Final Report of the Pilot Electronic Conference

1. BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE

The conclusions of the European Ministers of Education Conference Communiqué (Prague, 25 - 27 June 1998) indicated the need for developing more informal methods of information exchange, which could lead to the development of concrete proposals and innovative projects.

On behalf of the informal group of ministers for education of four countries (the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Slovenia), Dr. Slavko Gaber, the Slovenian minister, proposed the first topic for discussion:

The issue of the certification systems in the upper-secondary education leading to the university type of higher education.

2. RATIONALE

As some expert analyses show, this is one of the most challenging topics in the field of education facing Europe today and remains one of the permanent developmental tasks, closely related to the issue of standards and quality in education.

It is a question of great importance to the countries already implementing certification systems and those preparing for their implementation as well as those searching for new effective solutions.

3. PRINCIPLES AND AIMS

The electronic conference was expected to provide a picture of the present-day situation in the field of the examination and certification system at the end of upper-secondary general education, and to present the standpoints and views of the participating countries on the issues, open questions and trends, and especially:

3.1.
To encourage a direct, informal, interactive and rapid exchange of information and views on topical issues of the upper-secondary school-leaving examinations in European countries. It could foster the dissemination of effective, particularly practical solutions, encourage co-operation between countries, help mutual recognition of diplomas and could have an overall beneficial effect on the future development of the school-leaving examination and certification system;

3.2.
To allow, in a very simple, timesaving and cost-effective way, the ministers and ministries interested in the issue and experts of the EU and associated countries to communicate with each other; to collect and exchange information on national systems; to discuss and settle unresolved topical issues of common interest to all the participating countries.

3.3.
To contribute substantially to a more effective decision-making at the ministerial level and thus help encourage the process of creating a more comparable, compatible and high-quality educational landscape in Europe.

4. INITIATING COUNTRIES

4 countries (the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Slovenia) at the Ministerial Conference, Prague, 1998. Recently, Austria joined in, thus forming a 5-country group.

5. PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES AND ACTIVITIES

• 17 countries (Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) expressed their readiness to participate,
• 10 of them sent open questions raised during the implementation or development of the certification system in their country,
• 17 of them submitted their reports,
• 10 of them participated in the Q&A phase of the conference and contributed their answers to the specific questions.

Participants were invited to consider the following issues and try to clarify the basis and rationale for the solution implemented in their country by taking into account:

• The historical background,
• The interdependence of solutions within the system of education,
• The planned changes and reforms.

Issue 2: Compulsory and optional subjects in the final examination

Issue 3: Assessment and certification of achievement

Issue 4: External and/or internal (school-based) final examinations

Issue 5: The organisation of the final examination

Issue 6: Additional comments about issues, which should be addressed

Each conference issue included detailed questions in order to provide coherent responses.

7. CONFERENCE RULES

Each country having participated in the electronic conference was represented by its co-ordinator. He or she was the only person who could send or receive messages and materials of the electronic conference. The tasks of the co-ordinator were therefore to pass the information 'coming into' the electronic conference to the experts of his or her country; to co-ordinate their points of view; and to 'send' their responses back to the electronic conference. Those responses were considered as the viewpoints of a particular country or ministry.

The use of the e-mail was considered as a technological means for the rapid gathering of information, opinions, and standpoints and the preparation of materials.

8. BACKGROUND MATERIAL

- Examinations at the end of upper-secondary education (Extract from the Eurydice European Glossary on Education Terminology - Vol. 1, On Diplomas and Qualifications, 1999 - Appendix 1)

9. METHODOLOGY OF WORK:

We applied the following three steps:

1. First phase of the conference: We gathered data, facts, problems, opinions, future trends etc. exposed in the reports of the participating countries. There was also a considerable repository of expertise within the Eurydice network already at our disposal.
2. Second phase of the conference: We gathered additional data together with an extra explanation in the Q&A part of the conference. This explanatory material serves as an addendum to the countries' reports for clarifying certain points of the final examination system.
3. Concluding phase of the conference: we edited the material and prepared the final report which includes a short comparative survey of data and facts, future trends and conclusions. The future application of the conference material for identifying the current policy trends of the participating countries is the exploitation of the conference results.

The following material has been produced during the conference:

1. Guidelines on the conference issues
2. Reports on behalf of the participating countries on the conference issues
3. Questions and answers on the participating countries
4. Final report

• The role of the school-leaving examination in the national certification system (the completion of the upper secondary school, a prerequisite for admission, eligibility and direct access to university studies);
• The nature of the school-leaving examination as a national/school based or externally/internally assessed examination;
• The issue of breadth vs. depth of the required examination knowledge and skills, and the related structure of compulsory and optional subjects.

11. RESULTS - DATA AND FACTS SUMMARY

The conference material supposed to represent:

• First-hand and most up-to-date information on the present-day system, existing problems, future trends, planned changes and, in some cases, forthcoming reforms;
• A wealth of information for identifying similarities and differences between systems;
• A variety of solutions of the present-day role of the school leaving examinations (the completion of the secondary education, a prerequisite for enrolment in higher education programmes or a direct pathway to occupation);
• An overall beneficial effect on the quality of education and an impetus future cooperation in searching for improvements.

It includes:

1. the school leaving examinations - current practices
2. the role of the school leaving examinations in the national education system
3. the school leaving certificates
4. the assessment type of the final examinations
5. the final examination subjects

1. Austria (A)	Reifeprüfung or Reifeprüfung and TVE Diploma examination
2. Bulgaria (BG)	Zrelosten izpit
3. Czech Republic (CZ)	Maturitní zkouška in Gimnazium,Technical and Vocational schools
4. Estonia (EE)	Žgümnaasiumi lõpueksamid
5. France (F)	Baccalauréat General, Technological and Vocational
6. Germany (D)	Abiturprüfung
7. Hungary (HU)	Érettségi vizsga
8. Latvia (LV)	Vidçjâs izglîtîbas nobeiguma eksâmeni
9. Lithuania (LT)	Brandos egzaminai
10. The Netherlands (NL)	Centraal examen (for the schooltypes HAVO and VWO)
11. Poland (PL)	Egzamin dojrza³oœci, matura
12. Portugal (P)	Exame final de âmbito nacional
13. Slovakia (SK)	Maturitná skúška
14. Slovenia (SI)	Matura
15. Spain (E)
16. Sweden (S)
17. United Kingdom (UK)	GCE A-level, GNVQ advanced

SCHOOL LEAVING (FINAL, MATURITY EXAMINATIONS) AT THE END OF THE UPPER-SECONDARY SCHOOL

1. Countries practicising the school leaving examination:

A, BG, CZ, D, EE, F, HU, LV, LT, NL, P, PL, SI, SK, UK

2. Countries without the school leaving examination:

E, S¹

ROLE OF THE SCHOOL LEAVING EXAMINATIONS IN THE NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS

1. Conclusion of the upper-secondary education:

A, BG, CZ, D, EE, F, HU, LV, LT, NL, P, PL¹, SI, SK, S², UK

2. Access to higher education:

2.1. Minimum requirement for applying for the university studies (Achievements in the final exam are one of the criteria for admission. It is subject to additional requirements, e. g. entrance examinations, university aptitude tests and particular achievements):

BG, CZ³, HU⁴, LV, LT⁵, P⁶, PL⁷, S², SK⁸

2.2 General qualification for gaining access to the university studies (no additional tests; in the case of numerus clausus selection is based on grades and subjects in the final examination or by a particular procedure):

EE⁹, NL¹⁰, SI¹¹, UK¹²

2.3 General qualification for gaining direct access to university studies (admission to all studies at all university institutions with no regard to the type, grades and subjects taken in the final examination, minor exceptions possible):

A¹³ , D, F¹⁴

2.4 Free admission:

S¹⁵

3. Access to further vocational training, occupation and employment:

A, BG, CZ, D, EE, E, F, HU, LV, LT, NL, P, PL, S, SI, SK, UK

SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE AT THE END OF THE UPPER-SECONDARY SCHOOL

1. Certificate based on the final examination (external, internal, combined) only:

BG, CZ, F, HU, LV, LT, PL, SI, UK

A, D¹, EE, NL², P³, SK

E, S

ASSESSMENT TYPE OF THE FINAL EXAMINATION - EXTERNAL VERSUS INTERNAL PART OF THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION

1. Mainly internal school leaving examination (question papers set and marked by the class teachers):

A¹, CZ², D³, HU⁴, LV⁵, S⁶, SK, PL⁷

BG⁸, LT⁹, NL¹⁰

F, EE, P¹¹, SI¹², UK

FINAL EXAMINATION SUBJECTS

In the majority of the participating countries a final examination is organised in two parts (w=writen, o=oral, p=practical). The number of compulsory and optional subject vary.

COUNTRY	FINAL EXAMINATION SUBJECTS
	NUMBER oral (o), written (w), practical (p)	COMPULSORY	OPTIONAL
A1	AHS (general) and TVE (technical and vocational) education sector 4 w, 3 o or vice versa	Mother tongue, foreign language, mathematics	humanities, foreign language(s), Latin, maths and science subject(s), Fachbereichsarbeit
BG	2 w	1 mother tongue and literature	One of the school subjects
CZ2	gymnasium 4 w, o   secondary technical and vocational school	mother tongue and literature, foreign language, mother tongue and literature w, o	2 optional subjects   1 optional subject and technical subjects (p)
EE	5 w, o	mother tongue or mother tongue (if other than Estonian) and Estonian language	4 optional subjects: foreign language (English, German, French, Russian), mathematics, history, biology, chemistry, physics
F	General, technological, vocational w, o, p	minimum 8 or 9 compulsory subjects	maximum 2
	General, S(scientific) speciality	mathematics, physics-chemistry, biology-geology or technology, philosophy, history-geography, first foreign language, sport	technology, foreign language, regional language, Latin, ancient Greek, arts, sport, computer science
	General, ES (economic and social) speciality	economics, applied mathematics, philosophy, history-geography, first foreign language, second foreign language or ancient language, sport	literature, sciences, foreign language, regional language, Latin, ancient Greek, arts, sport, computer science
	General, L (literary) speciality	literature, philosophy, sciences, history-geography, first foreign language, second foreign language or ancient language or arts, sport	foreign language, regional language, Latin, ancient Greek, arts, sport, computer science
D3	3 w, possibly o (2 intensified and 1 basic course) 1 o	subjects from the following areas: (1) language, literature and the arts, (2) social sciences, (3) mathematics, natural sciences and technology; within area (1) mother tongue or foreign language are compulsory	subjects from the following areas: (1) language, literature and the arts, (2) social sciences, (3) mathematics, natural sciences and technology; particular achievements (besondere Lernleistung) of the student can be included.
HU4	5 w, o, vocational secondary schools also p	4: mother tongue and literature, history, mathematics, foreign language or mother tongue and literature if different than Hungarian	1 optional subject
LV	5 w, o	Latvian (mother tongue) and literature (or combined exam of Latvian language and literature for minorities), Mathematics	3 exams
LT	5 w, o	mother tongue, mathematics, foreign language	at least 2 among: foreign languages, Belorussian, Russian, Polish as a mother tongue, physics, chemistry, biology, computer science, music, art, geography
NL5	7 w,o pre-university education (VWO) 6 w,o preparation for higher professional education (HAVO)	Common component: Mother tongue and literature, English language and literature, German and French language (VWO) or one modern foreign language (HAVO)	Specialised compulsory component: Science and technology (physics, chemistry, pure mathematics) Science and health care (biology, chemistry, physics, pure mathematics) Economics and society (economics, applied mathematics, geography, history) Culture and society (history, applied mathematics, arts, a second language or philosophy (VWO) or economics (HAVO))
PL6	2w, 3 o	2 mother tongue (w, o), foreign language (o)	history, biology, mathematics, foreign language, classical language, geography,chemistry, physics, biology, computer science
P	5 w	2: mother tongue, mathematics or »Metodos quantitativos«	3 according to the 4 study areas: (1) natural sciences, (2) arts, (3) social science and economics, (4) humanities
SK	4 w, o	2: mother tongue and literature (w, o), mathematics or foreign language	2 mathematics (o) or foreign language (o)
SI	5 w, o	3: mother tongue and literature, mathematics, foreign language	2 optional subjects foreign languages, humanities, natural sciences, arts, technology
UK7	2 - 4 or more w	No compulsory subjects	All optional subjects

Notes:
1 - Additional option: Candidates can select one of two different assignments in German and some other subjects
2 - Planned: three compulsory subjects (mother tongue and literature, one foreign language and mathematics)
3 - Pupils are required to choose at least two intensified courses (at least 5 periods a week)
4 - Additional option: examination can be taken at two levels (standard and advanced)
5 - Starting in 1999 for pupils from the fourth year upwords
6 - One written examination chosen among optional subjetcs ; From 2001/2002, 4 subjects - among them 3 compulsory organised at two levels - (Mother tongue, mathematics, a modern language)
7 - Post-16 curriculum reforms: advanced (A) levels, linar and modular, advanced supplementary (AS) qualification in subjects worth half of the marks, advanced GNVQ qualification equivalent to A-level.

12) CURRENT POLICY TRENDS

The majority of the countries taking part in the electronic conference are constantly monitoring and adapting their examination and assessment systems to changing demands of the society. The most important vehicles for changes are equity of students; standards and widening access to higher education. Most changes have been emerging in Central and Eastern European Countries and Baltic states where previous (mostly) internal secondary school examination is being replaced by external examination combined with an internal part too.

Slovenia was the first among those countries to introduce such an examination that replaced all entrance examination to the university. Similar development can be seen in most of the other countries being in the middle of development and introducing external exams at the end of the secondary schooling (Estonia, Poland, Lithuania). Some other countries are starting to develop new assessment paradigms changing their education laws to accommodate these changes (e.g. Czech Republic, Slovakia). It's also important to notice that some countries introduced new forms of assessment for all students with a palette of different subjects combining compulsory and optional subjects within the number of subjects student has to take in order to get certificate of secondary education (e.g. Slovenia).

Other countries started changes slowly, limiting development to selected subjects, in most cases modern languages (Baltic States) which enabled them to develop enough expertise in all aspects of preparing and running external examinations. From that point they developed further towards complete secondary school leaving examination. The most important aim in all shift towards external assessment and exams is the desire to develop good standards and to compare achievement of students, coming from different schools, towards the same standard, as in most cases secondary school leaving examination leads less or more directly to the university, where in some instances places are scarce.

Less drastic development can be seen in other countries taking part in the electronic conference. Some countries feel that the system being already in place for several years (or decades) fulfil their needs. Some feel that changes towards external exams would only add costs and unnecessary bureaucracy with no special benefit (Austria). France and Germany stick to their systems of Baccalaureate and Abitur making only minor changes from time to time. The Netherlands underwent changes where subjects were grouped into four groups and where students take only those subjects that will end with an external exam. United Kingdom opened it's examination system, made it more "student friendly" (offering AS level, modular courses) and widened access to higher education levelling A levels with advanced level vocational qualifications. An interesting example is Sweden that abolished secondary school leaving examinations some years ago and is reintroducing them again.

What is the driving force behind all changes in the examination and assessment system?

Most of the countries that are introducing external exams at the end of the secondary schooling see those changes as vehicle towards better education system assuring higher standards. Interface between secondary and tertiary education is a very important step and feeling among most countries is that candidates are entitled to a fair treatment. According to one of the countries "the advantage of external examination is its objectivity, reliability, validity, and ability to discriminate the students to the extent needed for universities". The same country is also sure that "the cheap, fast and reliable assessment does not exist... the quality of the result is not appropriate for university entrance purposes". One of the arguments which emerges both in those countries that are introducing changes to their examination systems and those that are reluctant to do that, is the following (according to one country):

"it is also felt that in case of external examinations teachers would loose sight of the aims of the subject, as secondary aims (e.g. the ability to answer certain types of questions) would take the place of these primary aims".

There is of course no single answer to the question: Which is the best system? (nor was this answer ever expected). Responses from countries give us a good insight into what is behind the system they have, how does it function and what are the changes or reforms they are going to introduce.

Common policy orientation, yes or no? The Elcon project in it's pilote phase has not proved successful in the respect of establishing the common policy orientation. We recommend not to anticipate such an effect in future.

13) CONCLUSIONS

Our suggestions for the further development of the Elcon scheme should possibly move in two complementary directions:

1. The first direction could be to develop a tool for a more direct informal flexible and quick communication and exchange of information on very topical and crucial issues of common policy interest to the ministers.

   This scheme could also represent the support for the effective inter-ministerial communication to be used as a part of preparative arrangements for the international meetings. Above all, we have in mind meetings of the Council of Ministers of Education and conferences of Ministers of Education of European Union, associated and other Phare countries. It would fit in with the "Rolling Agenda" because it would meet the needs for regular updates on pre-defined and agreed priority themes and topics.

2. The second direction could be regular consultation among policy makers at the highest political level, but with a strong experts' support. Regular exchange of viewpoints between ministries using the electronic conference media for the consultation with experts, could become a very important source of information on different legal regulation, organisational arrangements and political viewpoints (current reforms, possible evaluations). It's objective would be a co-operation for decision makers through presenting the results of experts' work, selecting strategic trends and exchanging their viewpoints on the experiences that can be applied in their national situation. The deeper the understanding of various aspects of education systems is, the greater is their comparability, and indirectly also mutual conformation. This is the best way to rich quality: to view the others, to understand them, to compare with them, to accept good experience.

On the basis of experience gained with the pilot Electronic conference (abbr.: Elcon), this method has proved successful in many ways:

• enables informal dialogue between ministers, decision makers responsible for different aspects of the national education systems and experts from different institutions
• strengthens the co-operation between experts and policy makers; a partnership between experts and policy makers can assure the utility and application of search results
• provides brief replies on a particular subject within a short space of time
• contributes a considerable collection of new and more detailed data
• enables simple and direct comparisons between different country solutions.
• promotes and deepens participation of high officials in ministries in international activities
• raises awareness among the policy makers on the European dimension in the field of education
• widens an opportunity of further co-operation between experts in an international perspective
• gives a support to politics in a political debate
• gives a common European framework to political decisions at the national level
• provides a link to major topics of EU, such as "transition mechanisms from upper secondary to tertiary education" and "the quality of education"

• ad hoc composition of the support network in the pilot phase
• the rules were not pre-defined in necessary detail
• a single and permanent methodological support was missing
• some of the results of Elcon are not comparable to the reference text.

The Elcon method, if carried on, should be supported by permanent structures within ministries and closely linked to the existing European network Eurydice. Efforts should be made to establish mechanisms within and between ministries to assure such an information.

The implementation of such Elcon method should be carefully examined. The whole organisational structure should be foreseen and established. Taking into consideration the chosen concept of our initiative, each voluntarily participating country should need to have more or less stable and more or less extensive support structure responsible for co-ordination of the content of information. The European Eurydice Unit appears to be the most appropriate framework for developing the suitable methodology of work.

This method would enable the Commission to be more in phase with topicality and to take part more directly in educational debate in Europe. It is up to the European Commission weather to establish or not an Elcon as a suitable means of examining the various aspects and dimensions of educational development and to decide weather should the Elcon be undertaken by Eurydice or by some other support structure.

It will be defined in direct discussion with the European Commission, what is the role, which EURYDICE can play in further elaboration of this idea.

The complete information is available via Internet:
http://www.mss.edus.si/exam

Prepared by:
Dr. Jožko Budin, the President of The National Matura commission
Dr. Valentin Bucik (the National Evaluation of Education Committee)
Dr. Sergij Gabršèek, the then Director of The National Matura Examination Centre
Dr. Slavko Gaber, the then Minister

Assisted by:
Tatjana Plevnik, Ministry of Education and Sport, EURYDICE Unit
Andrej Žižmond, Ministry of Education and Sport, EURYDICE Unit
Viljana Lukas, the head of the Department for International Cooperation (MOES)