involved in the implementation of LEONARDO II:

In summary the implementation of LEONARDO II in the UK formally follows a restrained version of the ‘generalist-agency-model’: The UK National Agency is responsible for all aspects of the administration and implementation in the UK. In 34

Email correspondence with several National Agency project officers, September 2000 and March 2001.

35

Interpretation of descriptions in UK National Agency (2000a, 2001a and 2001c).


255

contrast with the Swedish case, however, this agency’s competencies are restricted to only one EU programme. Also, the internal structure of the UK National Agency for LEONARDO indicates the application of the ‘specialist-agency-model’ in the working practice of the Agency. It consists of three institutions and responsibilities are allocated to the institution within the Agency that has the most expertise for a particular part of the programme. For instance, responsibilities for mobility projects funded by LEONARDO are organised and administered by the Central Bureau, an institution that has long experience of exchange schemes and educational visits. Nevertheless, the strong role of the actors (Central Bureau and ECOTEC) within the UK National Agency in the implementation of other EU programmes in the field of education and training seems to provide one of the major advantages of the ‘generalist-agency-model’: coherence in the implementation of different EU programmes and funds in the national context. Also, the Central Bureau operates a telephone line for all initial and general enquiries regarding the LEONARDO programme (DfEE, 1999, p. 30). This is a further advantage which can usually only be offered by the ‘generalist-agency-model’. The prominent role of the DfEE within the National Authority and its overall responsibility for the implementation of LEONARDO is also an element of the ‘generalist-agency-model’. The fact that all proposals are examined by a research expert from the DfEE after they have been evaluated by the institution responsible for the part of LEONARDO the proposal refers to aims to ensure comparability in the selection procedure (DfEE, 1999, p. 33). Further, the final list of proposals decided on by the National Authority is evaluated by the NCG. This procedure also contributes to consistency amongst the institutions of the National Authority. In a pure ‘specialist-agency-model’ consistency and comparability of selection procedures of the agencies involved is often a problem. 4.3 Comparison and interpretation of the implementation patterns at the national level

The prominent position of the Central Bureau suggests the status of a de facto ‘generalist-agency’ in the implementation of the programmes in the UK. It administers all aspects of the two EU programmes concerned with mobility and exchange projects, language competences, school partnerships, adult and lifelong learning, and open and distance learning. The two notable exceptions are the mobility of higher education students (Erasmus), and pilot projects and transnational networks in the field of vocational training. As the Central Bureau also assumes responsibility for numerous international, non-EU programmes in the UK, it fulfils most of the criteria established for a ‘generalist-agency’: an inclusive strategy for potential project applicants, co-operation across sectors, synergy and efficiency of several programmes and benefits of size (cf. section 4.2.1). Therefore, the UK follows the ‘generalist-agency-model’ for the implementation of the two programmes to a certain extent. There are striking similarities between the implementation patterns in the UK and in Sweden insofar as one agency dominates the implementation of both programmes. However, a major difference is

256

HUBERT ERTL

that in the UK the responsibilities for implementing the programmes or parts of the programmes are allocated by an invitation to tender. The criteria for the tender processes are set by the DfEE as the responsible National Authority. The national government therefore still holds a very prominent position in the interpretation of the programmes in the national context. In the case of Germany, it can be argued that it follows the ‘specialist-agencymodel’ for the implementation of SOCRATES. Administrative and organisational responsibilities are allocated by the National Authority to those agencies that are regarded as having the most expertise for a particular part of the programme. This situation did not change in principle with the start of the second phase of the programme. However, the implementation pattern was simplified to a certain extent and the number of agencies involved in the implementation process was reduced from seven to four. Further, the newly introduced National Agency Education in Europe assumes responsibility for all overarching actions of SOCRATES II. For LEONARDO II, a decisive step was taken away from the pure ‘specialistagency-model’ as applied in the implementation of the first phase of the programme. One single agency was given the role of national agency, namely the National Agency Education in Europe based within the Federal Institute for Vocational Training (BIBB). This Agency also administers some parts of the LEONARDO II programme. However, responsibilities for major parts of the programmes are delegated to specialised agencies. This structure provides some continuity with the patterns established for LEONARDO I. As the new National Agency Education for Europe assumes substantial competencies for both programmes, the restructuring of the implementation patterns can be regarded as a move towards a ‘generalist-agency-model’ for implementing EU programmes in education and training in Germany. Sweden has followed the ‘generalist-agency-model’ since the country joined the EU in 1995. The only exception to this model was superseded at the beginning of the new phases of the programmes, when the International Programme Office assumed the responsibility for the implementation of Erasmus. In conclusion, a tendency towards the ‘generalist-agency-model’ can be identified in the three countries covered by this study if one takes into account the changes in the implementation structure for the second phase of the EU programmes. On the one hand, this mirrors the ambition of the EU to generate a more holistic approach towards the Union’s policy in education and training and the recommendation of the European Commission to establish a ‘central point of contact’ for the programmes in the Member States (Commission, 2000f, p. 5; Schüller, 2000, p. 2). On the other hand, the tendency to reduce the number of agencies responsible shows the political will of the Member States to provide more transparent and coherent implementation of EU policies. There seem to be various reasons for this political will, some of which originate outside the educational sphere. For instance, in Germany the Federal Audit Court demanded a single agency for the implementation of SOCRATES and LEONARDO for financial reasons (Schüller, 2000). However, the recommendation of the external evaluation of the LEONARDO I programme in Germany to reduce the number of National Agencies for the implementation of the second phase of the programme has


257

certainly also influenced the political decision of the German National Authority (Commission, 2000h, p. 12). The streamlined structure of the programmes in their second phase was certainly a precondition for the changes in the implementation structures at the national level. 5. CONCLUSIONS

This chapter has identified some of the problems successive generations and phases of EU programmes in the field of education and training have faced since the 1970s. These problems are partly the result of the ways in which the programmes have been implemented and administered. On the other hand, the structures and regulations of programmes have determined the implementation patterns at the EU and the national level. Probably the most striking weakness of the programmes termed in this chapter ‘first generation programmes’, and of the first phase of SOCRATES and LEONARDO as the most important ‘second generation programmes’, was the unsatisfactory impact of the programmes in terms of innovation and improvement of the education and training structures in the EU Member States. The main strategy applied to tackle this weakness in the evolution of the programmes has been the shift of implementation powers from EU bodies to the Member States. In the wider educational context, this tendency towards decentralised project selection and management procedures for EU programmes seems to be in line with the strong decentralisation of educational government in almost all European countries (Maden, 2000). The implementation patterns at the national level have become increasingly important for the potential impact of the programmes. The investigation of these patterns suggests a tendency toward the ‘generalist-agency-model’ for the implementation of the programmes at the national level in Sweden, Germany and the UK. The advantages of this model compared to the ‘specialist-agency-model’ are the potential for co-operation across educational sectors, the greater extent to which synergy effects and economies of scale can be utilised, and the better possibilities a generalist agency offers to exploit its stronger position within the institutional framework of an educational system. These advantages could contribute to the improvement of the programmes’ impact on national education and training systems. Given that the implementation patterns in the three countries have become more similar it can be assumed that the impact of the programmes will tend to become more similar in the different national arenas in future. However, the national traditions in education and training and the principles of administration in these fields remain strong. The German model reflects the distancing of a relatively weak national ministry (within a federal system) from direct policy transmission. Implementation is placed in the hands of experts outside of federal or Land ministerial structures. The Swedish model shows a closer relationship between the ministry and the agencies responsible for implementation, while still ensuring a distancing from direct ministerial involvement at anything approaching regional or local levels. In the UK, the distribution of powers is not

258

HUBERT ERTL

only characterised by the ongoing process of devolution but also by the introduction of market forces in the educational sector. In each case the ministries are not so much ‘bypassed’ as that they voluntarily surrender direct control and allow general procedures of interpretation and implementation to be administered by quasi-governmental agencies outside the normal structures of government (including regional or local government in the form of provincial ministries or local education authorities). The way in which this contracting-out has happened and the reasons for it are certainly very different in the three national contexts examined. The result in the three cases, however, is that the day-to-day management of educational programmes is not regarded as a direct part of national government policy, and so any controversy concerning the programmes cannot easily be seen to militate against the principle of subsidiarity in matters of education and training espoused by the Member States. In effect, the structural procedures that can be identified in the case of Sweden, Germany and the UK constitute subtle solutions to the problem of how to implement policies agreed to in broad principle but not accepted as binding on autonomous governments. It appears that ministries of education to some extent construct their own relative weakness. The streamlined and decentralised structure of SOCRATES and LEONARDO in their second phase underlines this trend as well as the everstronger effects of the phenomenon of ‘comitology’ within EU bodies (Wallace & Wallace, 1996, pp. 47, 57 and Schink, 1993, p. 181). Therefore, EU education and training policy permeates the education systems of Member States through their establishment of routes of implementation that do not imply governmental authority or even direct approval. With regard to the two programmes under investigation, major structural problems have not been changed with the introduction of the second phase of the programmes.36 Two of these problems are outlined below. The first structural problem is connected with the legal foundation of the second generation of EU programmes. Field (1998, p. 62) argues that the Maastricht Treaty reinforced the boundaries between education and vocational training because it used two separate articles to cover the two sectors. This separation is mirrored in the distinction between SOCRATES as the programme for general, higher and adult education, and LEONARDO as the programme for vocational education and training. The existence of Youth for Europe (in the first phase of the second generation programmes) and Youth (in the second phase) covering many aspects of informal education also highlights the separation in the structure of the EU programme approach. The position paper on the organisation of the second phase of the EU programmes issued by the German Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Technology (BMBF) has identified this separation as a main reason for the limited success and impact of the programmes in their first phase. The Ministry’s suggestion of a single, overarching programme (with three different strands for higher education, vocational training and school education), including a strong 36

For comprehensive accounts of the structural problems of EU programmes in education and training see for instance BMBF (1997a), Field (1998) and Sellin (1999).


259

additional strand establishing horizontal links between the educational sectors, was not taken up for SOCRATES II and LEONARDO II (BMBF, 1997a, pp. 2f., 6-11). A single overarching programme with coherent principles for all of its parts would also have been likely to strengthen the tendency towards the ‘generalist-agencymodel’ of programme implementation. The second important structural problem of the programmes that is still relevant in the most recent phase of the programmes is the striking discrepancy between the aims of the programmes and their budgets. Sellin (1999, p. 24) argues that LEONARDO and SOCRATES are still attempting to achieve too much. Although the structure of objectives of the programmes was streamlined for the second phase programmes, the scope of the programmes was substantially extended at the same time. The comparatively modest increase of the overall programme budgets hardly matches the expanded scope of the programmes. The lack of cohesion between EU programmes such as SOCRATES and LEONARDO and the financially much more potent EU Social Fund has long been identified but has never been substantially improved (BMBF, 1997a, p. 5; Rees, 1998). In view of these structural problems it seems unlikely that the changing implementation patterns at the national level will substantially strengthen the overall impact of the programmes in the sense of the long-term impact of the programme outputs on various groups and areas in education and vocational training (Commission, 2000h, p. 18).

260

HUBERT ERTL

References Aldrich, Richard / Crook, David / Watson, David (2000): Education and Employment: the DfEE and its Place in History (London: Institute of Education, University of London). Bardong, Otto (1994): ‘Die Bildungspolitik in den Organen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Zielsetzung und Umsetzung’, in: Schleicher & Bos (1994), pp. 63-77. BIBB (ed.) (1998b): Leonardo da Vinci News, Vol. 4/98-1/99 (Berlin: BIBB). BIBB (ed.) (2000b): Budgetaufteilung und Kompetenzgewichtung zwischen Mitgliedstaaten und Kommission im EU-Berufsbildungsprogramm LEONARDO da VINCI ab dem Jahr 2000 – Eine Übersicht in Stichworten, in: http://www.bibb.de/leonardo/leonardo2.html (15/02/2000). BIBB (ed.) (n.d.): Leonardo da Vinci Info (Berlin: BIBB). Bildung für Europa (Nationale Agentur beim BIBB) (2000a): Leonardo da Vinci Ansprechpartner, in: http://www.na-bibb.de/leonardo/leoan.htm (28/11/2000). Bildung für Europa (2000b): Leonardo-II im Überblick, in: http://www.nabibb.de/leonardo/leonardo2.html (28/08/2000). Bildung für Europa (2000c): Aktuelle Mitteilungen Leonardo da Vinci, in: http://www.nabibb.de/aktuelles.htm (28/11/2000). BMBF (1997a): Positionspapier zu Ausgestaltung der nächsten Generation der EU-Bildungsprogramme (Bonn: BMBF). BMBF (2000c): Leonardo da Vinci II – Was wird gefördert? Wer wird gefördert?, in: http://www.bmbf.de/foerde01/bildung/schwerpunkte/3-1-1-4-1-3.htm (13/12/2000). BMBF (ed.) (2000d): Leonardo da Vinci News, Heft 1/00 (April 2000) (Bonn: BMBF and Nationale Agentur Bildung für Europa). British Council (2000a): Socrates European Action Programme for Education 2000 – 2006, in: http://www.britishcouncil.org/cbiet/socrates/index.htm (19/09/2000). British Council (2000b): Socrates: An Overview, in: http://www.britishcouncil.org/cbiet/socrates/socoview.htm (19/09/2000). Brock, Colin & Tulasiewicz, Witold (eds.) (2000): Education in a Single Europe. Second Edition (London and New York: Routledge). Central Bureau for International Education and Training (2000): Socrates: An Overview, in: http://www.cnetralbureau.org.uk/socrates/socoview.htm (08/02/2001). Commission Européenne (2000): Education et Culture, in: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/edcuation_culture/organi_fr.pdf (10/2/2000). Commission (1993): Green Paper on the European Dimension of Education (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities). Commission (1998c): Leonardo da Vinci II. Preliminary Version (COM(98)330): First Draft Produced by the European Commission Subject to Negotiation by all Member States, in: http://www.dfee.gov.uk/europ/articles.htm (23/11/1998). Commission (1998d): Socrates II: First Draft Produced by the European Commission Subject to Negotiation by all Member States, http://www.dfee.gov.uk/europ/socrates.htm (23/11/1998). Commission (1999a): The European Commission, in: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/about_en.htm (22/10/1999). Commission (1999b): Leonardo da Vinci: National Coordination Units (NUCs), (updated 20/05/1999), in: http://www.europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg22/leonardo/inclist.html (13/12/1999). Commission (1999c): Treaty of Amsterdam: What has Changed in Europe. Europe on the Move Series (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities). Commission (1999d): Administrative Reform of the European Commission: Statement of Purpose and Structure, CG3(1999) of 19/10/1999 (Brussels: Commission). Commission (2000c): Socrates Community Action Programme in the Field of Education. Frequently Asked Questions, in: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/socrates/faq.html (21/02/2001). Commission (2000d): Leonardo da Vinci Community Vocational Training Action Programme, Second Phase 2000 – 2006: General Guide for Project Promoters (Brussels: Commission). Commission (2000e): Socrates National Agencies: List by Country, in: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/socrates/nat-est.html (13/12/2000).


261

Commission (2000f): Final Commission Report on the Implementation of the Socrates Programme 19951999 (Brussels: Commission). Commission (2000g): Education, Training and Youth. A new Generation of Programmes (2000-2006). Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci, Youth and Tempus III (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities). Commission (2000h): Final Report on the Implementation of the First Phase of the Community Action Programme Leonardo da Vinci (1995-1999), COM(2000) 863 final (Brussels: Commission). Commission (2000i): Socrates European Community Action Programme in the Field of Education (20002006). Gateway to Education, in: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/socrates/shorten.pdf (13/12/2000). Commission (2000j): Gateway to Education. Socrates European Community Action Programme in the Field of Education (2000-2006) (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities). Commission (2000k): Socrates Programme: Guidelines for Applicants (Brussels: Commission). Commission (2001f): Socrates European Community Action Programme in the Field of Education: Transition Socrates I – Socrates II, in: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/socrates/transition.html (06/02/2001). Commission (2001g): Youth: To whom the Youth Programme is Addressed, in: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/youth/adressed.html (13/02/2001). Commission (2001h): Youth: Who Implements the Youth Programme ?, in: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/youth/implem.html (13/02/2001). Commission (2001i): Youth: How is the Youth Programme Structured?, in: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/youth/structure.html (13/02/2001). CoR (Committee of the Regions) (1999): The Committee of the Regions at work. Commission 7: Education, Vocational Training, Culture, Youth, Sport, Citizen’s Rights, in: http://www.cor.eu.int/coratwork/com7.html (01/11/1999). CoR (2001): Commission 7: Overview, in: http://www.cor.eu.int/presentation/prxcom07c_ml.htm (21/02/2001). Council of the European Union (1994): ‘Council Decision of 6 December 1994 establishing an action programme for the implementation of a European Community vocational training policy (819/94/EC)’, in: Official Journal of the European Communities, L 340 (29/12/94). Council of the European Union and European Parliament (1995): ‘Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 1995 establishing the Community action programme “Socrates” (819/95/EC)’, in: Official Journal of the European Communities, L 87 (20/04/95). Council of the European Union and European Parliament (1999a): ‘Council Decision of 26 April 1999 establishing the second phase of the Community vocational training action programme “Leonardo da Vinci” (382/99/EC)’, in: Official Journal of the European Communities, L 146 (11/06/99). Council of the European Union and European Parliament (2000a): ‘Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 January 2000 establishing the second phase of the Community action programme in the field of education “Socrates” (253/2000/EC)’, in: Official Journal of the European Communities, L 28 (03/02/00). Council of the European Union and European Parliament (2000b): ‘Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2000 establishing the “Youth” Community action programme (1031/2000/EC)’, in: Official Journal of the European Communities, L 117 (18/05/00). CTPS (1999): Leonardo da Vinci National Co-ordination Unit, in: http://www.shef.ac.uk/projects/ldvncu/home.htm (21/09/2000). CYRCE (Circle for Youth Research Cooperation in Europe) (ed.) (1995): The Puzzle of Integration. Series: European Yearbook on Youth Policy and Research, Vol. 1/1995 (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter), DAAD (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst) (2000a): Programmentwicklung Socrates, in: http://www.daad.de/info-f-d/foerderprogramme/eu_programme/socrates.html (13/12/2000). DAAD (2000b): Leonardo da Vinci Zweite Programmphase: Allgemeine Programminformation (Bonn: DAAD). Delgado, I. Lirola Del & Losa, J. Jueyo (1997): ‘Educational Policy in the European Union and the Principle of Subsidiarity: Legal Aspects and Diverse Areas of Action’, in: Rego (1997), pp. 125-169. DfEE (Department for Education and Employment) (1999): Leonardo da Vinci EU Vocational Training Programme 1995 – 1999. UK Final Report (London: DfEE).

262

HUBERT ERTL

DfEE (2000a): UK Presidency of the European Union. Partners in Europe, Resources and Contacts: Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges, in: http://www.dfee.gov.uk/ukpres/partners/res.htm (25/09/2000). DfEE (2000b): Education & Training Development Agenda 2000-01. Promoting the European Dimension in Education, in: http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/etda/p1401.htm (28/08/2000). Dickey, Alan (1994): ‘It’s all at the academic co-op now’, in: Times Higher Education Supplement, 4 February 1994, p. 9. ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd. (1997a): ECOTEC Research & Consulting. Competencies Fiches: Brief Company Profile (Birmingham: ECOTEC). ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd. (1997b): ECOTEC Research & Consulting. Competencies Fiches: Services in Social Policy and Employment (Birmingham: ECOTEC). ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd. (2000): ECOTEC Services: Social Policy & Employment, in: http://www.ecotec.com/src/spolicy.htm (20/09/2000). Ertl, Hubert (2000b). ‘The Transitions of Vocational Education in the Eastern Part of Germany: Some Notes on the Role of European Union Programmes’, in: Comparative Education Review, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 464-492. ESC (Economic and Social Committee) (1999): Working of the ESC, (updated 11/02/1999), in: http://www.ces.eu.int/en/org/w_esc.htm (21/02/2001). ESC (2001): Section Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship SOC, (updated 26/01/2001), in: http://www.ces.eu.int/en/org/sec_soc_e.htm (21/02/2001). Europäische Kommission (1996): zur allgemeinen und beruflichen Bildung. Lehren und Lernen – Auf dem Weg zur kognitiven Gesellschaft (Luxembourg: Amt für amtliche Veröffentlichungen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft). Europäische Kommission (1999): SOCRATES: Leitfaden für Antragsteller für das Jahr 2000 (Brüssel: Amt für amtliche Veröffentlichungen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft). Field, John (1997): The European Union and the Learning Society: Congested Sovereignty in an Age of Globalisation’, in: Coffield, Frank (ed.) (1997): A National Strategy for Lifelong Learning (Newcastle upon Tyne: Department of Education, University of Newcastle), pp. 95-111. Field, John (1998): European Dimensions. Education, Training and the European Union. Higher Education Policy Series 39 (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers). Fogg, K & Jones, H. (1985): ‘Educating the European Community – Ten Years on’, in: European Journal of Education, Vol. 20, pp. 290-298. Funnell, Peter & Müller, Dave (eds.) (1991): Vocational Education and the Challenge of Europe. Responding to the Implications of the Single European Market. Series: New Developments in Vocational Education (London: Kogan Page). Gerstein, Antje (1999): ‘Leonardo da Vinci Bilanz und Perspektiven’, in: Leonardo da Vinci news, Vol. 4/99 (October 1999), p. 2. Hake, Barry J. (1999): ‘Lifelong Learning Policies in the European Union: Development and Issues’, in: Compare, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 53-69. Hantrais, Linda (1995): Social Policy in the European Union (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan). HEQE (Higher Education Quality and Employability) (2000): HEQE 3 Europe and Vocational Policy, in: http://www.dfee.gov.uk/heqe/heqe3.htm (28/08/2000). Högskoleverket (ed.) (1997): The National Agency for Higher Education: a Presentation (Stockholm: Högskoleverket). International Programme Office for Education and Training (2001): Internationella Programkontoret för utbildningsområdet: Samarbete och utbyten med värladen, in: http://www.programkontoret.se (26/02/2001). Jover, Gonzylo José (1997): ‘Meanings of Subsidiarity as a Principle of Educational Policy by the European Union’, in: Rego (1997), pp. 93-121. Koch, Richard (1998b): ‘Harmonisierung oder Wettbewerb der Berufsbildungssysteme? Integrationskonzepte der Europäischen Gemeinschaft in der beruflichen Bildung’, in: Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, Vol. 94, No. 4, pp. 505-518. Larsson, Torbjörn (1995): Governing Sweden (Stockholm: Statskontoret). Lenaerts, Koen (1994): ‘Education in European Community Law After “Maastricht”’, in: Common Market Law Review, Vol. 31, pp. 7-41. Lonbay, Julian (1989): ‘Education and Law: The Community Context’, in: European Law Review, December 1989, pp. 363-387.


263

Lübke, Oliver S. (1999): ‘Europäisches Berufsbildungsprogramm Leonardo da Vinci – mit Nachbarn lernen’, in: Leonardo da Vinci news, Vol. 4/99, October 1999, pp. 4f. Maden, Margaret (2000): Shifting Gear. Changing Patterns of Educational Governance in Europe. A Research Monograph for the Association of Education Committees (AEC) Trust (Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books for AEC). McMahon, Joseph A. (1995): Education and Culture in European Community Law. Series: European Community Law Series, Vol. 8 (London: Athlone Press). Milner, Susan (1998): ‘Training Policy. Steering between Divergent National Logics’, in: Hine, David & Kassim, Hussein (eds.) (1998): Beyond the Market: The EU and National Social Policy (London: Routledge), pp. 156-177. Ministers of Education (1974): ‘Resolution of the Ministers of Education meeting within the Council of 6 June 1974 on co-operation in the field of education’, in: Official Journal of the European Communities, C 98 (20/08/74). Ministers of Education (1976): ‘Resolution of the Council and of the Ministers of Education meeting within the Council of 13 December 1976 concerning measures to be taken to improve the preparation of young people for work and to facilitate their transition form education to working life’, in: Official Journal of the European Communities, C 308 (30/12/76). Moschonas, Andreas (1998): Education and Training in the European Union (Aldershot: Ashgate). Müller-Solger, Hermann / Czysz, Armin / Leonhard, Petra / Pfaff, Ulrich (1993): Bildung und Europa: Die (Bonn: Economica Verlag). Nationale Agenturen (2000): Wege nach Europa. Socrates – das Aktionsprogramm der Europäischen Union für den Bereich der allgemeinen Bildung 2000 – 2006 (Bonn: BMBF and Kultusministerkonferenz). Neave, Guy (1984): The EEC and Education (Trentham: Trentham books). Piehl, Ernst & Sellin, Burkhart (1995): ‘Initial and Continuing Vocational Training in Europe’, in: CYRCE (1995), pp. 197-215. Preston, Jill (1991): EC Education Training and Research Programmes. An Action Guide (London: Kogan Page). Publications France Leonardo da Vinci (ed.) (1998): Les projets Leonardo da Vinci. Quels apports pour les politiques nationales de formation professionelle? (Paris: Publications France). Rees, Teresa L. (1998): ‘The European Social Fund and Leonardo da Vinci’, in: Rees, Teresa L. (ed.) (1998): Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union: Education, Training and Labour Market Policies (London: Routledge), pp. 146-168. Ryba, Raymond (2000): ‘Developing the European Dimension in Education: The Roles of the European Union and the Council of Europe’, in: Swing, Elizabeth Sherman / Schriewer, Jürgen / Orivel, François (eds.) (2000): Problems and Prospects in European Education (Westport, CT and London: Praeger), pp. 244-261. Schink, Gertrud (1993): Kompetenzerweiterung im Handlungssystem der Europäischen Gemeinschaft: Eigendynamik und „Policy Entrepreneurs“. Eine Analyse am Beispiel von Bildung und Ausbildung. Series: Nomos Universitätsschriften: Politik, Vol. 48 (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verl.-Ges.). Schmidt, Hermann (1996b): ‘Flexibilisierung der Berufsausbildung – Flexibilisierung als Organisationsprinzip?’, in: Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 1f. Schröder, Meinhard (1990): Europäische Bildungspolitik und bundesstaatliche Ordnung. Series: Europäisches Recht, Politik und Wirtschaft, Vol. 140 (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verl.-Ges.). Schüller, Manfred (2000): ‘Neue Durchführungsstruktur für die zweite Phase von Leonardo da Vinci’, in: Leonardo da Vinci news, Vol. 1/00, April 2000, p. 2. Sellin, Burkhart (1995a): ‘Recent Developments in the Youth Policy Field on the European Level: Contents and Objectives off the New Programmes’, in: CYRCE (1995), pp. 125-139. Sellin, Burkhart (1995b): ‘Structural Conditions for the Education, Training and Employment of Young Europeans’, in: CYRCE (1995), pp. 187-195. Sellin, Burkhart (1999): ‘EC and EU Education and Vocational Training Programmes from 1974 to 1999: An Attempt at a Critical and Historical Review’, in: Vocational Training European Journal, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 17-27. Sprokkereef, Annemarie (1995): ‘Developments in European Community Education Policy’, in: Lodge, Juliet (ed.) (1995): The European Community and the Challenge of the Future (London: Pinter Publisher), pp. 340-347.

264

HUBERT ERTL

Strømnes, Åsmund L. (1997): ’Education as a Merger Between Unity and Diversity’, in: Rego, Miguel Anxo Santos (1997): Política educativa en la Unión Europea despuétes de Maastricht (Educational policy in the European Union after Maastricht) (Santiago de Compostela: Colección Monografías), pp. 215-224. Svenska EU Programkontoret (1997): Leonardo da Vinci, 1997 – 1998 Workplan for the Swedish National Coordination Unit (unpublished paper). Svenska EU Programkontoret (ed.) (n.d.): The Swedish EU Programme Office Opens Doors for the Future (Stockholm: The Swedish EU Programme Office). Teichler, Ulrich / Maiworm, Friedhelm / Schotte-Kmoch, Martina (1999): Das Erasmus-Programm. Ergebnisse der Begleitforschung (Bonn: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung). UK National Agency (2000a): 2000 – 2002 Call for Proposals for the European Vocational Training Programme (Leonardo da Vinci II) (London: UK National Agency). UK National Agency (2000b): Leonardo da Vinci: Contacts in Transitional Period, in: http://www.leonardo.org.uk/contact/Contacts_in_transit_period.htm (08/02/2001). UK National Agency (2001a): Leonardo da Vinci II (January 2000 – December 2006), in: http://www.leonardo.org.uk/contact/intro.htm (06/02/2001). UK National Agency (2001b): Leonardo II: Changes made for the Current Phase of the Programme, in: http://www.leonardo.org.uk/leoninfo/leo-origins.htm (08/02/2001). UK National Agency (2001c): A Who’s Who of the Leonardo UK National Agency: Second Phase 2000 2006, in: http://www.leonardo.org.uk/contact/whoswho.htm (08/02/2001). UKSEC (UK Socrates-Erasmus Council) (1998a): Towards a Europe of Knowledge. Erasmus Student Conference, 27 March 1998 (Canterbury: UKSEC). UKSEC (1998b): Socrates-Erasmus in the UK. 1991 to 1998 (Canterbury: UKSEC). UKSEC (1998c): Unlock your Potential with an Erasmus Experience. Study Periods in Europe, Information for Students (Canterbury: UKSEC). UKSEC (1999a): UK Socrates-Erasmus Council (Canterbury: UKSEC). UKSEC (1999b): The Erasmus Experience. Erasmus Student Conferences, 18 and 25 March 1999 (Canterbury: UKSEC). UKSEC (1999c): Abstract of Statistical Data 1995/96 to 1997/98. Student Mobility (Canterbury: UKSEC). UKSEC (1999d): The Socrates-Erasmus Programme in the UK. Higher Education Institutions 1998/99 (Canterbury: UKSEC). UKSEC (2000): Socrates Relationships (unpublished diagram). Vojta, Jens (1999): ‘DAG zieht positive Leonardo-Bilanz’ in: Leonardo da Vinci news, Vol. 4/99, October 1999, p. 5. Wallace, Helen & Wallace, William (eds.) (1996): Policy-Making in the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Weidmann, Heike (1999): ‘Leonardo II: unternehmensnah und effizient’ in: Leonardo da Vinci news, Vol. 4/99, October 1999, pp. 3f. Winter, Andrea (1999): ‘Leonardo da Vinci: Welchen Beitrag leistet das Berufsbildungsprogramm für kleine und mittelständische Handwerksunternehmen?’, in: Leonardo da Vinci news, Vol. 4/99, October 1999, pp. 2f. Wyatt, Derrick & Dashwood, Alan (1993): European Community Law (London: Sweet & Maxwell).

JAKE MURDOCH

STANDARDISATION AND DIFFERENTIATION IN THE LEVELS OF DIPLOMAS IN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS IN EUROPE 1. INTRODUCTION: THE 3-5-8 MODEL AND ITS TRUE ORIGINS The Bologna declaration of 19 June 1999 has the aim of creating what it defines as a “European space for higher education”. This declaration is a pledge taken by 29 countries to reform their system so that they converge into a European model (Knudsen et al., 1999). By May 2001, 32 countries had signed the declaration. However, the basis of this declaration was put forward, a year earlier, in the Sorbonne declaration of 25 May 1998. A “Joint Declaration on Harmonisation of the Architecture of the European Higher Education System” was signed by the ministers of education of France, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom (Knudsen et al., p. 3). Neither the Bologna nor the Sorbonne declarations explicitly express the form that this harmonisation should take. The latter declaration only mentions the need to have first cycle degrees which are ‘internationally recognised’ as ‘an appropriate level of qualification’, and a graduate cycle ‘with a shorter Master’s degree and a longer doctor’s degree’ with possibilities to transfer from one to the other’ (Knudsen et al., p. 10).

There is no mention of a 3-5-8 model. This model is only described in a report by Jacques Attali to the French government in 1998. Knudsen et al. explain that the main confusion surrounding the content of the Sorbonne Declaration and the latter report stems from “the nearly simultaneous release in May 1998, in the same city of Paris, of the Sorbonne Declaration and the Attali report” (Knudsen et al., p. 29). The Attali Report The “Rapport Attali” as it is called in France, puts forward a European “model” of diplomas (Attali, 1998, p. 32). Attali describes a European model of diplomas that would have two levels: a first level covering a three-year short diploma (a Bachelor’s degree), and a second covering a five-year long diploma (a Master’s degree) and an eight-year diploma (a doctorate) (Attali, 1998). Knudsen et al., in their already mentioned preBologna report to the Confederation of European Union Rectors’ Conferences and the


266

JAKE MURDOCH

Association of European Universities (CRE), liken this model in part to that of AngloSaxon systems (United States, United Kingdom). For Attali, each diploma would be a “graduation” diploma, in that a large proportion of graduates of each diploma would enter the labour market with the diploma in question. This, according to Attali, would simplify courses and improve the legibility of the diploma structure for employers, which would in turn improve graduate employment. In addition, the author adds that a harmonisation of diploma structures would encourage innovation, mobility and competition between both countries and higher education institutions themselves. Attali, who was an adviser to the French government in 1997, argues in his report that European countries should move towards a convergent system of diplomas and courses across all institutions of higher education (whilst keeping the specifies of each country’s traditions). The author’s concern is that if countries do not reshape their own systems, world market forces will harmonise systems to meet their own needs. Attali explains that higher education under the influence of these forces would be divided into a two-speed system: one part providing a social élite with the best quality education; the other providing the rest of the students with an education of lower quality. The author also points out that the reshaping of systems was a topical question across Europe, given that most European countries are in the process of rethinking their systems. In this paper we shall not discuss the validity of Attali’s arguments for a harmonized diploma structure across Europe. The paper seeks instead to discuss the obstacles to the implementation of a 3, 5 and 8 year structure, given what Attali himself qualifies in his report as “the specific nature of university traditions” in European countries. In other words, to what extent does the 3-5-8 model already exist in Europe, both in terms of diploma structures and graduation1 levels? Secondly, what changes are required for its implementation? In order to answer these questions we first compare in section 2 the different European diploma structures with the 3-5-8 model. Secondly, in section 3 we consider to what extent graduates enter the labour market with these diplomas.

2. THE ACTUAL STANDARDISATION AND DIFFERENTIATION IN THE LEVELS OF DIPLOMAS IN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS IN EUROPE In this section we look at the extent to which European diploma structures converge or diverge from the 3, 5 and 8 year structure put forward by Jacques Attali. In order to do this we have used information from the already mentioned CRE report (Knudsen et al., 1 As already explained at the beginning of the introduction, “graduation” diplomas are diplomas whose graduates enter the labour market in large proportions. One the other hand, some diplomas, as we shall explain in section 3, mainly only play the role of a prerequisite for another higher diploma.

STANDARDISATION AND DIFFERENTIATION IN EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION 267 1999), Eurydice (Eurydice, 1999), Kivinen et al. (1999), plus a series of articles published in the European Journal of Education (cf. Vol. 35 No. 2, June 2000). We do not cover all the European Union, EFTA (European Free Trade Association) and Pre-accession countries. Our analysis covers the following eleven countries: Austria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. This is because section 3 uses data from a European project on graduate employment in these countries. This project is entitled CHEERS: Careers after Higher Education: a European Research Survey.2 We can nevertheless say that our analysis is very rich because this cross-country database is the first of its kind. Finally, we decided not to include in our comparisons teacher training or medical studies. The reason we excluded teacher training is that there is a large diversity of processes between countries in this field. For example, teacher training in Austria takes in most cases approximately three years and is therefore shorter than in most other European countries. In the case of France, teacher training takes the form of a competitive state examination.3 We decided also to exclude medical studies because these fields are systemically longer than other fields in all the countries we analyse (Knudsen et al., 1999; Eurydice, 1999). This specificity of medical studies made the comparison with the proposed 3-5-8 model too complex. In addition, we excluded from our analysis all non-university diplomas not covered by the CHEERS project.4 This is because we wish both sections 2 and 3 to cover the same diplomas. This constraint allows a clearer interpretation of the results of sections 2 and 3. Table 1 (in the Appendix to this paper) shows the lengths of each diploma within each country. We can see from Table 1 that only three countries fit the 3-5-8 “Attali” model: the Czech Republic (Bakalar, Magistr and Doktor), Norway (Hogskolekandidat, Candidatus and Doctor/Dr. Philos) and Spain (Diplomato, Licenciatura and Doctorato). Concerning the other seven, we observe varying divergence with the model in question. Arguably the closest country to the previous group is Finland (3-5-9), the Tohtori taking nine years. If we consider that the actual length of study of a PhD is often, on an individual level, longer than the theoretical length, we can put Finland in the same group as the 3-5-8 countries. 2

Data concerning the Swedish diplomas were not available in the database. We use information provided by the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education (NAHE). The CHEERS project was also carried out in Japan. We decided, however, not to include Japan in the present analysis and to concentrate only on European countries. A comparison covering the five continents (Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania) would be an interesting further study. 3 Would-be teachers study to pass this examination. Often, students retake it until they succeed or abandon the idea of becoming a teacher. 4

Cf. Eurydice (1999) for a full list of diplomas for each country.

268

JAKE MURDOCH

Next we have two groups of counties: Austria (4-5-7) and Germany (4-5-9), on the one hand, Sweden and The Netherlands (3-4-6-8) on the other. These two groups seem the next closest to the 3-5-8 model.5 In the case of Austria and Germany, a possible harmonisation, at first glance, with the 3-5-8 model requires reducing the length of respectively the Magister and the Fachhochschule Diplom from four years to three. The two following questions can be asked: Is it possible to teach the content of these four-year courses in three-years, especially as the latter German diploma requires a one or two semester placement (Knudsen et al., 1999, p. 46)? Would a reduction by a year not affect the quality of the diploma? The solution that the countries seem to have found to harmonise their diplomas on a Bachelor/ Master structure is to be to add a year of study to these diplomas. In the last two to three years new laws have been passed in Austria and Germany enabling the introduction of three-year Bachelor diplomas and five-year Master diplomas (Knudsen et al., p. 15). In the case of Sweden and The Netherlands, harmonisation requires also adding a year of study to the following four-year diplomas: Magister in Sweden and the university Meester, Doctorandus and Ingenieur, and HBO (Hoger Beroepsonderwijs) in The Netherlands (cf. Table 1). In Sweden and The Netherlands, both the ministry and the higher education institutions themselves, aim to introduce the Bachelor and Master structure over the next few years (Knudsen et al., 1999, p. 16). Moreover, a three-year diploma has existed for a long time in Sweden (Kandidat), whereas the Dutch ministry of Education created more recently a new three-year diploma (Kandidaats) in 1998. However, more specifically in the case of The Netherlands, the six-year post-HBO diploma (Tweede Fase Opleiding) does not appear to fit either of the proposed five-year Master or eight-year Doctorate structures. A reduction of this diploma to five years would clash with the proposed five-year HBO diploma. Creating a new three-year diploma and/ or upgrading the present four-year diplomas seems to be the answer provided by the Austrian, Dutch, German and Swedish ministries. These changes do not answer the three following questions: What will be the content of the new three-year diplomas? What will be the content of the extra year of the four-year diplomas? How will these diplomas differ from the existing ones? Another country that is in process of changing its structure of diplomas is Italy. The proposed changes are radical. The actual diploma structure in Italy is a two-year diploma 5

The question of harmonisation of the length of Doctorate studies in Austria and Germany is not problematic (cf. previous comments concerning Finland).

STANDARDISATION AND DIFFERENTIATION IN EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

269

(Diploma Universiario), a four-year diploma (Diploma di Laurea) and finally an eightyear Doctorate (Dottore di Ricerca). The Italian ministry, in order to harmonise its structure on a 3-5-8 model, has started recently to completely do away with this structure and introduce a three-year short Laurea, a specialised Laurea, lasting two supplementary years, and finally a Doctorate, requiring at least another three years of study (Knudsen et al., 1999, p. 52). We can ask the same previous questions concerning the changes in Austria, Germany, The Netherlands and Sweden. Finally we have two countries, France and the United Kingdom, which have very diversified diploma structures. In the case of France there is a 2-3-4-5-8 structure. The diplomas are the following: two-year: DEUG (Diplôme d’Etude Universitaire Générale), DUT (Diplôme Universitaire Technologique) and BTS (Brevet de Technicien Supérieur); three-year: Licence; four-year: Maîtrise; five-year: DEA (Diplôme d’Etudes Approfondies), DESS (Diplôme d’Etudes Supérieures Spécialisées), Diplôme d’Ecole de Commerce and Diplôme d’Ecole d’Ingénieur; eight-year: Doctorat. The proposed changes towards a 3-5-8 model in France, described in the Attali report, would do away with the above university system of diplomas acting as one-year layers upon each other (DEUG, Licence, Maîtrise, DEA and DESS). In the new structure the first diploma would be the Licence, which would become more vocational. This would mean that the DEUG would disappear. However, the DUT and BTS would have an extra year devoted to placements, particularly “sandwich” courses.6 In addition, the Maîtrise, DEA and DESS diplomas will be amalgamated into new-style five-year Maîtrises, with more emphasis on placements and research. Students obtaining either this new diploma or the Ecole de Commerce/ d’Ingénieur diploma will be awarded the title of Mastaire (Knudsen et al., 1999, p. 16). A small proportion of students under these changes will have the possibility of studying directly for a Doctorat after the Licence. This will require students to study five more years after the Licence (Attali, 1998, p. 32). Given that Jacques Attali used the example of France to illustrate his model, it is not surprising that technically the traditional French system can be adapted to this new model. Concerning the United Kingdom, there appears to be a paradox in that the British system is more complex than a 3-5-8 model. Attali based his model on part on the 6

It is interesting to note that, already in France, it is possible to study for a three-year DUT or BTS, which includes a specialization in the last year.

270

JAKE MURDOCH

British system of three-year Bachelor’s degrees (Honours or Ordinary), five-year Master’s degrees (taught or by research) and an eight-year PhD. However, the British system is more complex than this. There exists along with the previously mentioned diplomas, two-year diplomas (HND (Higher National Diploma)) and six-year diplomas (Postgraduate Certificate/ Diploma). In addition, the Dearing Report of 1997 underlined the importance of developing the present diversity of diplomas, especially as these latter diplomas are of a vocational nature (Dearing, 1997, Recommendation 1). Thus it does not appear that the 3-5-8 model will exist on its own in the near future in the United Kingdom (Department of Education and Employment (DfEE), 1998). To conclude this section we can say that the 3-5-8 model put forward by Jacques Attali is technically adaptable to the French system and already exists in the Czech Republic, Finland, Norway and Spain. In other countries such as Austria, Germany, Italy, Sweden and The Netherlands, the implementation of this model requires the creation of a three-year diploma and/or the upgrading of the existing four-year diplomas. The new content of these latter diplomas is not yet explicitly clear (Knudsen et al., 1999). Finally, in the United Kingdom, as we have seen above, the traditional 3-5-8 diplomas will continue to exist alongside the two- and six-year diplomas. In the next section we discuss a strong element of the 3-5-8 model, i.e. the vocational emphasis of both the proposed three-year Bachelor and the five-year Master’s diploma (Attali, 1998, p. 32). We would like to see to what extent the actual diplomas in different European countries can be considered as “graduation” diplomas, in that a large proportion of graduates with these diplomas enter the labour market. Diplomas that have a large proportion of graduates who continue studies at a higher level cannot be considered as labour market diplomas. They mainly play the role of a prerequisite for another higher diploma. 3. THE STANDARDISATION AND DIFFERENTIATION OF GRADUATION LEVELS IN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS IN EUROPE In order to analyse at what diploma levels graduates enter the labour market in each European country, we shall use data from the European TSER research project entitled CHEERS: “Higher Education and Graduate Employment in Europe: a European Research Survey”, funded by the European Commission. This project made it possible to put together, using a common questionnaire, a database detailing the training and employment of 36,000 graduates of a 1995 cohort, across 11 European countries and Japan. We use in our analysis a representative sample for each diploma obtained by a weighting process. Using these data, Table 2 (in the Appendix) shows the percentage of graduates for each diploma who finish studying after obtaining their diploma. Table 2 does not present results for doctoral studies. This is because the doctorate is the highest level of study possible, and thus by definition all graduates with the diploma stop being a student on

STANDARDISATION AND DIFFERENTIATION IN EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION 271 obtaining this diploma. We remind the reader that the 3-5-8 model put forward by Attali, recommended that the three- and the five-year diplomas (Bachelor’s and Master’s) should be “graduation” diplomas, in that graduates would enter the labour market with either diploma. Of the four countries (Czech Republic, Finland, Norway and Spain) that appeared in section 2 to correspond to the 3-5-8 model, only in Norway and Spain do the three- and five-year diplomas appear to be graduation diplomas (between around 80 and 90% finish studying for both the Norwegian and Spanish diplomas). In the case of the Czech Republic we can see that the Bakalar acts in part as a prerequisite for the Magistr, and in part as a graduation diploma. Only 52% stop studying after the former diploma. Concerning Finland, only 25% of Kandidaatti graduates do not continue on to a Maisteri. For these two three-year diplomas (Bakalar and Kandidaatti) to become graduation diplomas in their own right, it is necessary that employers acknowledge them. This would in turn create a labour market for them. In the context of good labour market prospects, a high proportion of graduates would decide not to continue studying and enter the labour market. According to Knudsen et al. (1999, p. 49), the Finnish ministry did not have this labour market objective when it created the Kandidaatti, and in addition employers do not seem interested in this diploma. We have no information on whether either position will change in the near future. As far as the Czech Republic is concerned, Eurydice (1999) mentions the creation in 1999 of a vocational non-university Bakalar. Concerning the next group of countries described in section 2 (Austria, Germany, The Netherlands and Sweden), the actual four- and five-year diplomas are graduation diplomas (the percentage varies from 81% to 95%). These diplomas correspond to the role of the five-year Master’s diploma describe by Attali.7 However, the question concerning the three-year Bachelor’s diplomas remains for the first three countries of this group (i.e. Austria, Germany and The Netherlands).8 As far as The Netherlands is concerned, we can make the same remarks as for the Finnish diploma, in that the Dutch Kandidaats was designed as a prerequisite for the four-year university diplomas. Concerning Austria and Germany, the proposed new three-year Bachelor is planned to be a graduation diploma. However, the reaction to it by employers or by graduates themselves is not yet known (Knudsen et al., 1999). As far as Italy is concerned, Table 2 shows that both actual diplomas (Diploma Universitario and the Diploma di Laurea) are graduation diplomas. Their replacements (the proposed three-year short Laurea and specialised five-year Laurea, should have the same function in respect to the labour market (Attali, 1998). 7

In addition, the six-year Dutch post-HBO diploma (Tweede Fase Opleiding) is also a graduation diploma (79% of graduates stop studying). 8

In the case of Sweden, again 95% of the graduates from the three-year Kandidat diploma stop studying after obtaining their diploma.

272

JAKE MURDOCH

Concerning France, the only actual real graduation diplomas are the two-year BTS diploma (61% stop studying), and the five-year DESS, Ecole de Commerce and d’Ingénieur diplomas (between 81 and 78% stop studying). The other diplomas play either the role prerequisites for higher diplomas or are prerequisites for the competitive examinations for civil service occupations (for example, primary and secondary school teaching). The latter situation is particularly for Licence and Maîtrise diplomas, which explains, in addition to the first reason, the low percentage of these graduates who enter the labour market directly. The DEA appears to be a halfway house between a prerequisite diploma and a graduation diploma (51 % stop studying). The reason is that the DEA is the prerequisite for a Doctorat.9 This said, a large number of graduates prefer to stop studying. The reason for stopping can be amongst others the following: no funding for a doctorate, the present employment difficulties for French PhD graduates, good employment prospects for some DEA graduates in some fields, or the fact that some DEA graduates already have a professional activity (Kivinen et al., 1999). To conclude for France, the proposed five-year Maîtrise already to some extent has a labour market emphasis in the actual form of the DESS and in part the DEA. The Ecole de Commerce and d’Ingénieur diplomas need not change in this respect. In terms of graduate employment a three-year BTS diploma rather than a three-year DUT diploma seems to fit better Attali’s idea of a short three-year vocational course (Attali, 1998). Concerning the more vocational Licence mentioned in section 2, some universities have started to introduce this year vocational Licences alongside the traditional nonvocational ones (Knudsen et al., 1999, p. 16). Given that this diploma has only recently been introduced it is not yet possible to assess its success in the labour market. Finally, in the case of the United Kingdom almost all the diplomas are graduation diplomas (the percentage that stop studying varies from around 75%,10 including the diplomas that have a tie with the Attali model (i.e. the three-year Bachelor’s degrees and the five-year Master’s degrees). We can conclude that in terms of graduation diplomas, British diplomas correspond to Attali’s model.

CONCLUSION In this paper we have tried to analyse the extent to which the 3-5-8 model put forward in the Attali report already exists in Europe, both in terms of diploma structures and graduation levels. We have also at the same time tried to see what changes are required for this model’s implementation.Concerning the actual diploma structures existing in each country, we found that the 3-5-8 model put forward by Jacques Attali is technically 9

Of the DEA graduates who continue their studies not all do so for a doctorate. Only 40% of all DEA graduates start a PhD (cf. Kivinen et al., 1999). 10

The very higher proportion (100%), indicated for “Master by Research” is only a rough estimation, given that the sample for this diploma is very small (just under 10 cases).

STANDARDISATION AND DIFFERENTIATION IN EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION 273 adaptable to the French system and already exists in the Czech Republic, Finland, Norway and Spain. In other countries such as Austria, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and Sweden, the implementation of this model requires the creation of a three-year diploma and/ or the upgrading of the existing four-year diplomas. However, the new content of these latter diplomas is not yet explicitly clear. Moreover, in the United Kingdom, policy advisers stress that the existing two- and six-year diplomas should continue to exist alongside the traditional 3-5-8 diplomas. In addition, we discussed Attali’s idea that all three diplomas in his model should be graduation diplomas, in that a large proportion of graduates of each diploma would enter the labour market with the diploma in question. Our analysis did not cover doctoral diplomas since, given that they are the highest level of diploma, they are by definition graduation diplomas. We found in our analysis of the other diplomas that only in France, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom do there potentially exist threeand five-year graduation diplomas. There appeared nevertheless to be five-year graduation diplomas in all the other countries analysed. Concerning the new three-year diplomas introduced in 1990s in the Czech Republic, Finland and The Netherlands, we can see that our data show that they are not graduation diplomas. They play principally the role of being a prerequisite for a higher diploma. In addition, it is too early to have any feedback, from either employers or graduates, on the new Bachelor’s diplomas in Austria and Germany or the vocational Licence in France.

274

JAKE MURDOCH APPENDIX

STANDARDISATION AND DIFFERENTIATION IN EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

275

276

JAKE MURDOCH

References Allen, J. / Boezerooy, P. / de Weert, E. & van der Velden, R. (2000): ‘Higher Education and Graduate Employment in the Netherlands’, in: European Journal of Education, Vol. 35, No. 2. June, pp. 211-219. Arnesen, C. A. (2000): ‘Higher Education and Graduate Employment in Norway’, in: European Journal of Education, Vol. 35, No. 2, June, pp. 221-228. Attali, J. (1998): Pour un modèle européen d’enseignement supérieur, Paris. Dearing, R. (1997): ‘Higher Education in the Learning Society’, in: Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. DfEE (1998): Higher Education for the 21st century - the Government's response. EURYDICE (1999): ‘Organization of Higher Education Structures in Europe (1998/99)’, in: EURYDICE Focus (EURYDICE European Unit: Brussels). EURYDICE (2000): Two decades of reform in higher education in Europe: 1980 onwards, in: Eurydice studies, (EURYDICE European Unit: Brussels). Haug, G. and Tauch, C. (2001): ‘Trends in Learning Structures in Higher Education (II) – Follow-up Report prepared for the Salamanca and Prague Conferences of March/ May 2001’, Finnish National Board of Education. Huisman, J. (1998): ‘Differentiation and Diversity in Higher Education Systems’, in: Smart, J.: Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. XIII, Agathon Press, New York, pp. 75-110. Kellermann, P. and Sagmeister, G. (2000): ‘Higher Education and Graduate Employment in Austria’, in: European Journal of Education, Vol. 35 No. 2. June, pp. 157-164. Kivinen, O., Ahola, S. & Kaipainen, P. (1999) (eds.): Towards the European Model of Postgraduate Training, Research Report 50 (RUSE: University of Turku). Kivinen, O., Nurmi, J. and Salminiitty, R. (2000): ‘Higher Education and Graduate Employment in Finland’, in: European Journal of Education, Vol. 35, No. 2, June, pp. 165-177. Knudsen, I, Haug, G & Kirstein, J. (1999): ‘Project Report : Trends in Learning Structures in Higher Education, Confederation of European Union Rectors’, Conferences and the Association of European Universities (CRE), August. Mora, J-G., Garcia-Montalvo, J. & Garcia-Aracil, A. (2000): ‘Higher Education and Graduate Employment in Spain’, in: European Journal of Education, Vol. 35, No. 2, June, pp. 229-237. Moscati, R. & Rostan, M. (2000): ‘Higher Education and Graduate Employment in Italy’, in: European Journal of Education, Vol. 35, No. 2. June, pp. 201-209. Paul, J-J. & Murdoch, J. (2000): ‘Higher Education and Graduate Employment in France’, in: European Journal of Education, Vol. 35, No. 2, June, pp. 179-187. Schomburg, H. (2000): ‘Higher Education and Graduate Employment in Germany’, in: European Journal of Education, Vol. 35, No. 2, June, pp. 189-200. Teichler, U. (2000): ‘Graduate Employment and work in Selected European Countries’, in: European Journal of Education, Vol. 35, No.2, June, 141, pp. 141-156. Woodley, A. & Brennan, J. (2000): ‘Higher Education and Graduate Employment in the United Kingdom’, in: European Journal of Education, Vol. 35, No. 2. June, pp. 239-249.

PAULA BRANCO DA CUNHA

HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENT MOBILITY AND THE INTERPRETATION OF EUROPEAN UNION EDUCATIONAL POLICIES IN FRANCE: A study of student mobility and implementation of the ERASMUS programme

1. INTRODUCTION The formulation of EU policies is sustained by the concept of a European Dimension in Education. Considering this concept as an extension of the main principles on which EU construction is based, mobility is an important issue. Higher education student mobility is taken in this chapter as an indicator of change in both the world and European context and of the dynamism of EU construction and the implementation of EU educational policies. The EU has implemented several initiatives that promote student mobility. One of the most important initiatives is the SOCRATES/ERASMUS programme, which contains an action specifically focused on higher education. The programme supports and encourages exchanges of students and teachers, the launching of joint study programmes or intensive courses, pan-European thematic networks, and other measures aiming at the development of a European dimension in higher education. In order to gain insight into the importance of student mobility promoted by this programme data referring to the number of students studying in France in the framework of the ERASMUS programme, from 1987 to 2001, are examined. At the same time data concerning the number of foreign students in higher education in France over a longer period (1949 to 2001) is organised and compared with the total number of students in the education system in an attempt to establish a chronological pattern of student flows. This comparison is made to enable us to understand the dynamics and expansion of higher education student mobility with, and without, the implementation of the ERASMUS programme in France. In section 2 the main questions behind the topic of this chapter are debated generally; in section 3, an overview of higher education in France is attempted (origins and establishment of the education system and the European dimension in French higher 277 David Phillips & Hubert Ertl (eds.), Implementing European Union Education and Training Policy: A Comparative Study of Issues in Four Member States, 277—304. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

278


education); in section 4 data collection and analysis are presented (methods, results and discussion): in section 5 conclusions are drawn. 2. BACKGROUND As other papers in this volume show, the EU’s interests in education are continuously, though cautiously, changing, and influences on the educational agenda often originate in other policy areas (Ryba, 1992; Samoff, 1996; Fuller & Rubinson,1992). Education is not the subject of a common European policy and the idea of creating a European institution responsible for all initiatives in the field of education is generally not accepted by all EU Member States (Nóvoa, 1996). Control over the content and organisation of curricula remains with national governments and “unlike the national or regional decision-making powers, the supranational European authorities cannot set regulatory frameworks for the education system, establish and approve educational establishments, and fund and supervise the daily operations and outcomes of the educational institutions and processes” (Teichler, 2002, p. 380). Although Member States are not willing to lose their autonomy and power to take decisions on education matters, the European Union has been exerting its influence over educational systems in order to promote supranational educational projects that override the sphere of the nation state (Meyer, 1992; Touraine, 1996). Yet the European authorities’ lack of power and resources to pursue certain goals and to spearhead the development of new political initiatives is evident. As a result “there is a disjunction between the ability and the mandate to act; the former is already in the hands of the European institutions, but the latter still resides with national governments” (Offe, 2000, p. 11). Members States wish to keep their sovereignty and national identity (Nóvoa, 1996). However, they also face the need to provide national citizens with the basic instruments to acquire the competences and skills needed for full participation in the EU (Baucöck, 1999b). Member States agree that every European citizen should participate actively in the European Union construction process. To do so, every citizen should have the conditions to be able to become a European citizen as well as a local, national and world citizen (Kymlica, 1995, 1997; Held 1993, 1995; Hall & Du Gay, 1996). Baucöck has stated that Europe “has become a laboratory for recombining elements of citizenship” (Baucöck, 1999a , p. 1). Participation in EU initiatives has become a sine qua non condition for European citizenship (Nóvoa, 1998, p. 110). If one defines citizenship as a status of equal rights and obligations then “standards of equality and full membership can only be defined with regard to a comprehensive bundle of rights shared by all citizens” (Baucöck, 1999, p. 3). States are “organisations of governance that apply to the people living in a defined territory. But in order to sustain such governance, the people must not just individually

HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENT MOBILITY IN FRANCE

279

obey the law, but also collectively conceive of themselves as ‘We, the People’” (Offe, 2000, p. 2). The EU suggests new ways of belonging to what Anderson defines as a new “imagined community” (Anderson, 1991) but it does not solve the tension between national and European identity. The European authorities’ domain of activity is “determined by the national governments and they must, in cooperation with the national authorities, create programmes to stimulate interest in the educational world, provide financial incentives for action and design and implement a regulatory framework that aims to determine how closely or loosely the beneficiaries follow the goals and operations envisaged in the programme” (Teichler, 2002, p. 380). Article 126 of the Maastricht Treaty1 proposes that the EU shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States, through a wide range of actions, such as: including the teaching of EU languages, establishing networks, exchanging information and promoting the mobility of citizens. These are the EU instruments for building the European Dimension of Education and for making a contribution to the setting up of the European Knowledge Society (Nunes, 1996; Hess, 1995; beck, 1995; Berezin, 1999; Castells, 1996) (all the recent European summits, from Lisbon 2000 on, have underlined this concept as a key to EU construction). According to Schriewer, “comparative research provides insights into the complexity of diffusion and reception processes” (Schriewer, 1997, p. 35). The study of the implementation of European Union education policy and its related programmes in the national systems allows a better understanding of the connections between complex spaces where hegemony is created (Boli, 1992). These spaces are socially, economically and culturally regulated, and they exist inside and outside the nation state as well as at the supranational level (Arnove & Torres, 1999; Babilar & Wallerstein, 1991; Santos, 1995; Archibugi & Held, 1995; Appadurai, 1996; Featherstone, 1990). This puts harmonisation as the centre point of the debate. When education systems are analysed, the political aspects of globalisation and social politics are revealed (Falk, 1995; Green, 1997; Griswold, 1994). This field of study is highly complex and potentially vast. It is not the ambition of this chapter to explain the student mobility phenomenon (Stichweh, 1998; Guy, 1997). Rather the aim is to present some aspects of this subject and to highlight its complex nature. Ertl presents a detailed analysis of EU education policies and initiatives.2 A chronology of the major events concerning education and training policies is also provided. What is important to remember is that the Maastricht Treaty empowered the 1

See Ertl (chapter 1 in this present volume).

2

See Ertl (in this present volume).

280


EU to deal with educational matters and promoted the implementation of new initiatives and programmes. It also brought the concept of the European Dimension of Education into the centre of EU action in the field of education. This chapter focuses on one particularly important EU initiative that aims, in part, to promote the European dimension in education by enabling higher education students to spend periods of time studying abroad. The initiative, known as ERASMUS (European Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students), was established in 1987 and its activities were later to come under the umbrella of the SOCRATES programme established in 1995. Thus the ERASMUS programme became a sub-programme of SOCRATES and “was modified as far as the targets of support were concerned: apart from a continued thrust on the promotion of student mobility and an extension of support for teaching staff mobility, more emphasis was placed on curriculum development, recognition issues and the promotion of innovation in higher education through various means among the thematic networks” (Khem, 1998, p. 9). On 24 January 2000, the Council and the Parliament, in a joint decision, adopted the SOCRATES II programme of EU educational co-operation for the period from January 2000 to December 2006.3 The comparison presented in this chapter seeks to understand the impact of the ERASMUS programme on French higher education student mobility.

3. HIGHER EDUCATION IN FRANCE 3.1 The origins and establishment of the system There are three major historical evolutions of the French education system. The first saw the creation of a central administration; the second saw the establishment of a specific administrative area for education; and, finally, the Church and State were separated. One particularly dominant characteristic of the French education system is that it has always been highly centralised. The Napoleonic concord of 1801 and the 1905 law separating the Church and State established three French state schooling principles. These were non-denominational teaching, free compulsory schooling up to the age of 16. Education would be nonreligious, neutral and non-confessional. It was from the nineteenth century onwards that the development of a higher education system in France began. “Institutions and schools sprang up, or were reformed, in total contradiction with similar institutions dating from the Middle Ages and the time of absolute monarchy. They were emancipated from the Church and the political power; secondary education was progressively built up and established as a necessary preparation for entry into higher education, thus entailing co-ordination 3

Further details in Ertl ‘Consolidation (from 1992)’ (in this present volume, chapter 1).


281

between the various teaching establishments which had not existed until the eighteenth century” (Le système éducatif français, European Commission, 2000a, p. 6). It developed in three directions: universities, special schools and the higher education scientific institutions. With the creation of the University of France by Imperial decree, in 1808, the baccalauréat,4 licence5 (degree) and agrégation6 (an advanced competitive examination for teachers), and the teaching diplomas for lycée7 teachers were defined. “Special schools and the grandes écoles,8 on the other hand, were being created throughout the nineteenth century, constituting both teaching institutions and research institutions characterised by their competitive entrance examinations. Among these were the Conservatoire des arts et métiers, the Ecole polytechnique, the Ecole normale supérieure (1794), the School of political sciences (1871) and the School for higher commercial studies (HEC)” (European Commission, 2000a, p. 6.1). In the 1960s, “the need to reform the higher educational system was demanded by the student movement of 1968 and resulted in Edgar Faure's framework law of November 12 1968, which allowed new principles to be laid down for higher education and modified university organisation” (European Commission, 2000a, p. 6.1). Institutions were given grater autonomy and participation which enabled them to organise themselves freely by means of councils. Since 1982 the French educational system has been subject to considerable decentralisation and the powers of the State departments and the territorial authorities have shifted (European Commission, 2000b, p. 313). However, the State still has a considerable role in ensuring the proper running of public services and the coherence of 4

The Baccalauréat is the first stage in university education, since it gives access to higher education. There are three types ofBaccalauréat:the general, the technological and the vocational. This diploma gives the title of bachelier. (Le système éducatif français, Glossary of Terms, European Commission, 2000a, p. 6). 5

The Licence is the French national university degree awarded after three years of university study or following the first year of the second cycle of university studies. The title of the licence includes the national reference to the main subject studied. (Le système éducatif français, Glossary of Terms, European Commission, 2000a, p. 6). 6

The Agrégation is a national competition for the recruitment of teachers, which gives access to the corps of agrégés in secondary education and in university. There are separate competitive examinations for the agrégation for secondary schools and for universities. (Le système éducatif français, Glossary of Terms, European Commission, 2000a, p. 6). 7 The Lycée is a state or private secondary school at higher level. (Le système éducatif français, Glossary of Terms, European Commission, 2000a). 8 The grandes écoles are State or private institutions of higher education. Admission to the grandes écoles is by highly competitive entrance examinations following two years of study in classes to prepare for them (CPGE) in lycées, or by selection on the basis of school records after the baccalauréat. The grandes écoles offer high-level diplomas in engineering, management and research. (Le système éducatif français, Glossary of Terms, European Commission, 2000a).

282


education. It continues to define educational choices and curricula and is, as before, responsible for recruiting, training and managing staff. In the 1989 framework law basic principles governing general education policy are set out. Education is considered a national priority. The basic principles for higher education were fixed by the law of January 1984 (European Commission, 2000a, p. 6.4). French higher education is marked by “a great diversity of institutions, the organisation and admission requirements of which vary according to the nature of the institution and the purpose of the courses offered. There are three types of institution, each subject to different legal requirements: universities, state institutions, or schools for higher education, and private institutions or schools for higher education. Some technical schools in the private sector may, however, be recognized by the State [...] In 1999, there were 100 IUTs [Instituts Universitaires de Technologie], 29 IUFMs [Instituts Universitaires de Formation de Maîtres] , and 222 IUPs“ (European Commission, 2000a, p. 6.4). The French education system has a very diversified higher education diploma structure (2-3-4-5-8)9, which brings additional difficulties to the creation of a European space for higher education.

3.2 The European dimension in French higher education As a response to the EU’s concept of the European Dimension in Education, the French government has implemented certain initiatives that include the creation of a European semester, University Centres, co-operative actions in matters of research and centres for European Union competitive examination. The idea of creating European university centres dates back to 1990, “the aim was to encourage universities of the same city to open up and work together. Today, there are six university centres: Grenoble, Lille, Montpellier, Nancy-Metz, Strasbourg and Toulouse. Others are currently in preparation: Aix-Marseille, Bordeaux, Lyon and Rennes. This action aims to use a small number of large, well-known, influential universities to foster the emergence of a European university space through participation in cross-border collaboration, and increased exchanges between universities and students” (European Commission, 2000a, p. 11). The number of universities has risen since 1991, “due to the development plan called 'Université 2000'. This plan allowed new universities, IUT/IUPs and university annexes to be created. There is a great diversity of these schools, which are under the responsibility of various ministries.” (European Commission, 2000a, p. 6.4). Following a general meeting on the University, held in June 1996, “France decided to suggest the idea of a European semester to its European partners, so that second cycle university courses would systematically provide for the validation of one semester in another 9

See Murdoch (in this present volume).


283

European university, or, failing this, in another university in the world. This project necessitates an organisation of the French university calendar, which would be compatible with that of every other university in the world” (European Commission, 2000a, p. 11). Universities may organise, under the terms of the decree dated May 26 1992 on the diploma for general university studies DEUG10, the licence and the maîtrise.11 In France, as in other Member States, national agencies were created in order to promote EU initiatives. The French national agency for SOCRATES, ‘SOCRATES, France, agence nationale’, was set up in Bordeaux in September 1996, “with the mission of promoting innovative projects in coherence with EU aims and principles in education, and the orientations of the national education policies” (FR National Agency, 2002c, p. 1). One year after the launch of the SOCRATES programme, there were 331 contracts between the EU and French higher education institutions, 84 universities and 247 nonuniversities (Kehm, 1998, p. 13). France has been actively participating in EU action programmes such as SOCRATES. For this reason it is assumed in this chapter that the study of the impact of ERASMUS programme in France may bring relevant understanding of this EU initiative.

4. COLLECTION OF DATA AND ANALYSIS 4.1 Methods The data collected on foreign students, the total numbers of students in French universities and the total numbers of students in French higher education, for the period 1949 – 2001, has been taken from extensive bibliographical references, referred to at the end of this chapter as “Statistical Documents, French Ministry of Education”. For this reason, in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4, the source is referred as “Tableaux statistiques, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale” .

10

The DEUG , Diplôme d’Études Universitaires Générales, is a national diploma awarded to students completing the first cycle of university studies, baccalauréat + 2. The title of the diploma includes the main subject studied (Le système éducatif français, Glossary of Terms, European Commission, 2000a). 11 The Maîtrise is the French national postgraduate degree which is awarded at the end of the fourth year of university studies or the end of the second cycle. Most maîtrises require students to write and present a dissertation. Some maîtrises, which are studied for in two years following a DEUG or equivalent qualification, offer vocational training (these are the management science diploma or MSG [ Maîtrise en Sciences de Gestion], the science and techniques diploma or MST [Maîtrise de sciences et techniques] (Le système éducatif français, Glossary of Terms, European Commission, 2000a).)

284


The data collected on the ERASMUS programme were obtained from the European Commission (DG Education and Culture)12 and the French national agency13 for SOCRATES. The total number of students and foreign students in French universities, for three periods of time, 1949 – 1960, 1960 – 1982 and 1982 – 2001, are presented in Part I, Table 1, Figure 1; Part II, Table 2, Figure 2; and Part III, Table 3, Figure 3. The criterion for the selected data is the total number of students and the total number of students with foreign nationality (effectifs d’étudiants de nationalité étrangère dans les universités) registered at a French university for at least one academic year.14

The definition of higher education institutions changes over time in every education system. This is also the case for France. Higher education includes university and nonuniversity institutions. In order to control this factor, for all years, the criterion of “university student”, étudiant inscrit à l’université, is used since, for the period of time considered, universities have always been defined as higher education institutions. In the sources used in this paper, Statistical Documents of the French Ministry of Education, data concerning foreign students in France for the period 1949 –2001 in all higher education institutions were not available. In Part IV, Table 4, Figure 4, data concerning the total number of students in French universities and the total number of students in French higher education institutions are presented to highlight the difference between the number of students in university and non-university institutions, from 1990 to 2001. This period of time was chosen because non-university institutions in France started to gain visibility after the implementation of reforms in higher education, during the eighties (see part 3 of this chapter). As a result of political and historical factors, the territorial definition of France as a country changes over time. The data presented in different years, in different statistical publications of the French Ministry of Education, are organised according to different geographical criteria. These criteria are: all France, France entière, referring to metropolitan France and other territories; France with TOM (Overseas territories, Territoires d’Outre-Mer), France without TOM; different regions, Les grandes régions

12

Data kindly sent by Dr Irving Mitchell, Commission Européenne, DG Education et Culture.

13 Data kindly sent by Dr Marie-Josee Biondini and Dr Stephanie Trieulet, LEONARDO DA VINCI, Service Études Synthèses Informations.

Agence SOCRATES-

14 “Champ de l’enquête. L’enquête recense 1’ensemble des étudiants inscrits à une formation donnant lieu à la délivrance d’un diplôme national ou d’ université au terme d’une formation d’ une durée d’ au moins un an, ainsi que les préparations aux concours de la fonction publique.“ Références Statistiques sur les Enseignements, la Formation et la Recherche, Ministère de 1’Éducation Nationale, Ministère de la Recherche, 2000, p. 176.


285

(Ile de France, Province, Départements d’Outre-Mer)15 and metropolitan France. Metropolitan France is divided into twenty-two regions, each containing between two and eight départements.16 For each publication it is possible to recognise the unit ‘foreign student’. The definition of foreign student changes over different periods of time; for instance, after 1957-58 students from Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Morocco and Tunisia are included as students from Overseas territories, Territoires d’Outre-Mer17. Data are presented chronologically, from 1949 to 2001, in three different parts, each of these parts corresponding to a geographical unit: from 1949 to 1960 (academic year 1959/60) France (Métropole et Algérie), from 1960 to 1982 (academic year 1981/82) France entière and from 1982 (academic year 1982/83) to 2001 France Métropolitaine. With the sources available in this study it is not possible to collect, for all the years 1949 to 2001, data referring to the same geographical criteria. Considering the fact that the most significant number of universities and, therefore, students has always been located in metropolitan France, this limitation is assumed as not interfering with the general view of the mobility phenomenon. When one collects data for such a long period of time some problems are impossible to solve. Another limitation of the data used in this study is the fact that it is not possible to be sure that the statistical unit, ‘student with foreign nationality with a registration at a French university for at least one academic year’, appears once in each annual publication. Owing to limitations of the statistical system it might happen that one student makes a simultaneous registration at a University and in a preparatory class for access to another higher education institution, for example, a grande école. When this happens, the student appears twice in the statistical documents.18 Again, it is considered in this study that this limitation does not make the data unuseful. 15 Overseas departments, Statistique des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires 1992-93, Ministère de 1’Education Nationale, de 1’Enseignement et de la Recherche, Direction de 1’Évaluation et de la Prospective, Sous-Direction des Enquêtes Statistiques et des Études, Juillet, 1993, p. 12. 16 France has 96 metropolitan départements and 4 overseas départements (Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guyana and Réunion). The département (department) is at the same time a decentralised territorial authority with an assembly elected by the population in its territory, the Conseil Général (the general councillors are elected for six-year terms of office by direct universal suffrage). (Le système éducatif français, Glossary of Terms, European Commission, 2000a, p. 6.5). 17 “à partir de 1957-58 les étudiants originaires des anciens Etats associés (Cambodge, Laos, Vietnam) et Protectorats (Maroc, Tunisie) ne sont plus comptés parmi les étudiants d’Outre-Mer de la Communauté, mais parmi les érangers”, Informations Statistiques du Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Publication de l’Institut Pédagogique National, 29-30, Mai-Juin 1961, p. 140. 18 “Le système statistique actuel ne permet pas de repérer avec précision les inscriptions multiples (déposées par une même personne auprès de deux établissements différents). Un étudiant inscrit simultanément à 1’Université et dans une classe préparatoire aux grandes écoles, par exemple, sera donc compté deux fois”, Les effectifs de l’Enseignement supérieur de 1980-1981 à 1997-1998, Tableaux Statistiques, Ministère de

286


Data concerning ERASMUS students, Part V, Table 5, Figure 5, were collected, for each year, directly from the tables entitled “SOCRATES/ERASMUS students” from the Commission DG Education and Culture. The criterion of selection is the total number of students in the host country, France. 4.2 Results Part I: Total number of students and foreign students in French universities, 1949-1960, in metropolitan France and Algeria (France Métropolitaine et Algérie) Source: Tableaux statistiques, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale

l’Éducation nationale, de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche, Direction de l’Evaluation et de la Prospective, Sous-Direction des Enquêtes Statistiques et des Etudes, TS 6446, Juillet, 1996, p. 3.


287

Table 1 and Figure 1 show a slow increase in the number of students in French universities, with an acceleration of growth in total numbers from 1956/57. There is a small variation in the percentage of foreign students in French universities (5.9 per cent in 1949 to 7.2 per cent in 1960). The total number of students in French universities grows in the period of time considered while the total number of foreign students in French universities shows a decrease in 1951/52 by 0.6 per cent, in 1954/55 by 0.6 per cent, and in 1959/60 by 0.5 per cent.

288


Part II: Total number of students and foreign students in French universities, 19601982, in France (France entière) Source: Tableaux statistiques, Ministère de l’Éducation


289

Table 2 and Figure 2 show a slow increase in the number of students in French universities from the period 1960 to 1968. There is a decrease in the total numbers of students in 1968/69. A growth in the total number of students can be noticed after the year 1969/70. From that year on, the total number of students in French universities increases significantly. The pattern of variation of foreign students in French universities corresponds to the total number of students in French universities (growth levels are the same during the same periods of time). A more significant variation of the percentage of foreign students in French universities can be noticed after 1969/70 (6.8 per cent in 1960/61 to 12.9 per cent in 1980/81).

290


Part III: Total number of students and foreign students in French universities, 19822001, in metropolitan France (France métropolitaine) Source: Tableaux statistiques, Ministère de l’Éducation


291

Table 3 and Figure 3 show a faster increase in the number of students in French universities from the period 1982/83 to 1995/96. The growth of total numbers of students is particularly evident in the period 1989/90 to 1995/96. In the period 1995/96 to 1998/99, a decrease in the number of students in French universities can be noticed. After 1999 the number of students in French universities remains stable. The differences in numbers of foreign students in French universities does not correspond with that of the total number of students in French universities in the period of time considered in Table 3, Figure 3. From 1994/95 there is a decrease in the number of foreign students in French universities. A significant difference in the percentage of foreign students in French universities can be noticed from 1982/83 to 2000/01 (13.4 per cent in 1982/83 to 10.0 per cent in 2000/01).

292


Part IV: Total number of students in French Universities and Total number of students in French higher education institutions, 1990-2001 Source: Tableaux statistiques, Ministère de l’Éducation


293

Table 4 and Figure 4 show a fast increase of number of students in French universities from the period 1990/91 to 1995/96. The same acceleration of growth in the total numbers of students can be noticed for higher education institutions. For both the total number of students in French universities and the total number of students in French higher education institutions one notices a small decrease in the number of students after 1995/96. From 1997/98 onwards the number of students in French universities and in French higher education institutions remains stable. The percentage of students in French universities corresponds, in 1990/91, to 69.0 per cent of the total number of students in French higher education institutions. The percentage of the total number of students in French higher education institutions in French universities decreases from 69.0 per cent in 1990/91, to 66.6 per cent in 2000/01.

294


Part V: Total number of ERASMUS students in French higher education institutions, 1987-2001 Source: Commission Européenne, DG Éducation et Culture


295

Table 5 and Figure 5 show a fast increase in the number of ERASMUS students in French higher education institutions during the period 1987/88 to 1992/93. Between 1992/93 and 1993/94, this rapid growth slows down, but is followed by a significant acceleration of growth in the number of ERASMUS students going to France in 1995/96. After 1995/96 a reduction of growth is visible and, again, an expansion can be seen for the period of time between 1996/97 to 1999/00. For the years 1999/00 and 2000/01, the number of ERASMUS students going to France remains stable. 4.3 Discussion The results of Part I, Part II and Part III show a growth in the total number of students in French universities from 1949 to 2002, with a significant decrease in 1968/69. Also in Part I, Part II and Part III the results show an acceleration of growth in the number of foreign students in French universities. With the exception of the decrease in 1968/69 and a less significant decrease in 1980/81, a pattern of constant growth for the entire period 1949 to 2001, can be confirmed. Part IV shows an increase of growth in the total number of students both in French universities and in the whole of higher education. The percentage of students in universities has a variation of 66.5 to 69.0 of the total number of students in French higher education institutions for the period 1990 to 2001. Part V shows a continuous and substantial increase in the number of ERASMUS students in French institutions of higher education. For instance, the number has trebled in the ten years between 1990/91 and 2000/01. The loss in speed of the number of ERASMUS students going to France between 1992/93 and 1993/94, and the significant acceleration of growth during the period 1995/96 is probably explained by the introduction of changes into the ERASMUS programme and the fact that it became part of the SOCRATES action programme. The total number of students in French universities corresponds, on average, to more than half of the total number of students in French higher education. Besides, “it must be noticed that the French non-university sector (IUT only) hosts few mobile students. The distribution of these students by field of study in secondary and tertiary IUTs is not known” (European Commission 2002b, p. 14). Considering this fact, the number of ERASMUS students in French higher education institutions is very insignificant compared to the number of foreign students in French universities. Comparing data from Part IV and Part V, the percentage of ERASMUS students in French higher education institutions are: 0.3 in 1990/91; 0.3 in 1991/92; 0.5 in 1992/93; 0.4 in 1993/94; 0.5 in 1994/95; 0.7 in 1995/96; 0.7 in 1996/97; 0.7 in 1997/98; 0.8 in 1998/99; 0.9 in 1999/00; 0.8 in 2000/01. The percentage of the total number of foreign students in French universities has, for the same period of time, variations between 12.5 and 10.0 of the total number of students in French universities.

296


Despite the slow growth in the percentage of ERASMUS students in French higher education institutions, this study provides evidence of the insignificant impact of the ERASMUS programme on student mobility in France. The focus of this study is the student flows going to France, whether or not they are on the ERASMUS programme. The results of other studies enrich the information collected and analysed in this study. In what follows the results of this study are confronted with the results of other studies. The total number of students involved in the ERASMUS programme, in all countries, from 1987 until 2001, is approximately 750 000 (FR National Agency, 2002a, p. 1). As the data in Table 5 show, the total number of ERASMUS students in France in the period 1987 to 2001, is 142 132. The number of ERASMUS students in France, for the period 1987 to 2001, is approximately 19 per cent of the total number of ERASMUS students in all countries (European Commission, 2002b, p. 6). This is quite a significant percentage and gives evidence of the importance of French participation, as a host country, in the ERASMUS programme. Regarding the nationality of ERASMUS students in France it is possible to know that “almost a quarter of mobile students from EU countries who are enrolled in French universities are German. [...] French “imports” are very diversified as whole [...] There is a striking difference between the structure of “imports” of EU students in France, which is highly diversified (they come from almost every country) and the “exports” which are highly concentrated on the United Kingdom, French-speaking Belgium, Germany and, to a lesser extent, Spain.” (European Commission, 2002b, p. 6). Maiworm and Teichler state that, in SOCRATES/ERASMUS (after 1995), “the most frequent partner institutions were in: Germany (16.65), United Kingdom (16.0%), France (14.1%) and Spain (10.0%)” (Maiworm & Teichler, 2002, p. 45). According to ‘SOCRATES 2000 Evaluation Study’, “the number of French students benefiting from the programme in 1995-96 was 12,336, 12,507 in 1996-97, 14,821 in 1997-98 and 31,726 in 1998-99, given the arrival of students without scholarships. In 1996-97, the main countries chosen by French ERASMUS students were the United Kingdom (40%), Spain (17%), and Germany (16%)” (European Commission, 2000c, p. 13) and, the total number of students “doubled from approximately 230 000 in 1990–1995 to approximately 460,000 in 1995-2000” (European Commission, 2000c, p. 5). This fact confirms the political assumption that the new SOCRATES approach “was expected to strengthen the role of the centre of higher education institutions both with respect to: setting coherent goals for the Europeanisation and the development or strengthening of strategic thinking in order to pursue these goals successfully, and improving the quality and efficiency in terms of decision-making, administration of the programme, and support and services” (Maiworm & Teichler, 2002, p. 40). In ERASMUS – Observations and Recommendations, Teichler argues that “students’ mobility has been the most visible component of the ERASMUS programme from the outset, and more than half the ERASMUS funds were allocated to student mobility


297

grants. Students had become a well established component of the European educational programmes with “mass participation” before SOCRATES was launched. SOCRATES changed the organisational and educational framework of student mobility and called for a further development of the components of ERASMUS” (Teichler, 2002, p. 176). These changes introduced in the ERASMUS programme in 1995, may explain the growth in the number of ERASMUS students in French higher education institutions. Despite the general importance and success of the ‘new’ ERASMUS promoting “mass participation” in all EU countries as underlined by Teichler, it is clear that the ERASMUS programme has made little difference in increasing the number of mobile students in France since the majority of the mobile students do not go to France with the support of the ERASMUS programme. 5. CONCLUSIONS This study has provided evidence on the trends towards the internationalisation and globalisation of the French educational system. The number of foreign students in French universities has grown radically in the last fifteen years. The mobility of students within the European Union plays a key role in developing the European dimension of higher education. Despite this fact the results of the implementation of the ERASMUS programme in France have had an insignificant impact on student mobility. The concept of the European Dimension in Education has a hybrid character: the EU provides initiatives to develop a stronger European citizenship but the Member States have to deal with the lack of resources when implementing changes and when participating in the construction of a European project. Major difficulties in the harmonisation of the architecture of higher education qualification systems in Europe and the implementation of EU initiatives in the field of education must be faced by both the EU and Member States. The origins of tensions are complex and become more difficult to deal with as a result of certain “administrative problems with the higher education institutions, often associated with the administration of funds by the Commission; a certain level of frustration about the non-implementation of pilot projects, about ‘islands of innovation’ without evaluation” (Teichler, 2002, p. 7). In the 1990s, many higher education institutions in Europe put great emphasis on strengthening their international and European image and activities. Initiatives like those promoted by SOCRATES create the opportunity to strengthen Europeanisation and internationalisation and may be used to influence the establishment of a European policy in education. The ERASMUS programme, like other EU initiatives in the field of higher education to promote student mobility, seems to be seen as highly positive by politicians and participants; “it is worth noting that ERASMUS students continue to assess the value of the study period abroad as highly as their processors did when the ERASMUS programme was launched and developed [...] each generation of new ERASMUS

298


students seemed to return with the belief that the study period abroad was a culturally and linguistically valuable experience and led to substantial academic progress” (Maiworm & Teichler, 2002, p. 98). Still, as Offe explains, “the reality is that “European” self-identification [...] remains a marginal phenomenon. Only a small minority of de jure Europeans think of themselves presently as ‘European’ and university trained people think of themselves as ‘European’ twice as often as persons with less formal education. The European frame of reference is, therefore, that of a narrow segment of elite, while attitudes towards work and politics, religion, family and education still follow clear national patterns. As for political, educational and cultural programs aimed at shifting the focus of citizens’ world views from the national to the European level, they should be viewed with scepticism given the reservations” (Offe, 2000, p. 22). The concept of a European strategy in education is gradually being built. Universities, politicians and all actors involved in the process of EU construction need information and analysis in order to perceive the reality clearly. Offe suggests scepticism and reservations. A more optimistic suggestion might be realism and open debate. All actors should participate in a debate, which cannot be avoided, as to what it means to be European and what the role of education is in this identity construct.


299

References Anderson, Benedict (1991): Imagined Communities, Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso). Appadurai, Arjun (1996): Modernity at Large (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Archibugi, Daniele; Held, David (ed.) (1995): Cosmopolitan Democracy – Agenda for a New World Order (Cambridge: Polity Press). Arnove, Robert; Torres, Carlos Alberto (1999): Comparative Education – The Dialectic of the Global and the Local (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers). Balibar, Étienne & Wallerstein, Immanuel (1991) : Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities (Londres: Verso). Barlan, A. / Kehm, B. / Reichert, S. / Teichler, U. (eds.) (1998): Emerging European Policy Profiles of Higher Education Institutions. Series: Werkstattberichte 23, ERASMUS Monographs, No. 12 (Zentrum fuer Berufs und Hochschulforschung der Gesamthochschule Kassel). Bauböck, Rainer (1999a): National Community, Citizenship and Cultural Diversity (Viena:Institut Für Höhere Studien). Bauböck, Rainer (1999b): Recombinant Citizenship (Viena:Institut Für Höhere Studien). Beck, Ullrich / Giddens, Anthony / Lash, Scott (1995): Reflexive Modernization, Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order ( Cambridge: Polity Press). Berezin, Mabel (1999): ‘Democracy and Its Others in a Global Polity’, in: International Sociology, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 227 - 243. Boli,John; Ramirez, Francisco (1992): ‘Compulsory Schooling in the Western Cultural Context, in: Arnove, Robert / Altbach, Philip & Kelly, Gail (1992): Emergent Issues in Education: Comparative perspectives (Albany: SUNY Press), pp. 25-38. Caille, S. / Gordon, J. / Lotze, S. / van der Wende, M. (2002): ‘The Implementation of SOCRATES at the National Level’, in: European Commission (2002), SOCRATES 2000 Evaluation Study, in: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/evaluation/global.html (25/05/2002). Castells, M. (1996): The Rise of the Network Society (Cambridge: Blackwell). European Commission (2000a): ‘Le système éducatif français’, EURYDICE 2002, EURYBASE, , in: http://www.eurydice.org/Eurybase/Application/frameset.asp?country=FR&language=EN (12/03/2002). European Commission (2000b): ‘Two decades of reform in Higher Education in Europe EURYDICE 2002: 1980 Onwards’, in: http://www.eurydice.org (12/03/2002). European Commission (2000c): ‘SOCRATES 2000 Evaluation Study’, in: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/evaluation/global.html (25/05/2002). European Commission (2001): ‘Socrates European Community Action Programme in the Field of Education: Transition Socrates I – Socrates II’, in: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/socrates/transition.html (24/11/2001). European Commission (2002a): ‘EURYDICE 2002, The information network on education in Europe’, in: http://www.eurydice.org/accueil_menu/en/frameset_menu.html (12/03/2002). European Commission (2002b): ‘Students mobility within the EU: a statistical analysis’, in: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/socrates/erasmus/statisti/fr.pdf (21 /04/2002). European Commission (2002c): ‘A new step towards a European area of higher education : European Universities to "tune" their study programmes’, in: http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/ guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/02/779|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display= (24/06/2002). European Commission (2002d): ‘Higher Education in Europe’, in: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/higher.html (20/03/2002). European Commission (2002e): ‘SOCRATES/ERASMUS’, in: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/socrates/ erasmus/stat.html (02/03/2002). Falk, Richard (1995): ‘On Human Governance: Toward a New Global Polities’ (College Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State UP).

300


Featherstone, Mike, (ed.) (1990): Global Culture – Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity (London: Sage Publications). FR National Agency (2002a): Dossier special: Les 15 Ans d’ ERASMUS, in: http://www.socratesfrance.org/texte/Erasmus/15ans.pdf (17/05/2002). FR National Agency (2002b): Enseignement superior, in: http://www.socrates-france.org/texte/Erasmus/ statsup.pdf (17/05/2002). FR National Agency (2002c): SOCRATES, France, in: http://www.socrates-france.org/ (17/05/2002). Fuller, Bruce & Rubinson, Richard (1992): The Political Constrution of Education – The Sate, School Expansion and Economic Change (New York: Praeger). Green, Andy (1997): Education, Globalization and The Nation State (New York: St. Martin’s Press). Griswold, Wendy (1994): Cultures and Societies in a Changing World (London: Pine Forge Press), pp. 1-17. Guy, Neave (1997): ‘The European Dimension in Higher Education’ (Background Document to the Conference), in: The Relationship between Higher education and The Natio-State, Enschede, Netherlands, April7th-9th, 1997. Hall, Stuart & Du Gay, Paul (eds.) (1996): Questions of Cultural Identity (London: Sage). Held, David (1993): Prospects for Democracy (Stanford, Stanford UP). Held, David; Archibugi, Daniele (1995): Cosmopolitan Democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press). Hess, David (1995): Science and Technology in a Multicultural World (New York: Columbia University Press). Kehm, B. (1998): ‘SOCRATES and the European University Agenda: Findings of an analysis of the European Policy Statements prepared by the European universities in the context of the lauch of the SOCRATES programme’, in: Barlan, A. / Kehm, B. / Reichert, S. & Teichler, U. (1998): Emerging European Policy Profiles of Higher Education Institutions, series: Werkstattberichte 23, / ERASMUS Monographs, Vol. 12 (Zentrum für Berufs und Hochschulforschung der Gesamthochschule Kassel). Kymlicka, Will (1995): Multicultural Citizenship (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Kymlicka, Will (1997): Education for Citizenship. (Viena: Institut für Höhere Studien). Maiworm, F. / Teichler, U. (1997): The ERASMUS Experience. Major Findings of the ERASMUS Evaluation Research Project (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities). Maiworm, F. (2002): ‘Participation in ERASMUS: Figures and Patterns’, in: European Commission (2002): SOCRATES 2000 Evaluation Study, in: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/evaluation/global.html (25/05/2002). Maiworm, F. & Teichler, U. (2002): ‘ERASMUS and the Policies of Higher Education Institutions’, in: European Commission (2002): SOCRATES 2000 Evaluation Study, in: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/ education/evaluation/global.html (25/05/2002). Maiworm, F. & Teichler, U. (2002): ‘The ERASMUS Students’ Experience’, in: European Commission (2002): SOCRATES 2000 Evaluation Study, in: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/ education/evaluation/global.html (25/05/2002). Meyer, John W. / Ramirez, Francisco (1992): ‘The Globalisation of Education’, in Schriewer, J. (1992): Discourse Formation in Comparative Education (Berlin: Peter Lang). MINISTÈRE DE L’ÉDUCATION NATIONALE (2001): Évaluation et statistiques de l’éducation, in: http://www.education.gouv.fr/dpd/default.htm (05/04/2002). MINISTÈRE DE L’ÉDUCATION NATIONALE (2001): La reconnaissance des diplômes dans l'union européenne, in: http://www.education.gouv.fr/int/euro6.htm (23/05/2002). MINISTÈRE DE L’ÉDUCATION NATIONALE (2001): L'évolution du système éducatif de la France, Rapport national, juin 2001, in: ftp://trf.education.gouv.fr/pub/edutel/int/bie.pdf (07/05/2002). MINISTÈRE DE L’ÉDUCATION NATIONALE (2001): Liste des universités françaises, in: http://www.education.gouv.fr/dpd/default.htm (19/05/2002). MINISTÈRE DE L’ÉDUCATION NATIONALE (2002): Les étudiants, in: ftp://trf.education.gouv.fr/pub/edutel/dpd/rers01/chap6.pdf (06/03/2002). MINISTÈRE DE L’ÉDUCATION NATIONALE (2002): Les effectifs des étudiants érangers dans les universités, in: ftp://trf.education.gouv.fr/pub/edutel/dpd/rers01/chap6.pdf (06/03/2002). MINISTÈRE DE L’ÉDUCATION NATIONALE (2002): Repères et références statistiques – 2001, in: http://www.education.gouv.fr/dpd/rers/repere.htm (19/05/2002).


301

MINISTERE DE L’ EDUCATION NATIONALE (2002): Le système éducatif français, in: http://www.education.gouv.fr/svst/default.htm (20/05/2002). MINISTÈRE DE L’ ÉDUCATION NATIONALE (2002): L’ enseignement des langues, in: http://www.education.gouv.fr/ thema/langue/langueb2.htm (12/03/2002). MINISTÉRE DE L’ ÉDUCATION NATIONALE (2002): Orientation pour l’enseignement supérieur, in: http://www.education.gouv.fr/ discours/2000/rentsupdisc.htm (12/03/2002). MINISTÈRE DE L’ÉDUCATION NATIONALE (2002): Tableaux statistiques, in: http://www.education.gouv.fr/dpd/tableaux statistiques/result.htm (23/05/2002). MINISTÈRE DE L’ÉDUCATION NATIONALE (2002): Les étudiants français dans les universitiés, in: http://www.education.gouv.fr/dpd/rers/repere.htm (12/05/2002). MINISTÈRE DE L’ÉDUCATION NATIONALE (2002): Évaluation et statistiques de l’ éducation, in: http://www.education.gouv ,fr/dpd/default.htm(12/05/2002). Nóvoa, António (1998): Histoire & Comparaison (Essais sur l 'Education) (Lisboa: Educa). Nóvoa, António (1996): ‘LÉurope et lÉducation: Éléments dÁnalyse Socio-Historique des Politiques Éducatives Européennes’, em Thyge Winther-Jensen (ed.) : Challenges to European Education: Cultural Values, National Identities and Global Responsibilities (Sonderdruck: Peter Lang). Nunes, João Arriscado (1996): ‘Fronteiras, hibridismo e mediatização: os novos territóries da cultura’, in: Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, Vol. 45, pp. 35-71. Offe, Claus (2000): The Democratic Welfare State – A European Regime Under the Strain of European Integratio (Viena:Institut Für Höhere Studien). Popkewitz, Thomas (ed.) (2000): Educational Knowledge – Changing Relationships Between the State, Civil Society and The Educational Community (Albany: State University of New York). Ryba, Raymond (1992): ‘Toward a European Dimension in Education: Intention and Reality in European Community Policy and Pratice’, in: Comparative Education Review, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 10-24. Samoff, Joel (1996): ‘Which Priorities and Strategies for Education?’, in: International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 249-271. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa (1995): Toward a New Common Sense: Law, Science and Politics in the Paradigmatic Transition (New York: Routledge). Stichweh, Rudolf (1998): ‘From the peregrinatio Academia to Contemporany International Student Flows – National Culture and Functional Differentiation as Emergent causes’, in: Charle, C. / Schriewer, J. & Wagner, P. (1998): Trnsnational Intellectual networks and the Cultural Logics of Nations (Providence, RI and Oxford: Berghahn, forthcoming). Schriewer, Jurgen (1997): ‘World-System and Interrelationship – Networks: The Internationalization of Education and the Role of Comparative Inquir’, in: Research Papers, No. 2 (Berlin: Humbolt University). Teichler, U. (1996): ‘Student Mobility in the framework of ERASMUS. Finding of an Evaluation Study.’, in: European Journal of Eucation, Vol. 31, No.2, 153-179. Teichler, U. / Maiworm, F. / Steube, W. (1990): ,‘Student Mobility within ERASMUS 1987/88. A Statistical Survey’, in: Arbeitspapiere, series 24 (ERASMUS Monographs), No. 1, Kassel (Wissenschaftlliches Zentrum für Berufs und Hochschulforschung der Gesamthochschule Kassel). Teichler, U. (1991): ‘Experiences of ERASMUS Students. Select Findings of the 1988/89 Survey’, in: Werkstattberichte, series 32 (ERASMUS Monographs), No. 13, Kassel (Wissenschaftlliches Zentrum für Berufs und Hochschulforschung der Gesamthochschule Kassel). Teichler, U / Kreitz, R. / Maiworm, F. (1991): ‘Student Mobility Within ERASMUS 1988/89. A Statistical Profile’, in: Werkstattberichte, series 23 (ERASMUS Monographs), No. 12, Kassel (Wissenschaftlliches Zentrum für Berufs und Hochschulforschung der Gesamthochschule Kassel). Teichler, U / Kreitz, R. / Maiworm, F. (1993): ‘Student Mobility Within ERASMUS 1989/90. A statistical profile’, in: Arbeitspapiere, series 28, Kassel (Wissenschaftlliches Zentrum für Berufs und Hochschulforschung der Gesamthochschule Kassel). Teichler, U. (2002): ‘ERASMUS –Observations and Recommendations’, in: European Commission (2002): SOCRATES 2000 Evaluation Study (http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/evaluation/global.html) (25/05/2002). Tyack, David; Cuban, Larry (1995): Tinkering toward Utopia (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press).

302


Tyack, David; Cuban, Larry (1995), Tinkering toward Utopia (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press). Touraine, Alain (1996): Democracy Versus History (Viena: Institut Für Höhere Studien).

Statistical documents, French Ministry of Education (Ministère de l’Education nationale) Informations Statistiques du Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Publication de l’Institut Pédagogique National, 29-30, Mai - Juin, 1961. Informations Statistiques du Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Publication de l’Institut Pédagogique National, 42-43, Septembre - Octobre, 1962. Informations Statistiques du Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Publication de l’Institut Pédagogique National, 53-54, Novembre - Décembre, 1963. Informations Statistiques du Ministère de l’Education Nationale, Secrétariat Général - Service des Statistiques et de la Conjoncture, n° 69, Avril, 1965. Informations Statistiques du Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Secrétariat Général - Service des Statistiques et de la Conjoncture, n° 76, Décembre, 1965. Informations Statistiques du Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Secrétariat Général - Service des Statistiques et de la Conjoncture, n° 98, Décembre, 1967. Informations Statistiques du Ministère de l’Education Nationale, Secrétariat Général - Service Central des Statistiques et de la Conjoncture, n° 108, Décembre, 1968. Les effectifs de l’Enseignement Supérieur de 1980-1981 à 1997-1998, Tableaux Statistiques, Ministère de 1’Education Nationale, de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche, Direction de l’Évaluation et de la Prospective, Sous-Direction des Enquêtes Statistiques et des Études, TS 6446, Juillet, 1996. Les effectifs de l’Enseignement Supérieur de 1980-1981 a 1997-1998, Tableaux Statistiques, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale de la Recherche et de la Technologie, Direction de la Programmation et du Développement, Sous-direction des Études Statistiques, TS 6599, Septembre 1998. Repères et Références Statistiques sur les enseignements et la formation, 1995-1996 et 1996 - 1997, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, de l’Enseignement Supérieur, de la Recherche et de la Technologie, 1997. Repères et Références Statistiques sur les enseignements et la formation, 1994-1995 et 1995-1996, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche, Direction de l’Évaluation et de la Prospective, 1996. Repères et Références Statistiques sur les enseignements et la formation, 1993-1994 et 1994-1995, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche, Direction de l’Évaluation et de la Prospective, 1995. Repères et Références Statistiques sur les enseignements et la formation, 1992-1993, Ministère de l’Education Nationale, Direction de l’Évaluation et de la Prospective, 1994. Repères et Références Statistiques sur les enseignements et la formation, 1991-1992, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Direction de l’Évaluation et de la Prospective, 1993. Repères et Références Statistiques sur les enseignements et la formation, 1990-1991, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale et de la Culture, Direction de l’Évaluation et de la Prospective, 1992. Repères et Références Statistiques sur les enseignements et la formation, 1987-1988, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale de la Jeunesse et des Sports, Direction de l’Évaluation et de la Prospective, Juin, 1989. Repères et Références Statistiques sur les enseignements et la formation, 1989-1990, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Direction de l’Évaluation et de la Prospective, 1991. Repères et Références Statistiques sur les enseignements et la formation, 1988-1989, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale de la Jeunesse et des Sports, Direction de l’Évaluation et de la Prospective, Juin, 1990. Repères et Références Statistiques sur les enseignements, la formation et la recherche, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Ministère de la Recherche, 2000. Statistique des Étudiants de Nationalité Etrangère dans les Universités 1981-1982, Ministère de l’Éducation, Service de l’ lnformatique et des Statistiques, n° 82-42, Novembre, 1982. Statistique des Étudiants de Nationalké Etrangère dans les Universités 1974-75, Ministère de l’Éducation, Ministère d’État aux Universités, Service des Études Informatiques et Statistiques, n° 76-08, Mars, 1976.


303

Statistique des Étudiants de Nationalité Etrangère dans les Universités 1976-77, Ministère de l’Éducation, Ministère d’État aux Universités, Service des Études Informatiques et Statistiques, n° 78-23, Juin, 1978. Statistique des Étudiants de Nationalité Étrangère dans les Universités 1983-1984, Ministère de l’Éducation, Service de la Prévision, des Statistiques et de l’Évaluation, Sous-Direction des Enquêtes Statistiques et des Études, n° 84-48, Décembre, 1984. Statistique des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires 1999-2000, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, de la Recherche et de la Technologie, Direction de la Programmation et du Développement, Sous-Direction des Études Statistiques, TS 6716, Mai, 2000. Statistique des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires 1997-1998, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, de la Recherche et de la Technologie, Direction de la Programmation et du Développement, Sous-Direction des Études Statistiques, Juillet, 1998. Statistique des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires 1996-97, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, de la Recherche et de la Technologie, Direction de l’Évaluation et de la Prospective, SousDirection des Enquêtes Statistiques et des Études, Juillet, 1997. Statistique des Étudiants inscrits dans les Etablissements Universitaires 1992-93, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, de l’Enseignement et de la Recherche, Direction de l’Évaluation et de la Prospective, SousDirection des Enquêtes Statistiques et des Études, Juillet, 1993. Statistique des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires 1993-94, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, de l’Énseignement et de la Recherche, Direction de l’Évaluation et de la Prospective, SousDirection des Enquêtes Statistiques et des Études, Août, 1994. Statistique des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires 1994-95, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, de l’Énseignement et de la Recherche, Direction de l’Évaluation et de la Prospective, SousDirection des Enquêtes Statistiques et des Études, Octobre, 1996. Statistique des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires 1991-92, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale et de la Culture, Direction de l’Évaluation et de la Prospective, Sous-Direction des Enquêtes Statistiques et des Etudes, Octobre, 1992. Statistique des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires 1990-91, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Direction de l’Évaluation et de la Prospective, Sous-Direction des Enquêtes Statistiques et des Études, Février, 1992. Statistique des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires 1984-1985, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Service de la Prévision des Statistiques et de l’Evaluation, Sous-Direction des Enquêtes Statistiques et des Etudes, Août, 1986. Statistique des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires 1983-1984, Ministère de l’Éducation, Service de l’Informatique de Gestion et des Statistiques, Novembre, 1984. Statistique des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires 1985-1986, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Service de la Prévision des Statistiques et de l’Évaluation, Sous-Direction des Enquêtes Statistiques et des Études, Décembre, 1986. Statistique des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires 1985-1986, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Service de l’Evaluation et de la Prospective, Sous-Direction des Enquêtes Statistiques et des Etudes, Janvier, 1988. Statistique des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires 1988-1989, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale de la Jeunesse et des Sports, Direction de l’Evaluation et de la Prospective, Sous-Direction des Enquêtes Statistiques et des Études, Novembre, 1989. Statistiques de l’Enseignement Supérieur, Effectives Universitaires 1968-1969, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Service central des Statistiques et Sondages, Département des Statistiques, D.I.P.R.E. 11, n. 4008, Mars, 1971. Statistiques des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires, 1974-1975, Secrétariat d’État aux Universités, Service des Études Informatiques et Statistique, Service central des Statistiques et Sondages, Mars, 1976. Statistiques des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires, 1975-1976, Secrétariat d’État aux Universités, Service des Études Informatiques et Statistique, Service central des Statistiques et Sondages, Mars, 1976.

304


Statistiques des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires, 1976-1977, Ministère de l’Éducation, Ministère des Universités, Service des Études Informatiques et Statistique, Service central des Statistiques et Sondages, Avril, 1978. Statistiques des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires, 1977-1978, Ministère de l’Education, Ministère des Universités, Service des Études Informatiques et Statistiques, Service central des Statistiques et Sondages, Juillet, 1978. Statistiques des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires, 1978-1979, Ministère de l’Éducation, Ministère des Universités, Service des Études Informatiques et Statistiques, Service central des Statistiques et Sondages, Mars, 1979. Statistiques des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires, 1979-1980, Ministère de l’Éducation, Ministère des Universités, Service des Études Informatiques et Statistiques, Service central des Statistiques et Sondages, Février, 1981. Statistiques des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires Publics de 1976-77 à 1980-81, Ministère de 1’Éducation Nationale, Service de l’Informatique de Gestion et des Statistiques, Service central des Statistiques et Sondages, Avril, 1981. Statistiques des Étudiants inscrits dans les Établissements Universitaires 1980-1981, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Service des Études Informatiques et Statistiques, Service central des Statistiques et Sondages, Février, 1982. Statistiques des Étudiants inscrits dans les Universités, 1971-1972, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Service d’Informations Economiques et Statistiques, Service central des Statistiques et Sondages, Département des Statistiques, Septembre, 1973. Statistiques des Étudiants inscrits dans les Universités, 1973-1974, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Service d’Informations Economiques et Statistiques, Service central des Statistiques et Sondages, Département des Statistiques, Décembre, 1974. [21] Statistiques Rétrospectives 1967-1968, 1976-1977, Ministère de l’Éducation, Service des Études Informatiques et Statistiques, Service Central de Statistique et Sondages, date ?. Tableaux de l’Éducation Nationale, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Secrétariat Général, Service des Statistiques et de la Conjoncture, 1968. Tableaux de l’Éducation Nationale, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Secrétariat Général, Service des Statistiques et de la Conjoncture, 1967. Tableaux de l’Education Nationale, Ministère de l’Éducation nationale, Secrétariat Général, Service des Statistiques et de la Conjoncture, 1966. Tableaux de l’Éducation Nationale, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Direction Chargée de la Prevision, Service central des Statistiques et Sondages, 1970. Tableaux de l’Éducation Nationale, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Direction Chargée de la Prevision, Service central des Statistiques et Sondages, 1971. Tableaux de l’Éducation Nationale, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Direction Chargée de la Prévision, Service central des Statistiques et Sondages, 1972. Tableaux de l’Éducation Nationale, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Service d’Informations Économiques et Statistiques, Statistique et Sondages, 1973. Tableaux de l’Éducation Nationale, Statistiques Rétrospectives 1958-68, Ministère de l’Éducation nationale, Service central des Statistiques et de la Conjoncture, 1969. Tableaux de l’Éducation Nationale, Ministère de l’Education Nationale, Service d’Informations Économiques et Statistiques, Statistiques et Sondages, 1974. Tableaux des Enseignements et de la Formation, Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, Service des Études Informatiques et Statistiques, Service central des Statistiques et Sondages, 1981. Tableaux des Enseignements et de la Formation, Ministère de l’Éducation, Service des Études Informatiques et Statistiques, Service central des Statistiques et Sondages, 1980.

DAVID PHILLIPS & HUBERT ERTL

CONCLUSIONS Standardisation and Expansion in EU Education and Training Policy: Prospects and Problems

Europe has presented a complex example of shifting geographical space for many centuries. As geopolitical patterns have changed, so too have the determinants of educational provision in its various manifestations. These shifts have had significant outcomes for the political and ideological underpinning of education systems, and gradual or abrupt change has involved a large number of factors germane to education, among them: issues of equality of opportunity and treatment; curricular content; language of instruction; control mechanisms; system structure; status and function of the teaching profession. Examples of large-scale change involving such factors would be the expansion of the Soviet Union and the Nazi occupation of vast areas of the continent, together with the reverse phenomena of the collapse of Communism in Europe and the liberation of the countries occupied by Hitler’s forces. Such significant developments on a huge scale provide obvious instances of the potential impact of sweeping political change. Other changes in geopolitical allegiance and alliance are less dramatic but nevertheless impact upon educational provision. Among them we might mention the emergence of small autonomous states from larger entities (Yugoslavia, Belgium; more recently Macedonia, Slovenia). On this smaller scale too shifts in ‘educational space’ are worthy of attention for the light they shed on phenomena more readily observed on the larger scale. How, in this context, should we see the events that have led to the creation of the European Union and the role of education within them? Clearly, the creation of the European Community has been a major political and economic development in postwar Europe. And Jean Monnet’s supposed view that if the project were begun anew he would start with education (Sprokkereef, 1995, p. 340) reveals the centrality of ‘educating’ within the very concept of European integration. While the 305 David Phillips & Hubert Ertl (eds.), Implementing European Union Education and Training Policy: A Comparative Study of Issues in Four Member States, 305—318. © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

306


governments subscribing to those elements which hold the EU together insist on preserving their autonomy in educational matters, it is clear that a certain degree of commonality in approaches to important educational issues has perforce emerged through the programmes of the EU, which in many cases have not been directly implemented through national governments. For the investigations which form the rationale of this book we chose four Member States representing different styles of government and different positions within the family of the European Union. France and Germany have of course been members since the foundation of the Community, and they have from time to time formed a powerful alliance. For a long time the ‘special relations’ between the two countries have spearheaded the European integration process (Cole, 2001). Often these special relations were to the disquiet of the UK. The United Kingdom joined later - after De Gaulle’s notorious vetoes - and has had a generally uneasy relationship with the rest of Europe, particularly as far as interpretations of Community membership that emphasise political union rather than economic cooperation are concerned. Sweden is a relative latecomer to membership, and is proving, like the UK, to be fairly eurosceptic in attitude. The UK and Sweden have both decided for the time being not to join the single currency. In the UK’s case its own economic conditions for membership, however, have clearly been fulfilled: a referendum is awaited. Following the Danish No vote on joining the single currency, the outcome of a future British vote looks very uncertain, especially with one of the main political parties being opposed to the euro. The success of the euro has perceptively strengthened economic union and might in the long run create a greater sense of social unity. The Europe of the Fifteen cannot, however, be said to be especially harmonious in political terms. The prospect of almost as many more states joining is not likely to create the kind of harmony which has hitherto not been apparent. The candidate countries currently number thirteen: Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey. And the fact of their candidature is in itself revealing of a phenomenon in the EU that constantly surprises, namely that it is not a constant entity, that it is prepared to grow and consequently to change, that its very definition will alter with the accretion of new Member States. This in itself makes real harmonisation problematic, for the good reason that as soon as any common ground is created it will have to be renegotiated at such times as countries join the Community with rather different perspectives on the issues on which common approaches have been agreed. Education and training provide good theoretical examples. Our four Member States have very different education systems, each the result of complex historical processes which still form a powerful imperative to hold them in place. As with all EU members, they have resisted all suggestions of convergence to a common norm, preserving the rights of subsidiarity enshrined in Articles 126 and 127 of the Maastricht Treaty. And yet, as the studies in this volume show, and as António Nóvoa in particular has agued, there has been a silent revolution in terms of something of the spirit of EU education and training policy being implemented despite the posturing of Member States. Particularly in recent years, the Member States themselves seem to

CONCLUSIONS

307

have initiated a dense network of co-operation, of a certain agreement on a number of common policy aims for education, and of the exchange of best-practice solutions to answer common challenges (Hingel, 2001, p. 18). The impact of EU programmes in education has resulted in a degree of European coming-together which has defied attempts on the part of Member States to distance themselves from the intentions of EU policy as enshrined in the treaties. This study has investigated in particular the interpretation, transmission and implementation of EU policies in the field of education and training. By way of summary, and to place the work of the Oxford investigations in a wider research context, this concluding section will relate our particular findings to the broader research aims of the PRESTiGE research network. *

*

*

*

*

The title of the PRESTiGE Network reflects a research interest in the interwoven complexities of education systems. All of the aspects reflected in the title of the Network are enmeshed. And so, for example, it is not possible to examine problems of educational standardisation without considering the factors of transition and the influence of the global context (Schriewer et al., 2000a). However, the concept of educational standardisation is itself highly controversial and interpreted in widely different ways in various contexts, whether by policy-makers, researchers or practitioners (Green et al., 1999). In this part of our conclusions, therefore, we aim to summarise and develop the findings of the research collected in this volume in the light of the question as to how far the interpretation and implementation of EU policies on education and training in four Member Sates of the Union have contributed to processes of educational standardisation. In doing so we will present examples of what Nóvoa and deJong-Lambert have termed in their contribution to this volume ‘unionisation’ in the field of education and training. The analyses in this volume show that the EU Member States are converging to some extent in terms of their educational policy and practice. This convergence, however, does not fulfil the initial aim of harmonisation, and seems to indicate a de facto acceptance that this aim is not realisable. In this context, the EUROPASS Training initiative, which straddles the two main themes of this study, exemplifies a ‘diluted’ version of convergence because it provides a mechanism whereby the different elements of qualifications offered in the various countries can be recognised, but it is limited to this documentary role. It certifies divergent practices, and does not serve as a means to promote convergence. As the initiative is in its early stages, it remains to be seen how effective it will be in this limited role, and whether it will initiate further developments. In general terms, this study also shows how the same EU policy directives and programme initiatives can be interpreted and implemented in widely divergent manners by the various Member States. In addition, it is clear from this study that the potential standardisation of educational provision is also affected by the different current educational situations in the countries, as well as by the historical and traditional context of education in the respective countries. This is particularly valid

308


for the interpretation of the European dimension in education (as shown in this study by Dahl for Sweden und by Economou and Savvides for the United Kingdom). EU programmes in education and training (as investigated here mainly by Ertl) are implemented in the contexts of national institutional and administrative structures and have therefore varying impacts on educational provisions of the Member States. However at the same time, the experience with the European dimension and with the EU programmes contributes to the process of standardisation in European education which seems to have been accelerating since the beginning of the new millennium (Hingel, 2001 and Nóvoa & deJong-Lambert, in this present volume). The issue of standardisation of European education: the integration of the EU

The history of the EU as an institution demonstrates profound resistance to a process of standardisation which would indicate a surrender of the Member States’ control of their educational systems. Indeed, it could be argued that this term hardly applies to the processes currently underway regarding education policy in the EU. Instead, the aim of bringing the various education systems closer into line with one another has perceptively evolved during the process into a more modest aim – that of achieving transparency between the countries. A review of the literature reveals the subtle changes in the terminology employed – from harmonisation to recognition to transparency (cf. Nowoczyn, 1999 and Blitz, 1999). These nuances in the terminology show that the original aim of harmonisation has proved unrealistic. However, the language used in recent policy documents indicates that this development might be just about to change direction again. The rhetoric of a ‘European Space of Education’ featuring ‘common principles’, a ‘European Model of Education’ as a result of ‘deepening co-operation’, and a ‘European House of Education’ built by the co-ordination of educational developments in an enlarged Union (all direct quotes from Hingel, 2001, p. 4) would have not been possible only a few years ago, when discussion on the value of diversity in education was guarded by the sovereign Member States and protected by the omnipresent principle of subsidiarity. The support for the principle of subsidiarity as well as the growing influence of the regions in the EU context, indicates that national and regional actors have been increasingly cautious in surrendering power to supranational bodies. This is particularly the case in the field of education (Schröder, 1990 and Rego, 1997). What becomes clear is that various structures, mechanisms and processes are in place that contribute to the development of more similar areas of political action in the field of education and training in Europe. In other words, ‘[...] myriad processes [are] involved, at every level, in the creation of the European Union’ (Nóvoa & deJong-Lambert, in this present volume). The work of the Oxford PRESTiGE team presents a number of examples of this ‘unionisation’ in education and training. The European Union programmes

Since the introduction of the first EU programmes in education and training in the 1970s their administration and implementation has become increasingly

CONCLUSIONS

309

decentralised. This was mainly a reaction to the impact of the projects and initiatives supported by the programmes which was perceived as being unsatisfactory. The decentralisation process gathered speed when SOCRATES and LEONARDO DA VINCI were set up as the Union framework programmes for education and training in 1995. Also from that time, the implementation patterns and the way in which the programmes were applied to the education and training systems of the Member States have converged. The investigation of the structures of the National Agencies for the programmes in Sweden, Germany and the UK, as undertaken by Ertl in this volume, provides evidence for this convergence. It can also be shown that the levels of impact of the programmes in the participating countries have become more similar because the pilot projects, initiatives and other activities supported by the programmes are often regarded as ‘best practice’ models or ‘benchmarks’ in the Member States. The principle of the ‘open method of co-ordination’ as agreed on by the Lisbon European Council in 2000 proposes new forms of working together in the European arena. Nóvoa and deJong-Lambert (in this present volume) have stressed the importance of European benchmarks, common guidelines and best practice models for the future development of national education and training systems as currently advocated by the European Union. Following this approach, the co-operation of the Member States will focus on the joint search for, and dissemination of, best practice and the stimulation of innovation in transnational projects – ways of co-operation that have been used and developed by the projects supported by the EU programmes in education and training since their introduction in the 1970s. Therefore, it can be argued that the programmes will continue to cause the actors in the Member States to pursue similar ways of reacting when faced with new problems. A standardising effect of SOCRATES and LEONARDO on education and training in Europe is the consequence. The European dimension in education The contribution of the European dimension in education is less unambiguous. First, it needs to be reiterated that the promotion of a European dimension in education and training in the Member States is an overarching aim of the SOCRATES and LEONARDO programmes. Given the success of the programmes, particularly in the forward-looking fields of new media in education and e-commerce in vocational training, it can be safely assumed that provision in these fields is developing a strong dimension of European co-operation. For the area of adult education Field (2002, p. 7) identifies projects and initiatives with a strong European dimension as a way of systematising and developing effective and flexible provisions for lifelong learning: These ‘[...] projects proved to be a guideline for innovation and good practice.’ He concludes that the value of the European dimension for adult education is to be found – among other things – in the standardising nature (at a high level) of co-operation in the European area. ‘At the very least, what is involved [in projects with a European

310


dimension] is an opportunity for benchmarking against current practice elsewhere’ (Field, 2002, p. 7). In higher education the Bologna Declaration on the European Space for Higher Education has initiated a new attempt to promote ‘[...] the necessary European dimension in higher education’ (Commission, 2002, p. 8). The structural aims of the Bologna process, i.e. the adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees, based on an organisation of higher education studies in two main cycles (undergraduate and graduate studies) is investigated by Murdoch in this volume. His assessments show that the countries that signed the Declaration seem to be willing to converge their structure of higher education and some of them have already initiated reforms that would bring their degree systems into line with the agreed model of what a transparent framework in higher education should look like at a European level. One example that proves this is the far-reaching discussion about the introduction of Bachelor and Masters degrees at German universities. A further aspect of an increasing European dimension in higher education is the rising number of mobile students. Cunha’s analysis of student mobility in France provides evidence for this development. That fact that the ERASMUS programme only contributes little quantitatively to this increasing mobility can be regarded as less important: Firstly, the institutional co-operation initiated by the ERASMUS programmes is in many cases the best practice model for student exchanges promoted by non-EU programmes. The qualitative impact of the programme can therefore not be overestimated. Secondly, the experiences of the ERASMUS exchange students are – on the whole – so positive that they make a stay abroad during the studies desirable for the future student generations. It can be argued that mobility will be regarded as an integral part of higher education studies in the future. The curricular analyses conducted for this study by Dahl for Sweden and by Economou and Savvides for the UK suggest that it is still the area of compulsory schooling in which it seems most difficult to intensify the impact of the concept of a European dimension in education. For the case of Sweden, Dahl argues that the concept has a very limited influence on the curricula of compulsory schools and that EU policies in education only have a quantitative rather than a qualitative impact. This might have to do with the relatively short time of Sweden being an EU member but also with the uncertainty concerning the country’s dominating identity: Will the Nordic dimension or the European dimension be the general guideline for the development of Swedish education in as far as the country’s relations with the outside world are concerned? It appears from Dahl’s analysis that Sweden still has to decide how to console its identity as a Nordic country with the European integration in which the country chose to be part. The consequence of this unclear political situation for the field of education and training is that the European dimension appears weak. This could also be a the case because Sweden joined the EU at a time when the next big step of common policy in education, namely the introduction of the two framework programmes in education and training, had already been decided. Insofar, the same problems apply for Sweden as they applied for the eastern part of Germany after unification. In the paper in this volume on the transition of vocational training in eastern Germany it is demonstrated how EU policies need to

CONCLUSIONS

311

be adapted in order to take the particularities of joining Member States or regions into account. For instance, the responsiveness of EU programmes needs to be increased if they are to be implemented effectively in new Member States. For the imminent enlargement of the Union towards the east it is important, therefore, to involve the candidates for membership at an early stage in the development of Union initiatives and policies. This will ensure that, for example, a whole set of ‘eastern European dimensions’ can contribute to EU policies that are effective in all regions of the enlarged Union. In the case of the UK Economou has demonstrated how significant actors (often at the school level) dominate the interpretation of a concept such as the European dimension in education if the aims of the concept are not operationalised sufficiently and statutory regulations for its application are lacking. As the contribution of Savvides makes clear, this latter aspect has been rectified in England recently when the inclusion of the European dimension in the new subject Citizenship in the National Curriculum was announced. Whether this step will change the traditional sceptical English view concerning the European dimension seems still unclear. On the one hand, the variety of research and the general interest in the new subject of Citizenship could also lead the way to a new and more positive approach towards the European dimension at school level. On the other hand, however, the intention to make the teaching of a foreign language an option at the age of 14 contradicts any increased importance of European issues in education. In summary it can be said for the interpretation and implementation of the European dimension that it is the area of compulsory education in which the Member States guard their autonomy most carefully. In some cases this has also to do with struggles for regulatory powers in education and training. In Germany, for instance, the federal Länder protect their right to determine education against the ambition of the federal government to increase the quality of education by redistributing competencies to the national ministry. However, in the light of the growing influence of studies that compare standards of compulsory schooling internationally on the educational policies of European countries the EU Member States will find it increasingly difficult to ignore the standards set by the Union (cf. Nóvoa & deJong-Lambert in this volume). Again, Germany provides an example of this. As a reaction to the country’s unsatisfactory results in the PISA study, national attainment standards for compulsory schools are about to be introduced. Whereas such standards can be found in other European countries, they have been alien to the German education system. In addition, national standards impair the constitutional autonomy of the 16 German Länder in cultural and educational matters. Modularisation in European vocational education A further example of the impact of the process of ‘unionisation’ in the field of education and training is modularisation of vocational education. Although not part of this volume, this issue has been investigated as part of the work of the Oxford PRESTiGE team (cf. Ertl, 2000 and 2001).

312


By studying examples from six European countries (England, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Scotland and Spain) it became clear that modularisation (i.e. the process of sub-dividing complex training arrangements into manageable, selfcontained elements of vocational qualifications) is one way in which training systems in different national settings react to the ever more quickly changing skill demands of the economy. While the challenges posed by the economy are similar for all national qualification systems, the traditions, structures and functions of these systems in the countries investigated vary greatly. Therefore, the early reforms initiating modularisation in the early 1990s were very different: the approaches introduced ranged from extremely far-reaching modularisation in England and Spain to more cautious models in The Netherlands and the strict rejection of any kind of modularisation in Germany. In the meantime, similar trends in developing modular provisions in vocational training can be identified throughout the countries. The most obvious similarities in recent reforms and developments include the following (cf. Ertl, 2001, pp. 59-67). A tendency towards integration Modular structures are being increasingly adopted in order to integrate formerly separate sectors of education and training. Modular frameworks cover vocational preparation, initial and further training. These frameworks connect the training and education of people in work with training provision for full-time students. This means that modularisation is being used to bring school-based and work-based training routes closer together. Further, the divide between general and vocational education in the postcompulsory sector can be bridged by establishing modular banks which include both academic and vocational modules. A cohesive system for all post-compulsory education and training may be the outcome of modularisation. A move away from fragmentation In the early modular approaches, the high number of modules, the lack of regulation concerning the combination of modules, and the fact that modules were often not connected in a sensible way to other modules resulted in fragmented vocational qualifications. These qualifications were too specific and tended to have no sufficient value in the labour market. More recent modular approaches move away from this fragmentation concept. Instead of producing a variety of free-standing part-qualifications, overall qualifications that regulate combinations of modules have been developed. This represents a change to the modular strategy that took place in the different countries: free-standing modules are no longer perceived as marketable part-qualifications. Instead, the attainment of more broadly-based combinations of modules in the sense of comprehensive overall qualifications becomes the aim of training. A shift from modularisation ‘at the edges’ to modularity in mainstream training provisions In countries in which modularisation has not yet been integrated into regular training provision, modularity is increasingly being adopted in sectors outside initial training. In France, for example, modular courses had only covered vocational preparation and orientation. In Germany, modularity had been adopted in comparatively small

CONCLUSIONS

313

areas of VET, for example in the qualifications of specific target groups and certain further training schemes. It seems that the experience with modularisation at the edges of the mainstream VET system has paved the way for a wider application of modularity. In France, the previous modular framework has been extended to adult employees, and the experience with modular structures is also being used to apply modularity to continuing training (Rothe, 1995, pp. 167f.). In Germany, pilot schemes have introduced modular elements to initial training in the dual system. As a result of these pilot schemes, modularity has been introduced to the provisions of the third year of apprenticeship training in newly regulated training occupations (CEDEFOP, 2000, p. 6). Thus, there seems to be a trend in these countries to use the experience of modularisation at the edges of training provision to test modularity in regular initial training provisions. The far-reaching introduction of modularity in a number of European countries has set a standard which more reluctant countries cannot ignore. An orientation of modules towards EU qualification standards Europe-wide training standards have influenced the specification of levels for modules as defined in European countries. England, Spain, The Netherlands and Scotland refer explicitly to the levels defined in the EU SEDOC agreement of 1985 for the assignment of modules to different levels. It seems that the system of five levels of qualifications as suggested by the EU has been accepted as a point of reference by the Member States when reforming VET. If they are applied in all Member States, common qualification and module levels could increase the transparency of VET systems in Europe. It could facilitate the recognition of qualifications and it would be easier for employers to judge the qualifications of foreign job seekers. Considering these trends, modularisation in vocational training seems to be a particularly relevant example of the functions of the processes that are described by the term ‘unionisation’. The influence of the EU on the introduction of modularity is indirect but decisive: It would have not been feasible to prescribe modularisation by a central institution. Instead, the EU encourages the joint development of modules by offering money for projects that develop modules with a European dimension in transnational co-operation of the Member States. ‘Euroqualifications’ was one such project (Sellin, 1994 and Wordelmann, 1995). Furthermore, the EU set the standards for the modules by offering a common framework for systematising the modules in all Member States. In order to make modules developed in different national contexts comparable, the individual Member States ascribe their modules to the levels suggested by the EU. And finally, modular approaches in vocational training are advocated as best practice models and influence the reforms in the countries that have not yet introduced modular structures. Rapidly changing economic environments in EU Member States will facilitate similar receptions of reform options such as modularisation in vocational training. Whereas the starting points of the reform processes in different countries may be very different, various elements

314


of the ‘unionisation’ process contribute to the convergence of the reform processes themselves. *

*

*

*

*

Problems and issues for further research

In order to assess the areas and scope of future research in the field an analysis of EU policy in education needs to identify the contributions so far. The most important contributions seem to be: the achievement of openness regarding educational structures and reform processes in the individual countries; the creation of a forum for debate regarding patterns of reform and development; the availability of reliable statistics and information about the education systems of the various countries; the promotion of the concept of more integrated systems of education, comprising all levels of school education, vocational training and lifelong learning; and not least, a recognition of the important role played by education and training within the EU context, in both cultural and economic terms (Hantrais, 2000). However, research still remains to be done regarding the experience and new understanding the students gain by virtue of their participation in such projects in terms of the European dimension, as well as into the economic contribution made by these programmes. The aims and objectives of the process of European integration in educational and training matters are hardly compatible with the limited resources made available. The debacle surrounding the resignation of the Santer Commission has also had a severely negative influence on the perception of EU programmes in general, and on LEONARDO in particular (Winter, 1999). In fact, the damage to the reputation of the programme was so extensive that it would perhaps have been advisable to rename the entire programme. There are a number of important issues that need to be addressed if the EU is to come close to achieving its aims in the field of education and training. These include: increasing the resources available in general; addressing the imbalance between the funding of programmes involving higher and/or general education and the funding of vocational education and training programmes; clarifying the concept of the European dimension in education and its connections to and its effects on national and regional identities;

CONCLUSIONS

315

reducing the excessive bureaucracy involved; and developing longer-term strategies, especially in view of the future enlargement of the EU. Further research needs to be completed regarding the process and the aims of the ‘unionisation’ in education in Europe, in order to maximise the potential of the EU in economic and social terms. Also, the prospective enlargement of the Union, ‘[...] the greatest project of the EU since its foundation’ (Bünder, 2002), poses substantial challenges for research in the area of EU policies in education and training. Education could assume a leading role in the enlargement process because as far as the EU programmes in education and training are concerned the EU enlargement has already taken place: For example, thirty European countries are currently taking part in SOCRATES and in meetings of the Ministers of Education more than 35 European countries are actively involved in co-operation in education and training. (Hingel, 2001, pp. 4, 20). For the present Member States of the Union, the prospect of enlargement seems to increase the willingness to adopt measures that are perceived as preparing them for the educational challenges of the next decade (Hingel, 2001, p. 19). There are also indications that a longer-term perspective is being increasingly taken by the current Member States regarding co-operation in education and training. The ‘Rolling Agenda’ approach and the Lisbon approach (ten-year action plan) entailing the agreement of educational objectives up to the year 2010 (cf. Nóvoa & deJongLambert) as well as the decision on a corresponding approach for vocational training (set up by the so-called Bruges process) in June 2002 (cf. Van der Pas, 2002) are recent examples of a long-term strategy in education in the future. The longer duration of SOCRATES and LEONARDO (seven years in the second phase instead of five year in the first phase) also show a long-term commitment of the Member States to increased co-operation in the field. An important question will be whether the EU institutions are equipped to handle the challenges posed by increased co-operation in education and training in an enlarged Union. Even the head of the education policy unit at the European Commission, Anders Hingel, doubts this: The momentum of co-operation and integration in the field of education is presently accelerating to such a degree that the central role of the Commission – to be the guardian of the [European Union] Treaty and to play its full role related to the right of taking initiatives – is being challenged (Hingel, 2001, p. 4)

Considering the fact that the Commission was ridden by crisis only a few years ago as a consequence of mismanagement and corruption particularly in the area of the implementation of the LEONARDO programme (cf. Phillips in this volume) caution is justified in this respect and makes the necessary trust for the Commission that is necessary for assuming a key role in educational co-operation seem unlikely. In more general terms, there are doubts whether the mechanisms in place in EU institutions for policy- and decision-making are equipped for the various tasks in hand. The investigations in the study show that the phenomenon of ‘comitology’ (see Ertl in this volume) already hinders the effective implementation of educational

316


programmes at the EU level. Considering the decisions of the Council of the European Union in Nice, the question is whether even bigger EU bodies as a result of the future enlargement of the Union make the policy process utterly impossible.1 The frequently demanded internal reform of EU institutions as a prerequisite for the functioning of the enlargement process seems to be more than justified if the farreaching ambitions of the EU concerning co-operation of the Member States in education and training are to be fulfilled.

1

In the ‘Declaration on the Enlargement of the European Union’, which is attached to the Treaty of Nice, the current Member States agreed on 732 Members of the European Parliament and on 345 votes in the Council when the EU is enlarged to 27 Member States (Official Journal of the European Communities, C80/77). The Declaration takes account of those candidate counties with which accession negotiations have actually started.

CONCLUSIONS

317

References Blitz, Brad K. (1999): ‘Professional Mobility and the Mutual Recognition of Qualifications in the European Union: Two Institutional Approaches’, in: Comparative Education Review, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 311-331. Bünder, Helmut (2002): ‘Der Preis der Erweiterung’, in: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 11/07/02, p. 1. CEDEFOP (2000): ‘Vom dualen zum pluralen System. Modernisierungsprozess verändert die deutsche Berufsbildung’, in: CEDEFOP Info, Vol. 2, p. 6. Cole, Alistair (2001): Franco-German Relations. Series: Political Dynamics of the EU (Harlow: Longman). Commission of the European Communities (2002): The Bologna Declaration on the European Space for Higher Edcuation, http://europa.eu.int/comm.education/socrates/erasmus.pdf. Ertl, Hubert (2000): Modularisation of Vocational Education in Europe: NVQs and GNVQs as a Model for the Reform of Initial Training Provisions in Germany? Series: Monographs in International Education, Vol. 2 (Wallingford: Symposium Books). Ertl, Hubert (2001): Modularisation in Vocational Education and Training: Conceptualisations and Approaches in European Union Countries. Series: Cadernos PRESTiGE, Vol. 7 (Lisbon: Educa). Field, John (2002): ‘Building a European Dimension: A Realistic Response to Globalisation’, in: Field, John (ed.) (2002): Promoting European Dimensions in Lifelong Learning (Leicester: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education – NIACE), pp. 1-8. Green, Andy / Wolf, Alison / Leney, Tom (1999): Convergence and Divergence in European Education and Training Systems (London: Institute of Education, University of London). Hantrais, Linda (2000): Social Policy in the European Union. Second Edition (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan). Hingel, Anders (2001). Education policies and European governance. Brussels: European Commission Directorate-Generale for Education and Culture (http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/areas/ group12/contribution_education_en.pdf) Nowoczyn, Oliver (1996): Bildungspolitische Kompetenzen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft nach Maastricht. Series: Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe II, Rechtswissenschaften, Vol. 1939 (Frankfurt a.M., etc.: Peter Lang). Rego, Miguel Anxo Santos (1997): Política educativa en la Unión Europea despuétes de Maastricht (Educational policy in the European Union after Maastricht) (Santiago de Compostela: Colección Monografías). Rothe, Georg (1995): Die Systeme beruflicher Qualifizierung Frankreichs und Deutschlands im Vergleich. Übereinstimmung und Besonderheiten in den Beziehungen zwischen den Bildungs- und Beschäftigungssystemen zweier Kernländer der EU. Series: Beiträge zur Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung, BeitrAB 190, (Nürnberg: Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung der Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit). Schriewer, Jürgen / Orivel, François / Swing, Elizabeth Sherman (2000): ‘European Eduational Systems: The Framework of Tradition, Systemic Expansion, and Challenges for Restructuring’, in: Swing, Elizabeth Sherman / Schriewer, Jürgen / Orivel, François (eds.) (2000): Problems and Prospects in European Education (Westport, CT and London: Praeger), pp. 1-20. Schröder, Meinhard (1990): Europäische Bildungspolitik und bundesstaatliche Ordnung. Series: Europäisches Recht, Politik und Wirtschaft, Vol. 140 (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verl.-Ges.). Sellin, Burkhart (1994b): Vocational Training in Europe: Towards a Modular Form? (Thessaloniki: CEDEFOP). Sprokkereef, Annemarie (1995): ‘Developments in European Community Education Policy’, in: Lodge, Juliet (ed.) (1995): The European Community and the Challenge of the Future (London: Pinter Publisher), pp. 340-347. Van der Pas, Nikolaus (2002): Conference on Increased Co-operation in Vocational Education and Training. Brussels, 10-11 June 2002, http://europa.eu.int/comm.education/bruges/speech.pdf. Wordelmann, Peter (ed.) (1995): Internationale Qualiflkationen: Inhalte, Bedarf und Vermittlung. Series: Berichte zur beruflichen Bildung, Vol. 184 (Berlin: BIBB).

318


Winter, Andrea (1999): ‘Leonardo da Vinci: Welchen Beitrag leistet das Berufsbildungsprogramm für kleine und mittelständische Handwerksunternehmen?’, in: Leonardo da Vinci news, Vol. 4/99, October 1999, pp. 2f.

WENKE SIEDERSLEBEN & BETTINA DAHL

CHRONOLOGY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING POLICY WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION This contribution includes, firstly, a general chronology of European Union (EU) Articles, Green and White Papers, Action Programmes and so on within the area of education and training policy. Secondly, there is an overview of the central institutions and committees that are relevant for education and training policies. 1. CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS Treaties, Decisions and other Policy Initiatives 1951 Treaty of Paris (established the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)) 1957 Treaties of Rome (established the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom))

1963 Council Decision of 2 April 1963 laying down general principles for implementing common vocational training policy (Official Journal of the EC, No. 063 of 20 April 1963, p. 1338-1341). 1967 Merger Treaty (established the European Communities (EC)).

Description, Contents Article 56 of the ECSC Treaty included the task for the Community to finance the retraining of employees. Articles 7 and 9 of the Euratom Treaty provided for training programmes and suggested the establishment of a European university for the training of skilled workers. In the EEC Treaty there were several articles that dealt with vocational education and training: Article 41 envisaged the effective co-ordination of activities in the fields of vocational training and research; Article 50 proposed exchange programmes for young people and employees; Article 57 suggested mutual recognition of exam diplomas and qualifications; Article 118 proposed to strengthen the co-operation of technical and further education; Article 128 aimed at improving knowledge of European culture and history. However, the Treaty only included legislation regarding vocational education for which the Commission was asked to lay down general principles for implementing a common vocational training policy capable of contributing to the harmonious development of both the national economies and of the common market. The principles contained the commitment to give all people the opportunity to receive adequate training in order to be able to exercise free choice of occupation and place of work. The second principle set out the objective of a common policy which would guarantee adequate training for all. The Treaty fused the Executives of the ECSC, EEC, and Euratom. As a result, the EC had a single Council and a single Commission that continued to act in accordance with the rules governing each of the Communities.


320


1971 First meeting of Education Ministers in the Council of Ministers.

General guidelines for a Community action programme on vocational training (Official Journal of the EC, C 081 of 12 August 1971, p. 0005-0011). 1973 Janne Report: “For a Community policy on education” (EC-Bulletin, Supplement 10/73).

Creation of the Directorate-General for Research, Science and Education (DG12) 1974 Resolution of the Ministers of Education on co-operation in the field of education (Official Journal of the EC, C 98/2 of 20 August 1974).

1976 Community Action Programme in the field of education and the establishment of a permanent Education Committee (EC-Bulletin, 2-1976: 2252).

Decision to set up the information net (EURYDICE) on education. 1983 European Schoolbook Commission (Official Journal of the EC, C 307/36-37, 14 November 1983).

The ministers were representatives of their governments and acted on an inter-state level.

The Report stressed the connection between economics and education, and it was therefore argued that the educational sector must be included infuture EC policy. It was furthermore mentioned that ‘wherever possible’ education should have a ‘European dimension’, but that the development of any kind of European nationalism should be avoided. Education policy should respect the national structures and traditions but also promote necessary harmonisations. The Report also suggested strengthening knowledge of languages.

The Resolution stated that European co-operation should be based on three principles: (I) It should be in accordance with the gradual harmonisation of economic and social policy in the EC. (II) Education must under no circumstances only be seen as a part of economic life. (III) Each country’s traditions must be considered and therefore harmonisation is not a goal in itself. Seven areas of action were pointed out: 1. Better cultural and vocational education. 2. Creation of transparency of the education systems in Europe. 3. The gathering of documentation and statistics. 4. More co-operation between higher educational institutions. 5. Better recognition of diplomas. 6. Promotion of mobility of teachers, students, and researchers through better education in languages. 7. Creation of equal opportunities through full access to all forms of education. The content of the Action Programme is to a great extent similar to the content of the Resolution of 1974 but it is more detailed. However, the formulation of point 2 has now changed to “Improve the connections between the education systems in Europe”. The information net encompasses the competent national offices. The net became operational in 1980. The Parliament suggested ensuring that, for instance, history books have a ‘European format’ to eliminate national prejudice, provide greater knowledge of the EC, and promote the European ideal in schools.

CHRONOLOGY Action Programme EUROTECNET, 1983-94. 1984 The NARIC network (1984-2006).

321

The purpose was to promote innovation in training in respect of new technology. Budget: ECU 7 million The network aims to improve academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study.

1985 White Paper: “Completing the Internal Market” (COM(85) 310). Action Programme “Exchanges of young workers” (1985-91, from 1992 part of PETRA). 1986 Action Programme COMETT, 1986-89, 1990-94. 1987 Action Programme ERASMUS, 19872006.

Action Programme ARION, 1987-2006. (Community Action of study visits for education specialists and decision makers) 1988 Council Resolution on the European Dimension in education

The aim of the Programme was to increase the opportunities for young workers to expand their vocational training, knowledge of languages, and cultural and social awareness. The Action Programme facilitated co-operation between universities and enterprises in the field of technology training. Budget: ECU 206.6 million European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of European Students. Budget (1987-94): ECU 307.5 million In 1995 ARION became part of the SOCRATES programme.

The Resolution defined the European dimension as the EC’s ambition to increase young people’s sense of being European, improve their knowledge of the EC, create greater awareness of the advantages of being part of the EC as well as of the challenges.

Action Programme YES I, 1988-94.

Youth for Europe Programme. Budget: ECU 32.2 million

Action Programme PETRA, 1988-91, 1992-94.

Promoting of vocational training of young people and preparation for adult life. Budget: ECU 79.7 million

Action Programme IRIS, 1988-93, 199498. 1990 Action Programme LINGUA, 1990-2006.

Networking between vocational training projects for women.

Action Programme TEMPUS I, 1990-94.

Trans-European Mobility Scheme for University Studies. Budget: ECU 194 million. Tempus 1 formed part of the EU framework programmes for the economic and social restructuring of the countries of South-East Europe (the CARDS Programme) and for economic reform and recovery in the New Independent States and Mongolia (the TACIS Programme).

Action Jean Monnet (JM Project), 1990-

The Jean Monnet Project “European Integration in University Studies” was initiated at the request of universities. Its aim is to facilitate the introduction of

Promotion of language competence within teacher education, secondary and higher education, and vocational training. Budget (1990-94): ECU 68.6 million

322

WENKE SIEDERSLEBEN & BETTINA DAHL European integration studies in universities by means of start-up subsidies. The JM Project awards funds for a total period of seven years. From 1990 to 2001 the project enabled the Member States to set up 2,319 new university teaching projects on issues of European integration.

1991 Action Programme FORCE, 1991-94. 1992 The Maastricht Treaty (Treaty on European Union

Designed to promote continuous vocational training. Budget: ECU 31. 3 million Article 126: 1. The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging co-operation 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. 2. Community action shall be aimed at: developing the European dimension in education, particularly through the teaching and dissemination of the languages of the Member States; encouraging mobility of students and teachers, inter alia by encouraging the academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study; promoting co-operation between educational establishments; developing exchanges of information and experience on issues common to the education systems of the Member States; encouraging the development of youth exchanges and of exchanges of socio-educational instructors; encouraging the development of distance education. 3. The Community and the Member States shall foster cooperation with third countries and the competent international organisations in the field of education, in particular the Council of Europe. 4. In order to contribute to the achievement of the objectives referred to in this Article, the Council: acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251, after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, shall adopt incentive measures, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States; acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt recommendations. Article 127: 1. The Community shall implement a vocational training policy which shall support and supplement the action of the Member States, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content and organisation of vocational training. 2. Community action shall aim to: facilitate adaptation to industrial changes, in particular through vocational training and retraining; improve initial and continuing vocational training in order to facilitate vocational integration and reintegration into

CHRONOLOGY

Directive 92/51/EEC and 89/48/EEC on the recognition of vocational diplomas.

1993 Green Paper on the European Dimension in Education (COM(93)457).

White Paper: “Growth, Competitiveness, Employment: The Challenges and Ways Forward into the 21st Century” (COM(93)700). 1994 TEMPUS II, 1994-98. 1995 Green Paper: “On innovation” (COM(95)688).

323

the labour market; facilitate access to vocational training and encourage mobility of instructors and trainees and particularly young people; stimulate co-operation on training between educational or training establishments and firms; develop exchanges of information and experience on issues common to the training systems of the Member States. 3. The Community and the Member States shall foster cooperation with third countries and the competent international organisations in the sphere of vocational training. 4. The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, shall adopt measures to contribute to the achievement of the objectives referred to in this Article, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. This Paper is based on the Council Resolution on the European Dimension of 1988. The Commission refers to the issue of vocational training and education, mobility, the mutual recognition of qualifications, and active labour market policies.

Trans-European Mobility Scheme for University Studies. On the basis of an analysis of global economic developments, this Paper identifies a lack of innovative potential in European economies, including a lack of new businesses and a general resistance to organisational change and modern management approaches.

White Paper on Education and Training: “Teaching and Learning - Towards the Learning Society” (COM(95)590).

The White Paper stimulated debate across Europe regarding the development of knowledge and skills. The main objectives introduced are the creation of skill accreditation and recognition of skills across Europe, linking educational institutions and businesses, promoting proficiency in Community languages, and evaluating investment in education and training.

Action Programme SOCRATES I, 199599.

SOCRATES is the framework programme for education. A number of programmes are part of SOCRATES. Budget: ECU 850 million. In its first phase, it created mobility for almost 275,000 European citizens in the area of education, including university students and staff, head teachers, schoolteachers, school pupils and decision-makers. The programme also provided support for about 1,500 universities, 8,500 schools, and 500 transnational projects concerned with developing the European dimension and improving the quality of higher education, school education, language teaching and learning, open and distance learning, and adult education.

324


Action Programme LEONARDO DA VINCI I, 1995-99.

LEONARDO is the framework programme for vocational training. Budget: ECU 730 million. In its first phase, it supported more than 3, 000 projects involving nearly 60,000 partners. It encouraged the mobility of 130,000 people of whom the majority were young people.

Action Programme YES II, 1995-99.

Youth for Europe programme. Budget: ECU 126 million. The main objective was to contribute to the education of young people outside school systems. It provided support for projects involving more than 400,000 young people.

1996 Green Paper: “Training – Research - The obstacles to Transnational Mobility” (COM(96)462).

The objective of this Paper was an analysis of legal and administrative but also socio-economic, linguistic, and practical difficulties regarding transnational mobility.

European Year of Lifelong Learning (Official Journal of the EU, L 256 of 26 October 1995).

The objectives were to make the European public aware of the importance of lifelong learning, to foster better cooperation between education and training structures and the business community, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, and to help to establish a European area of education and training through the academic and vocational recognition of qualifications within the EU.

Action Programme EVS (European Voluntary Service for young people), 1996-99.

Budget: ECU (1998-1999) 47.5 million. The purpose was to encourage the recognition of the value of an informal formative experience for which there is a validation system at European level and to encourage a spirit of initiative, creativity, and solidarity amongst young people in order to promote their integration into society.

1997 The Amsterdam Treaty

Commission Communication “Towards a Europe of knowledge” (EU-Bulletin, 111997: 1.3.106).

Articles 126 and 127 of the Maastricht Treaty were unchanged but renumbered 149 and 150, respectively. The decision-making procedure in the area of vocational education was changed with the effect that the European Parliament received greater influence in the area of vocational education. Also the procedure for the Council and Parliament’s decision-making was simplified. The procedure is found in Article 189B. Furthermore, a declaration on encouraging citizens to gain a high level of knowledge through wider access to education and lifelong learning was included. Seeking to raise the visibility of Community activity and to promote greater complementarity and consistency between the various Community policies affecting human resources, the Commission set out guidelines for future Community activities in the areas of education, training, and youth for the period 2000-2006. Six major types of action were envisaged: physical mobility of persons undergoing training and of teaching staff virtual mobility and different methods of using the new information and communications technologies development of co-operation networks at European level promotion of linguistic and cultural skills pursuing innovation through pilot projects based on

CHRONOLOGY

325

transnational partnerships continuing improvement of Community sources of reference with regard to education, training, and youth policies and systems in the Member States (key data, databases, good practice). Commission Communication describing the initiatives it had taken to follow up the White Paper “Teaching and learning: towards the learning society” (COM(97)256). 1998 Commission Communication “Learning in the information society: Action plan for a European education initiative” 1996-1998. EU-Bulletin, 1/2-1997, 1.2.106.

Action Programme TEMPUS II (renewal of the programme, 1998-2000). 1999 Bologna Declaration on the European Space in Higher Education

Agenda 2000

One of the major initiatives was the creation of the Second Chance Schools, intended to help reintegrate young people who have left the education system without training or qualifications.

For the fostering of activities at regional and national level in order to connect schools and teacher training within the framework of actions: the interconnection of existing local, regional, and national networks incorporating new technologies, the stimulation of European educational impact in co-operation with multi-media producers, television broadcasters, the promotion of training and support for teachers and trainers integrating technology in teaching methods, and the creation of an exchange forum via the internet. Trans-European Mobility Scheme for University Studies.

A declaration signed by the education ministers of 29 European countries. This was a commitment freely made by each country to reform its own educational system in order to create overall convergence at European level. The Declaration ’s main objectives are the development of a Europe of knowledge education of individuals who feel related to Europe as a common social and cultural area increasing student, teacher, and researcher mobility professionalism of higher education. The Agenda 2000 aimed to redefine the framework and political priorities of the European Social Fund (ESF) for the period 2000-2006 in order to support the overarching European Employment Strategy. The key policy areas for the ESF are: the development of active labour market policies to combat and prevent unemployment the promotion of equal opportunities for all in terms of access to the labour market, with particular attention to persons at risk of social exclusion the promotion and improvement of vocational training, education and counselling in the context of a lifelong learning policy the promotion of a skilled, well-trained and flexible workforce, innovative and adaptable forms of work organisation, and entrepreneurship specific measures to improve the active participation of women in the labour market.

326


2000 Netd@ys Europe 2000

A Community initiative whose objectives are to promote the use of the new media, particularly the internet, in education and culture, and to provide participants with the opportunity to develop the skills needed to acquire and to exchange information on a range of subjects. Two priorities of the 2000 initiative are the changing role of teachers, trainers, and youth workers.

e-Europe - An Information Society for All (EU-Bulletin, 12-1999: 1.2.139).

e-Europe is a political initiative to ensure that the EU fully benefits from the changes offered by the information society. The initiative is a key element in the modernisation of the European economy. The key objectives are: to bring every citizen, home and school, every business and every administration into the digital age (internet access) to create a digitally-literate Europe, supported by an entrepreneurial culture willing to finance and develop new ideas to ensure that the process is socially inclusive, builds consumer trust and strengthens social cohesion.

Action Programme SOCRATES II, 200006. (EU-Bulletin, 1/2 2000: 1.4.17; see also Section 1.2.4.)

Budget: EUR: 1,850 million. The programme stresses lifelong learning and active participation and integration into the world of work. Its objectives are: to strengthen the European dimension of education at all levels, and to facilitate broad transnational access to educational resources in Europe to promote a quantitative and qualitative increase in the knowledge of EU languages to encourage co-operation and mobility in the field of education to encourage innovation in the development of educational practices and material and explore issues of shared interest in education policy.

Action Programme LEONARDO DA VINCI II, 2000-06.

Budget: EUR 1,150 million. This is the programme for vocational training and the three main objectives are: to increase skills development for individuals, particularly for young people; to improve the quality of continuing training and lifelong skills acquisition; to promote and strengthen the contribution of training to the process of innovation and to the development of an entrepreneurial spirit.

YOUTH: Youth Action Programme 2000-06.

Budget: EUR 520 million. The purpose is to encourage the creation of a European education area through the promotion of informal education schemes for young people involving in particular physical mobility. It encompasses the previous YOUTH FOR EUROPE and EVS programmes.

Action Programme TEMPUS III, 200006.

Trans-European Mobility Scheme for University Studies. Institution-building projects in the non-candidate countries, formerly restricted to university reform, will be possible for non-academic institutions, such as ministries, chambers of commerce, firms and NGOs.

CHRONOLOGY Europass Training.

2001 Presidency conclusions: Stockholm European Council

327

A Community document to attest to periods of training completed in another Member State as part of a European training pathway. Conclusions in the area of education, training and skills Improving basic skills, particularly IT and digital skills, is a top priority to make the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world. This priority includes education policies and lifelong learning as well as overcoming the present shortfall in the recruitment of scientific and technical staff. A knowledgebased economy necessitates a strong general education in order to further support labour mobility and lifelong learning. The Council and the Commission collaborate in the development of a detailed work programme on the objectives of education and training systems

Communication from the Commission entitled “The e-Learning action plan – Designing tomorrow’s education” (EUBulletin 3-2001: 1.3.86).

In this action plan the Commission defines the implementation of the e-Learning initiative which was adopted in May 2000 and is part of the eEurope global action plan. The e-Learning action plan mainly addresses the effective integration of information and communication technologies in education and training, to encourage lifelong learning and contribute to the strategy concerning new European labour markets. The Commission identifies four key action lines: improving infrastructures and equipment vocational training at all levels high-quality services and contents European co-operation and networking. The Commission stresses that the action plan will be implemented through existing Community programmes and instruments and in close co-operation with the Member States, industry and civil society at large, as defined in the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council.

The MEDIA PLUS Programme, 20012005.

Aims at strengthening the competitiveness of the European audiovisual industry with a series of support measures dealing with: the training of professionals the development of production projects and companies the distribution of cinematographic works and audiovisual programmes the promotion of cinematographic works and audiovisual programmes.

Sources: Mentioned above or can be found on the homepage of the European Commission DirectorateGeneral for Education and Culture: http://europa.eu. int/comm/dgs/education_culture, the homepage of the activities of the EU: http://europa.eu.int/geninfo/info-en.htm, the EUR-Lex, Community legislation in force, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex, particularly http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/en/lif/reg/en_register_1630.html, the EU general homepage: http://europa.eu.int or in Field, John (1998) “European Dimensions: Education, Training and the European Union”, Jessica Kingsley, London.

328


2. INSTITUTIONS A range of institutions manages the European Union. Below is a matrix that gives a brief summary of the role of these institutions (left-hand column) as well as the committees and Directorates-General within these institutions that are important for education and training (right-hand column). The Council of the European Union The Council is composed of one representative at ministerial level (The Council of Ministers) from each Member State. This institution has the power to co-ordinate economic polices, to take decisions and to delegate to the Commission. The Permanent Representatives Committee (COREPER) consists of the permanent representatives of the Member States in Brussels and of their Deputies. They meet every week and prepare the Council’s work. A General Secretariat, appointed by the Council, assists the Council. The European Parliament

Education Committee The country that holds the Presidency of the Council holds the Chair of this Committee. The Committee draws up Action Programmes in the field of education and training and prepares the proceedings of the Council and issues concerning future developments in education.

The Treaty on the European Union of 1992 gave a new role to the European Parliament and gave it expanded power. Within the institutional EU framework, the Parliament was given greater democratic legitimacy. It participates in the legislative and budgetary processes. The consultative bodies involved in economic, social, and regional matters are the Economic and Social Committee as well as the Committee of the Regions.

The Economic and Social Committee Its members are drawn from social and economic groups in the Member States. The Committee is consulted before the adoption of most Community decisions and seeks opinions on its own initiative or on behalf of the Parliament. The Committee has specific departments for social, family, educational, and cultural affairs. The Committee of the Regions This Committee incorporates a number of representatives from local, regional, and intermediate bodies. The Committee works on recommendations regarding EU policies.

The European Court of Justice

The European Court of Justice ensures that the law is interpreted on the basis of the treaties. The Court may find that the European Parliament, the Council, or the Commission has failed to act properly. Further, at the request of a court or tribunal of a Member State, the Court gives preliminary rulings regarding the interpretation of treaties.

Before the Maastricht Treaty established a legal framework for EU policies in the field of education, the Court played an important role in interpreting the rather vague regulations set out in the Treaty of Rome. For instance, the Court interpreted higher education as part of vocational education and, therefore, extended the scope of Community actions substantially. These interpretations encouraged the Commission and the Council to organise a series of projects and programmes in all areas of education from the mid1980s onwards. The most important of the Court’s decisions regarding education were the Gravier case, the Erasmus-verdict and the Forcheri case.

CHRONOLOGY

329

The European Commission The European Commission has the power to initiate and execute Community laws. This involves issuing rules for the implementation of certain treaty articles and administering the budget for Community Actions. The Commission consists of representatives from each Member State. In carrying out their duties, members of the Commission are obliged to act in the interest of the European Union. Each member in the Commission has responsibility for one or more policy areas.

Directorate-General for Education and Culture (DG XXII or DG EAC) Since 1995 the Directorate-General for Education and Culture (DG EAC) has been responsible for actions in the educational and vocational training sector. European Education Information Network: Eurydice Eurydice produces comparable information on national education systems and policies. It highlights both the diversity of systems and their common features. Eurydice is part of SOCRATES. European Information Network for Young People: Eurodesk The DG EAC supported the development of Eurodesk into a European Network within the framework of the Youth for Europe programme.

Community Agencies Community Agencies are decentralised public authorities set up under European law, separate from the Community Institutions (Council, Parliament, the Commission, Central Bank, etc.). Depending on their mandate and on their partners or clients, the agencies can be split into four sub-groups determined by their activities: (1) Some agencies facilitate the operation of the internal market; (2) some are Monitoring Centres; (3) some aim to promote social dialogue at European level (for education and training it is the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, CEDEFOP); and (4) others execute programmes and tasks for the European Union within their respective fields of expertise (for education and training it is the European Training Foundation, EFT).

CEDEFOP CEDEFOP is the European centre for the development of vocational training. It was established by Council Regulation 337/75 as an independent body to help rethink the direction and requirements of vocational training and assist the Commission in promoting the development of vocational training. The Management Board includes representatives from employers' associations, trade unions, national governments, and the European Commission. The DG EAC implements the LEONARDO programme, which CEDEFOP supports with surveys and analysis. European Training Foundation (EFT) EFT began its activities in 1995. Its mission is to contribute to the processes of vocational education and training reforms. It is also the technical assistance unit for TEMPUS.


NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS Paula Branco de Cunha is a research student at the University of Oxford specialising in Portuguese student mobility. She completed her undergraduate degree in education at the University of Porto and her post-graduate studies in sociology at the University of Coimbra. She then began doctoral work in Porto and in 2001 joined the Berlin team to work on PRESTiGE. In 2002 she joined the Oxford team. Bettina Dahl (Søndergaard) completed an MSc degree in Mathematics and Social Science at Aalborg University, Denmark, in 1997. She then worked for a year as a high school teacher of mathematics and social science at Aalborg Katedralskole. After this followed a position as Reseach Assistant in Mathematics Education at the Danish National Institute for Educational Research (now part of the Danish University of Education). There followed the award of a PhD scholarship in educational research in mathematics at Roskilde University, Denmark, and as part of her doctoral programme she took the MSc in Educational Research Methodology at the University of Oxford (2000). At the same time she joined the Oxford team of the PRESTiGE project. She completed her PhD in 2002 and now works as an Adviser at the Norwegian Center for Mathematics Education at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Anastasia Economou graduated as a qualified primary school teacher from the National and Capodistrian University of Athens in Greece. She then undertook an MPhil in Educational Psychology at the University of Cambridge. Her contribution in the present book is based on the findings of the research that she carried out during her doctoral studies at the University of Oxford. She currently works as a Research Fellow with the Open University in the UK, where she is involved in research on educational policy and management, lifelong learning and professional development. Hubert Ertl completed his undergraduate degree in vocational education and English at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) in Munich. He then completed an MSc in comparative and international education at the University of Oxford, after which he joined the Oxford team of the EU-funded research project PRESTiGE (Problems of Educational Standardisation and Transition in a Global Environment). His contribution to this study represents some of the research undertaken for PRESTiGE but also includes work completed at the Institute of Vocational Education and Business Studies (Institut für Wirtschafts- und Sozialpädagogik), LMU Munich, where he completed his doctorate in vocational education in 2001. He currently holds a teaching and research post at the University of Paderborn (Germany) where his research focuses on international perspectives in vocational education and training.

331

William deJong-Lambert is a PhD student in Comparative Education at Columbia University. His research is on Lysenkoism in Poland, and is primarily focused on higher education and academic research in Poland during the communist period. Jake Murdoch is a member of the Institute for Research into the Economics of Education (IREDU) at the Université de Bourgogne, Dijon. Whilst at the IREDU, he has taken part in the European TSER research project CHEERS: ‘Higher Education and Graduate Employment in Europe: a European Research Survey’, as well as being part of the Dijon team in the PRESTiGE project. He recently completed his doctoral thesis which analysed the effect of the reputation and teaching quality of higher education institutions on graduate employment prospects across various European countries and Japan. He has also recently started to work in co-operation with the Centre for Research on Education, Employment and Qualifications (CEREQ), on research themes concerning ethnic discrimination, and also the employment prospects of PhD graduates. António Nóvoa is Vice-Rector of the University of Lisbon. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Geneva, and he works primarily on issues relating to the history of education and comparative education. He has written several books on European educational policies; most recently a study (edited with Martin Lawn) called On Fabricating Europe - The formation of an education space. He is also chair of the International Standing Conference for the History of Education (ISCHE) and during the year 2001-2002 was a Visiting Professor at the University of Oxford (2001) and at Columbia University, New York (January-June 2002). David Phillips is a Fellow of St Edmund Hall and Professor of Comparative Education in the University of Oxford. His main research interests are in education in Germany and in cross-national policy attraction in education, and he has published many books and articles in these and related areas. He is editor of the Oxford Review of Education and series editor of Oxford Studies in Comparative Education. He served during 1998-2000 as Chair of the British Association for International and Comparative Education. He is an Academician of the Academy for the Social Sciences and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. Nicola Savvides completed her undergraduate degree in European Studies at the University of Kent at Canterbury. She completed the MSc degree in Comparative and International Education at the University of Oxford in 2002. Her contribution in the present book is based on the research undertaken for her dissertation entitled ‘The European dimension in the Curriculum of English and Irish Compulsory Schooling: A Comparative Study’. On completion of her Oxford degree she joined the PRESTiGE team in Dijon.

332

Implementing European Union Education and Training Policy: A Comparative Study of Issues in Four Member States

Fifteen into one?: the European Union and its member states

European Union Enlargement: A Comparative History

European Union: Power and Policy-Making (European Public Policy)

Employment Policy and the Regulation of Part-time Work in the European Union: A Comparative Analysis

European Welfare States: Comparative Perspectives

European Welfare States: Comparative Perspectives

The European Union: A Polity of States and Peoples

The European Union: A Polity of States and Peoples

Climate change policy in the European Union

Policy-Making in the European Union

Economic Policy in the European Union

Fiscal Policy in the European Union

Job Training Policy In The United States

Telecommunications Policy-making in the European Union

Policy-making in the European Union

Drug Policy Harmonization and the European Union

European Union: Power and Policy-Making

The European Union and National Industrial Policy

European Union and National Macroeconomic Policy

Central Banking Governance in the European Union: A Comparative Analysis

Education and Training Policy Qualifications Systems: Bridges to Lifelong Learning (Education and Training Policy)

Procedural Politics: Issues, Influence, and Institutional Choice in the European Union (Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics)

Women, Universities, and Change: Gender Equality in the European Union and the United States (Issues in Higher Education)

European Union Foreign Policy in a Changing World

Teacher Education Policy in the United States: Issues and Tensions in an Era of Evolving Expectations

Transforming Higher Education: A Comparative Study (Higher Education Dynamics)

A Guide to United Kingdom and European Union Competition Policy

Linkages of Financial Groups in the European Union: Financial Conglomeration Developments in the Old and New Member States

Values and Principles in European Union Foreign Policy

The Kyoto Protocol in the EU: European Community and Member States under International and European Law

Implementing European Union Education and Training Policy: A Comparative Study of Issues in Four Member States

Fifteen into one?: the European Union and its member states

European Union Enlargement: A Comparative History

European Union: Power and Policy-Making (European Public Policy)

Employment Policy and the Regulation of Part-time Work in the European Union: A Comparative Analysis

European Welfare States: Comparative Perspectives

European Welfare States: Comparative Perspectives

The European Union: A Polity of States and Peoples

The European Union: A Polity of States and Peoples

Climate change policy in the European Union

Policy-Making in the European Union

Economic Policy in the European Union

Fiscal Policy in the European Union

Job Training Policy In The United States

Telecommunications Policy-making in the European Union

Policy-making in the European Union

Drug Policy Harmonization and the European Union

European Union: Power and Policy-Making

The European Union and National Industrial Policy

European Union and National Macroeconomic Policy

Central Banking Governance in the European Union: A Comparative Analysis

Education and Training Policy Qualifications Systems: Bridges to Lifelong Learning (Education and Training Policy)

Procedural Politics: Issues, Influence, and Institutional Choice in the European Union (Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics)

Women, Universities, and Change: Gender Equality in the European Union and the United States (Issues in Higher Education)

European Union Foreign Policy in a Changing World

Teacher Education Policy in the United States: Issues and Tensions in an Era of Evolving Expectations

Transforming Higher Education: A Comparative Study (Higher Education Dynamics)

A Guide to United Kingdom and European Union Competition Policy

Linkages of Financial Groups in the European Union: Financial Conglomeration Developments in the Old and New Member States

Values and Principles in European Union Foreign Policy

The Kyoto Protocol in the EU: European Community and Member States under International and European Law

Recommend Documents