School Advisory Council (SAC) meeting Tuesday, 25 May 2010

Report by Ana Gorey, Vice-President, ESK PA
Please note, these are not official minutes

Mr. Hoyem, welcomed everyone to the School Advisory Council (SAC) meeting and said that, unlike other schools, ESK had used this transitionary year of the Reform to use the SAC to consult the wider school community as well as those officially designated to the SAC. He reminded everyone that the role of the SAC was to contribute towards the school development plan and to set clear priorities for the Administrative Board. The next meeting would be more formal and would finalise recommendations for the November Administrative Board.

Mr. Hoyem went on to outline main challenges facing the school including budgetary and administrative constraints by Brussels particularly with regard to SWAL groups. However, the most important challenge was the fact that costs were going up and quality was going down. There were several explanations for - one in particular being the fact that countries were not sending seconded teachers as would be their obligation - this but what was clear is the consequence of higher costs divided by lower number of pupils was inevitably higher fees and that low numbers of students impacts on the number of options which can be offered as well as possible regrouping of classes. With current pupil rate at 968, compared to 1100 a few years ago, every extra pupil was essential and every pupil who leaves, a loss. The Category system does not make for an easy admissions policy and, in addition, special consideration has to be given to the French section with lower pupil numbers than the other sections. Mr Hoyem said that at the moment there are 209 Categorie II contracts and switching from Category II to III can only be done if the work situation changed (other job or other company). Presently, the KiGa accepts children as Categorie III on the understanding that they become Category II once they start Primary school. He had sought legal advice to see how much room for maneuver he had with regard to fees and controls by Brussels.

The three chairs of the working groups gave their summaries and proposals as outlined in their SAC reports. The main ones being:

learning to learn - better assistance for pupils from a pedagogical point of view - learning support and other programmes should be developped
better cooperation between sections - harmonisation of grades particularly in years 5, 6, 7
better communication both external and internal - new website also with internal functionalities for pupils, teachers, parents with use of community software tools
improve school identity / image - perceptions
how to deal better with new pupils, parents, teachers - clear communication lines (who does what when) + welcome pack + introduction of a buddy system organised by the teacher to find a pupil who help a new student;
better highlight the school mission (Monet’s quote) - more understanding by school community of this as well as more visibility

A welcome pack aimed at new families was being put together was a cross-over project between all three working groups. This was indicative of the whole school approach that was very much needed and which was the philosophy behind the SAC.

Etoile Education, informally designated by the SAC to look into Category II issues, reported that it had held a meeting with Category II families on 11 February 2010 and sent out a questionnaire to get a better overview of profile and needs. Only general conclusions could be drawn - high fees, fears they might get higher, better quality performance/value for money - but clearly, with 30% Category II and 50% Category III, a more formal working group on fees and categories needed to be established, especially in the light of Mr. Hoyem’s opening words about the admissions policy. Annother participant underlined the need for more representation for stakeholders paying into the system which included both Category II and III families.

ITU congratulated everyone and felt that the improved website could focus on better reflecting the school mission and also the nature of the school, ie. that it wasn’t a private school and although languages had a high priority, it was a school also strong in sciences. Highlighting the “raison d'etre” (ITU) of the school should go hand in hand with the proposal on highlighting the school mission. Another participant said care should be taken not to give the impression that it was a school only for Category I as this might put off interested families. The school cannot function with only Category I, hence the importance of the other categories. Everyone agreed that a high quality website was essential in order to attract families - image, good translations, functionality - however, it was then essential that expectations have to be fulfilled and the school’s reputation for high standards and quality maintained, improved and made visible.

The Parents’ Association expressed their delight with the hard work and efforts of the individual groups, was enthusiastic about their progress and welcomed the whole school approach. They looked forward to seeing these ideas in the School Development Plan, becoming concrete recommendations for the Admin Board and having budgetary considerations taken into account so that priorities could be set. Everyone needed to be pulling in the same direction and the PA would support all initiatives also because many of them were in line with the PA’s own objectives for the last two years: Communication, Community, Languages, lignes directives, etc.. The PA had organised a Back to School Party last October and hoped that the next one would be even more successful in the light of todays proposals.

The Parents’ Association expressed its concern with regard to the Commission’s intransigent attitude and insistence on classes with minimum 7 pupils as this would have serious consequences particularly for Category III but even for Category I pupils. They asked if, for the first time, the school was going to differentiate between pupils according to their category? This was calling into question the very essence of European schooling. The necessity of a safety net for pupils where the family have personal, profession or financial concerns was also pointed out.

Mr. Hoyem concluded the meeting with addition information as to what was already being done starting with the pupils and what is going on in the classrooms. He had already visited the classes of 75 teachers and consulted with the teachers afterwards, the buildings and classrooms were well equipped, there was an ongoing consultant analysis of Administrative staff, they were improving efforts to work with local businesses - the first breakfast with the Headmaster had already taken place – not only to attract new students but also funds for the school (e.g. the new website could be financed by companies in exchange for advertising). Mr. Hoyem was also in contact with a local MEP to raise the issue of the Commission’s role in European schools before the European Parliament. Unlike other schools, his job as Headmaster meant dealing with families coming from a wide range of backgrounds - not just one institution - and he had to take into account many factors, one of being the fact that there was an increasingly transient school population, only 17 of this years 77 Bac students had been there since primary and teachers were bound by the 9 year rule. He thanked everyone for coming and for all their work.