Annexes to COM(2008)423 - Green Paper - Migration & mobility: challenges and opportunities for EU education systems - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2008)423 - Green Paper - Migration & mobility: challenges and opportunities for EU education systems. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2008)423  |
| date | July 3, 2008 |
- Many countries offer targeted support to counterbalance educational disadvantage. While not directed at migrant groups per se , such measures are likely to be highly relevant to them. These may be aimed at individuals – scholarships and possible quotas for participation in prestigious educational institutions (quotas are often highly controversial). Others are aimed at families, in the form of grants conditional on school attendance or performance; there is evidence that these have had some success. Targeted support is also allocated to schools with a high proportion of migrant pupils but results seem modest, perhaps due to lack of critical mass or from being poorly targeted.[25]
- There are numerous programmes to offer additional educational support to target groups, for example, learning and homework centres after regular classes, often implemented in partnership with the community. Mentoring and tutoring of children, for example by higher education students, is provided. It has proved particularly successful when undertaken by people of the same origin, and as part of wider partnerships with parents’ organisations and community institutions, which may also include other measures, such as the appointment of school mediators.[26]
- Second chance education has been used in some systems but with a clear recognition that it should not become a parallel, segregated provision for those who do not succeed in the mainstream. Adult education , in particular language training, is widely promoted among migrant communities as a means to help to break the intergenerational transmission of disadvantage highlighted earlier and to ease communication between school and families.
- Pre-school education brings major benefits.[27] And, where it places a strong focus on language development, it can be of particular help in equipping migrant pupils for later schooling.[28] As noted in section 2.1, children of migrants are often the ones with the lowest access; systems which have put in place financial support to socially disadvantaged families to access childcare have shown some good results.[29]
- Integrated education, which counters the tendencies towards segregation mentioned before, is an explicit goal in some systems. As segregation is difficult to eliminate once it has developed, countries newly experiencing large-scale migration may have an interest in a prevention strategy , to ensure that socio-economic and ethnic balance is maintained right from the start. Schools and services can be networked to spread migrant pupils and so avoid concentrations. Measures to improve the attractiveness of schools catering to large numbers of disadvantaged pupils - the creation of so-called "magnet schools ”[30] have yielded encouraging results.
- Ensuring quality standards in all schools is a key step. Building quality can involve policies to build bridges with parents, improve infrastructure, broaden extra-curricular activities and establish an ethos of respect. Above all practices have focused on teaching and leadership .[31] Some systems have sought to address high teacher turnover among disadvantaged schools by creating incentives for teachers to opt for and remain at such schools. Training and professional development of teachers on how to deal with diversity and motivate children in vulnerable situations is increasing. Increasing the number of teachers from migrant backgrounds is an explicit goal in some systems.
- Deepening knowledge about one's own culture and about the cultures of others may support migrant pupils' self-confidence while providing value for all pupils. Such intercultural education in no way needs to weaken the primary focus on the identity, values and symbols of the host country. It involves above all building mutual respect, developing understanding of the negative effects of prejudices and stereotypes and cultivating the ability to take different viewpoints[32], while increasing knowledge of and seeking respect for the core values and fundamental rights of the host society.
4. ADDRESSING THE ISSUE AT THE EUROPEAN LEVEL
30. The content and organisation of education and training are national competences. It is at the national or regional level that strategies need to be defined and implemented. Member states have expressed an interest in co-operating on inclusion of children of migrants. The European Commission can facilitate such co-operation. The shared nature of the challenge and of the factors which lie behind it, coupled with the range of approaches being implemented in different Member States, regions and cities, suggests that there is scope for a fruitful dialogue.
31. The European Union already undertakes a number of different types of activity which impact, directly or indirectly, on Member States policies on these issues. In addition, the role played by Directive 77/486/CEE in shaping the policy effort in this field needs to be considered.
4.1. Role of EU programmes and Actions
32. The European Commission already supports a number of programmes and actions which relate, inter alia, to this issue. In 2005, the Commission put forward 'A Common Agenda for Integration: a framework for the integration of third-country nationals in the European Union'[33], proposing measures to put into practice the Common Basic Principles on Integration (CBPs),[34] together with a series of supportive EU mechanisms including National Contact Points on Integration, European Integration Forum and Annual Reports on Migration and Integration. In addition, the European Fund for the Integration of Third-country Nationals is further facilitating integration measures for migrant youth and children. The Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council on “Key Competences for Lifelong Learning” of 18 December 2006 lists the type of attitudes, knowledge and skills with which education should provide people to facilitate their personal fulfilment and development, active citizenship, social inclusion and employment in modern Europe. Competences numbers 6 (Social and Civic Competences) and 9 (Cultural awareness) are particularly relevant in the context of a high incidence of migrant pupils and may be useful as a framework for developing national educational approaches.
33. The Lifelong Learning Programme, especially the actions Comenius (school education), Leonardo da Vinci (vocational training) and Grundtvig (adult education) and the Youth Programme support projects related to intercultural education, school integration of migrant pupils and social inclusion for disadvantaged youth. Examples are listed in the Annex.
34. Cohesion Policy, via the Structural Funds, in particular the ESF and the ERDF, have the capacity to support social inclusion projects and measures at national level and regional level. The “Regions for economic change” through the Urbact Programme initiative will foster trans-national cooperation and exchange of best practices. Social inclusion of migrant youth has a high priority. The Community programme for employment and social solidarity, Progress, also provides scope for trans-national co-operation.
35. The 2007 European Year on Equal opportunities for all and the 2008 European Year on Intercultural Dialogue provide a framework for promoting a European debate on inclusion and on migrant youth.
4.2. European level policy exchanges
36. The Open Method of Coordination for Education and Training provides a forum for co-operation and exchange between Member States on common educational challenges. The Commission will make proposals for a new framework for this process in December 2008, which could, inter alia , accommodate policy exchange on this issue. This could include an exploration of the possible development of indicators or benchmarks related to the gaps in educational attainment and enrolment of migrant pupils.
37. The European Commission works closely with international organisations who also address education and migration as part of their work, such as the OECD and the Council of Europe. This co-operation will continue to be a priority.
4.3. The role of Directive 77/486/CEE on the education of the children of migrant workers[35]
38. In the context of the policy reflection set out here, the question arises as to what role Directive 77/486/CEE can in future play in helping to shape national policy making.
39. Transposition, implementation and monitoring of the Directive have proven difficult,[36] at least in part because the context of managed migration through bilateral agreements between Member States, in which the Directive was conceived, was not current anymore by the time of its adoption. Given the difficulty experienced in generating the bilateral cooperation needed for formal implementation within the then EC of nine member states, it is not clear how implementation can now be meaningfully improved within an EU of 27 Member States.
40. There is, secondly, a question of the Directive's scope. The challenge now concerns to a considerable extent the education of children coming from third countries. Their situation is not covered by the Directive.
41. Finally, the added-value of the Directive's provisions for educational policy-making should be assessed. The Directive's first provision – that Member States shall "ensure that free tuition to facilitate initial reception is offered in their territory [to the children of migrant workers], including, in particular, the teaching of the official language or one of the official languages of the host State " – seems to have had little impact in shaping Member States' policies in the face of the complex set of challenges described in this text. Member States have all developed their own approaches to the teaching of the host country language. Looking to the wider questions regarding the teaching of children from a migrant background, the question must be asked whether Member States are likely to be helped more by the Directive or through a mix of policy exchange and programme support for policy development.
The Directive's second provision – that Member States shall "in cooperation with the States of origin, take appropriate measures to promote in coordination with normal education, teaching of the mother tongue and culture of the country of origin" – allows a large degree of flexibility in the way the obligation is to be achieved. It has had some patchy impact[37] and can, in the circumstances as outlined in section 3.1 above, be shown as an educationally valid approach. Moreover, the volume of intra-EU mobility of workers from EU Member States has increased sharply in recent years in the wake of the 2004 and 2007 enlargements. This, potentially, may bring about a renewed interest in the promotion of heritage language learning among children of migrants in general. Whether this is best implemented via legislative instruments based on the Treaty's different legal regimes for EU and third-country nationals or via the promotion of voluntary arrangements – which might be within or outside the formal school system – is unclear. Reflecting the Directive's requirement to deliver this objective in cooperation with the Member State of origin, the creation of networks, school twinning could be used to develop teaching of the heritage language in particular schools or localities with the support of the Lifelong Learning programme. Teacher training could also be developed to support such teaching.
5. PROPOSAL FOR A CONSULTATION
42. The Commission feels that it would be valuable to undertake a consultation with interested parties about education policy for children from a migrant background. Interested parties are invited to make their views known about:
- the policy challenge;
- good policy responses to this challenge;
- the possible role of the European Union in supporting Member States to address these challenges; and
- their views on the future of Directive 77/486/EEC.
43. Respondents are invited to use the following broad questions as a guide when framing their contributions.
A. The policy challenge
1. What are the important policy challenges related to the provision of good education to children from a migrant background? In addition to those identified in this paper, are there others that should be taken into account?
B. The policy response
2. What are the appropriate policy responses to these challenges? Are there other policies and approaches beyond those listed in this paper that should be taken into account?
C. The role of the European Union
3. What actions could be undertaken via European Programmes to impact positively on the education of children from a migrant background?
4. How should these issues be addressed within the Open Method of Coordination for Education and Training? Do you feel that there should be an exploration of possible indicators and/or benchmarks as a means to focus policy effort more strongly on closing the gaps in educational attainment?
D. The future of Directive 77/486/EEC
5. How can Directive 77/486/EEC, taking into account the history of its implementation and bearing in mind the changed nature of migration flows since its adoption, play a role in supporting Member States' policies on these issues? Would you recommend that it be maintained as it stands, that it should be adapted or repealed? Would you propose alternative approaches to support Member States' policies on the issues it addresses?
44. Consultation on the issues above will be open until 31 December 2008.
45. Contributions may be sent to:
European Commission
DG Education and Culture
Consultation on Education and Migration
B-1049 Bruxelles
E-mail EAC-migrantchildren@ec.europa.eu
46. The European Commission will analyse the results of this consultation and publish its conclusions in early 2009. Please note that contributions and the names of the authors may be published, unless the authors explicitly refuse their consent to publication when sending the contribution.
[1] In this context, it is important to recall that EU citizens, unlike third-country nationals, enjoy a fundamental right – granted to them by the EC Treaty – to move freely within the European Union, without any particular integration requirement for their residence in another Member State. This constitutes a fundamental difference in comparison to the conditions third-country nationals have to fulfil under the existing EU and national immigration rules, before they can reside in a EU Member State.
[2] Where the text refers to migrant communities, it is intended to convey the important point set out in Section 2.1 that the phenomenon of gaps in educational attainment and the factors which lie behind them may apply also to subsequent generations (whether naturalised or not), notably where segregation from the mainstream community of the host Member State takes place. Finally, the text makes no reference to groups of non-migrant EU citizens with a distinct ethnicity or cultural identity and who also have a high tendency to social exclusion (e.g. Roma). However, many aspects of the analysis and of the set of educational challenges described here would also apply to them.
[3] The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a triennial world-wide test of 15-year-old schoolchildren's scholastic performance, the implementation of which is coordinated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
[4] Table in the annex.
[5] Joint report 2008 of the Council and the Commission, Delivering lifelong learning for knowledge, creativity and innovation , February 2008.
[6] Children of third-country nationals do enjoy access to education on the basis of equal treatment with children who are nationals of the host Member State if they come under the scope of Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification (OJ L 251 of 3 October 2003, p. 12) and/or Directive 2003/109/EC on the status of long-term residents (OJ L 16 of 23 January 2004, p. 44).
[7] The Green Paper draws on extensive research and documentary analysis (see bibliography in annex). This starts with the Eurydice and OECD work on education of migrant pupils and a wide literature review provided by the European Forum for Migration Studies at the University of Bamberg. The issues have been discussed with the Peer Learning Cluster on Access and Social Inclusion, in the framework of the Education and Training 2010 Work Programme.
[8] See in Germany Mikrozensus, 2005; in the UK “Ethnicity and education: the evidence on minority ethnic pupils aged 5 – 16”, 2006; in Italy “Scolarizzazione dei minori immigrati in Italia”, CENSIS 2007.
[9] Bloem and Diaz (2007) report a school in Aarhus, in Denmark, without a single student of Danish origin; McGorman et al. (2007) describe the situation in Dublin 15; Burgess et al. (2006) report that in Bradford (UK) 59% of children attend schools with a single identity; Karsten et al. (2006) describe similar developments in the Netherlands.
[10] EU-SILC (Statistics on Income and Living Conditions), 2005.
[11] Table in annex and OECD (2006). This is confirmed by studies such as Jacobs, Hanquinet & Rea (2007), but contrasted by other research – according for instance to Kristen and Granato (2004), who found that, after cross-analysing with SES, migrant/national differences largely disappear.
[12] The European Qualifications Framework (EQF) provides a common EU framework for the linking of national qualifications frameworks. It should improve the transparency and transferability of qualifications earned in any Member State and make this less of a problem for migrating EU citizens.
[13] Esser (2006).
[14] A wide array of research, especially in the USA, has focused on the influence of parental and community expectations on achievement of different ethnic groups. A seminal work is Ogbu (1991).
[15] Progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training - Indicators and benchmarks, 2007.
[16] Wiley (1977).
[17] See OECD 2006, Where immigrant students succeed.
[18] A seminal study on this issue is Coleman et al. (1966), demonstrating that minority students in segregated schools perform below their potential. Farley (2005) has reviewed more recent research on the influence of peers on academic achievement and his conclusions basically support the earlier findings.
[19] Table in the annex.
[20] Schofield (2006). The consequences of early tracking for equity in education have already been dealt with in the Commission Communication on Equity and efficiency in education and training systems.
[21] For instance, in 1999 migrant pupils in Germany were 9.4% of the overall population, but they made up 15% of the special schools population. See also EUMC (2004). The European Agency for Special Needs Education is currently carrying out a comparative analysis of the situation of migrant pupils in special education in 23 Member States. Results should be published by early 2009.
[22] Rutter et al. (1979).
[23] See the Eurydice Report on school integration of immigrant pupils (2004); an update will be carried out in 2008.
[24] Eurydice Report on school integration of immigrant pupils (2004).
[25] See the basis of the reform of the priority education policy in France.
[26] See examples in the annex.
[27] See the Commission Communication on equity and efficiency in education and training systems, COM(2006) 481 final and the Conclusions of the Education Council of November 2007 on education and training as a key driver in the Lisbon Strategy.
[28] For example, Spies, Büchel and Wagner (2003) found that attending kindergarten in Germany substantially increased the likelihood of migrant children attending higher level secondary schools.
[29] A major and well evaluated example is the HeadStart programme in the US, referenced in the annex.
[30] Magnet schools were originally initiated in the US in the late 70s. The principle is to attract pupils from a variety of middle class neighbourhoods in a metropolitan area through the provision of interesting and rare curricula and activities. This may redress socioeconomic balance in the school while strengthening the educational programme in vulnerable quarters. There is some experience with magnet schools in Europe as well – see http://schulpreis.bosch-stiftung.de.
[31] McKinsey report (2007).
[32] See the Recommendations of the European Parliament and the Council on Key competences for lifelong learning, notably competences number 6 (Social and Civic Competences) and 9 (Cultural awareness).
[33] COM(2005) 389.
[34] Council Document 14615/04.
[35] Council Directive 77/486/EEC of 25 July 1977 on the education of the children of migrant workers, OJ L 199, 6.8.1977, p. 32–33.
[36] See COM(94) 80 and the Eurydice Report 2004.
[37] Eurydice Report 2004.