 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
The
Luxembourg Education Reform from 1990-2000
by |
|
Introduction This paper deals with the school reform and innovation activities in Luxembourg during the past decade. Its focus is on secondary and vocational education rather than on primary education, although a substantial reform of the transition from primary to post-primary education has been accomplished during the last couple of years. The paper outlines the starting point for the innovation in the late 80s, describes the first major reform project in vocational education and a consequential project in general secondary education. Beyond these curriculum-oriented projects, a major effort on reforming the assessment procedures in vocational education is described. The following paragraphs briefly introduce the Luxembourg education system. Before entering primary school, Luxembourg children attend a one-year or, optionally, two-year kindergarten program. The kindergartens' main role is to prepare motor skills, behavioural skills and social skills for attending primary school. The only language used in kindergarten is Luxembourgish. Primary school education starts at the age of six, and extends over a period of six years. German as a first foreign language is introduced in the first year, French in the second year of primary education. The language of instruction is either Luxembourgish or German. After the sixth grade, students have to make a decision on whether they want to enter the secondary educational system or the secondary vocational education system. Both systems have a three-year preparatory phase, mainly devoted to further general education, before splitting, after grade nine, either to specialized tracks within the general education system or to specialized tracks within the vocational education. In both systems, English as a third foreign language is introduced at grade eight. The languages of instruction are either German or French, depending on the system, the track, the grade and the subject. This means that students have to switch constantly between the two languages during the day. This is a very challenging situation for the students, above all for the substantial number of foreign students (around 30% in the early 90s, about 40% today). The structure of both systems after grade nine is very complex and sometimes highly specialized, a full description being beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that the secondary education system splits into six different sections (languages, mathematics, sciences, economics, arts, music), while the vocational system (today, after the reform!) splits into three major areas (skilled workers education, technicians' education, general technical education), which are further divided into highly specific programs. It has to be mentioned that most of the subprograms in vocational education are full-time school programs, and only a few dual-mode programs like in Germany. This well established school system was challenged in the late 80s for several reasons:
After the parliament elections in 1989 the government proposed a strategy paper on education and a 40-items plan to deal with the most important problems. It was generally agreed that a sound evaluation process should accompany the innovation process. Alas, it quickly became clear that Luxembourg did not have the fundamental elements required for an evaluation plan. In all educational subprograms, the goals of the programs were far from clear. For the few programs that actually had some clear goals, it usually turned out that the legitimation for these goals was intransparent and that there was no general consensus about these goals. Such a situation is extremely unpleasant for everybody involved in the evaluation process, as the criteria for evaluation have to be created ad hoc, normally by a small team of evaluation experts and project members. Though this may happen very quickly, very often the results of such an evaluation will be questioned or simply ignored, because there is no common agreement on the basic rationale for the evaluation. 1. The PROF project In this situation, the author of this paper proposed in 1989 a major research project aiming at developing a methodology for defining the goals of the Luxembourg educational system. The methodology was intended to apply to all parts of the (Luxembourg) educational system, and yield well-defined, transparent, legitimate educational goals based on a broad consensus. While the project was discussed in its conceptual phase, the parliament issued a new law on vocational education, which mainly focussed on introducing a completely new track ("technician"), leading to a vocational education diploma superior to the skilled workers diploma. Industry representatives, who expressed their need for ?higher level skilled workers", had strongly requested introducing this career of a ?technician". Although there was a huge consensus on the broad direction this new program should have, it was completely unclear what exactly the program should look like. As a consequence of the unsolved problems in setting up a completely new program, during the discussion of the proposed research project (and its cost!) the Ministry for Education decided to fund the research project under the condition that the projects' results be applied "online" to the new "technician" program. Thus, the project PROF was created, PROF being a Luxembourg acronym for "project for defining the objectives of vocational education". Prior to the commencement of the preparatory work on the PROF Project, the development of curricula in Luxembourg schools, particularly in the sphere of vocational education (also called technical secondary education (TSE)), was seen as presenting problems for a number of reasons. Points of criticism included the following: A lack of flexibility in the adaptation of curricula to new occupational requirements, problems with the planning and introduction of new methods, the absence of points of reference for the evaluation of the success or failure of new methods, difficulties with regard to the evaluation of students' competences and knowledge and the lack of an infrastructure for the development of curricula. This brief enumeration of the weak points in the system is by no means exhaustive, and can be easily extended by any teacher. The basic concern of the PROF Project has been to carry out the preparatory work needed to eliminate or mitigate those problems. The objectives of the project are explained in the synoptic specification contained in the project proposal: "The aim of the project is to achieve
three objectives in the field of Luxembourg education: I. To develop a methodology by which
it will be possible simultaneously to carry out a systematic analysis
of the requisite needs, to arrive, in cooperation with experts from
the world of economics, at an in-depth definition of objectives
(final and interim), to create a flexible system of new curricula
and to provide for the continuous evaluation of curricula. II. To elicit from this approach guidelines
for new teaching methods, taking into account, in particular, multi-media
concepts and the software engineering requirements flowing from
them; III. To establish a proficiency unit capable of applying the methodology developed in other types of teaching and in the sphere of continuing education, and to provide for a system of continuous evaluation." The project, which was thus originally conceived as a research project for the development of a methodology, was given a different dimension by the decision to proceed, in parallel with the development work, with the work needed for the implementation of the new curricula for technicians' training courses, as provided for by the Law on the Reform of TSE of September 4, 1990. Selected training courses relating to the electrical, mechanical and commercial fields on technician and apprentice level, together with the general technical proficiency qualification, were earmarked for the purposes of such implementation. That decision had the advantage, on the one hand, of providing a broader basis for the project work (it led to the direct involvement of approximately 70 teachers in the project work); on the other hand, the drawback was that it imposed an extremely tight deadline for the completion of the project work, thereby placing an exceptionally heavy burden on the participating teachers. Procedure In order to achieve the greatest possible degree of coordination between the CATP [certificat d'aptitude technique et professionnelle = technical and vocational proficiency certificate] courses and technicians' training courses, it was decided to work on the CATP first. It was thereby possible, in addition, to avoid defining the CATP as a "slimmed-down" form of technical training with the associated "negative" connotations. The objectives set out in Point I. above were achieved in the following form: a) The first step involved the production, in close collaboration with representatives of the world of work (industry, craft trades, chambers of commerce), of job profiles corresponding to the occupations to be worked on in the project. A job profile provides the most precise and specific description possible of the activities and also the requirements of the occupation concerned. The special characteristics of the Luxembourg working environment were also taken into account. The information relating to the occupation was obtained in several ways: by means of the collaboration with representatives of the world of work within the work groups, analysis of job profiles elicited from sources abroad, visits to business commercial enterprises including interviews with those in managerial positions, questionnaires completed by employers and employees, and discussions with representatives of the world of work. b) On the basis of that job profile, a training profile was prepared. The training profile specifies the objectives to be achieved in respect of the relevant training course; that is to say, it determines the skills that students should have attained by the end of their training. It is important that such a training profile should be prepared for at least three reasons: Obviously, not everything which training might be hoped to provide, as revealed by the job profile, can or should be taken into consideration in the initial training itself. First, the capabilities of the students have to be taken into account, and second, some skills are more effectively attained within the framework of on-the-job training rather than by basic academic training. The objectives of general education, i.e. goals to be attained by every trainee irrespective of his occupational qualification, are objectives founded upon political and social considerations, and cannot be deduced from the job profile. Objectives which are linked to the possibility of continuous training or higher education, as required by the Law, must also be taken into account in the training profile. The training profile must be regarded as a central element of the mode of procedure presented here; it should be perceived as a mandatory point of reference for all subsequent steps undertaken and decisions made. c) A framework curriculum has in each case been drawn up based on the training profile; this describes the objectives of the training and the contents of the course with respect to each year of training. In addition, the framework curricula contain systematic directions and recommendations as to the achievement of the proposed learning goals. The framework curricula thus form in
many respects an essential element of the way in which teaching
is planned and carried out. First, they enable curricula to be drawn
up in a more rational manner than was previously the case; and second,
they allow the teacher greater freedom and autonomy as to the form
of the teaching. The fact that the learning goals are precisely
stated, explained and documented means that there will no longer
be any need for rigid adherence to centralized curricula. The essential
point is that the teacher assists the student in seeking to attain
the defined learning goals. The intention is that the teacher should
be free to choose, according to his level of competence and his
evaluation of the outline criteria presented to him, the teaching
methods and aids to be used by him in the process. Thus, while the
recommendations in the framework curriculum concerning the methods
to be used are intended to provide back-up assistance, the objectives
laid down constitute mandatory requirements. d) Such a framework curricula represents, therefore, mandatory directions addressed to the national curriculum commissions that prepare (specific) curricula based upon them. The preparation of the (specific) curricula did not, strictly speaking, form part of the work covered by the project, but is a consequence of the project work. Technical and administrative organization It may be helpful to outline the major aspects of the management structure of such a project. The coordination of the research activities as well as the overall management of the project were located in the innovation department of the Ministry for Education; the work relating to the development of job profiles, training profiles and framework curricula was carried out by a total of nine work groups made up essentially of teachers; finalization of the (specific) curricula was carried out by special sub-groups of the national curriculum commissions; the scientific work ancillary to the project and advice on methodological questions was undertaken by the Institute for Educational Research in Bonn/Germany. In view of the scope of the project and the numerous decision-making levels connected with it, a standing technical steering group was set up within the Ministry to coordinate the work on the project. The educational "philosophy" One of the central educational ideas underlying the PROF project was the development and promotion, amongst the skilled workers and employees of the future, of a holistic professional approach. The education should foster the students' ability to act appropriately on his own initiative, on the basis of his own power of discernment and decision-making, and to take sole responsibility for his actions. Every situation in which a person finds himself calls for particular knowledge and experience, and special abilities are needed to deal with it. The learning goals specified in the curriculum, and the contents of that curriculum, must therefore be such that they constantly indicate on an up to date basis whether, and to what extent, they are (still) appropriate for the purpose of building up such more generalized competencies. Consequently, their main raison d'?tre is no longer to only provide proof of skills on a traditional basis, but that they are capable of contributing to the management of current and future situations arising in the working environment and in life in general. Clearly such an objective cannot be achieved by means of traditional methods of imparting and testing knowledge. The current framework curricula, together with additional material compiled within the work group, demonstrate new ways of achieving a system of inter-disciplinary teaching which is geared to more generalized skills applicable to different areas. For example: the "commerce" work group proposed to use a simulated office environment, intending to train the students by means of realistic reproduction of life in a real office or enterprise. The training addresses both the acquisition of practical skills but also (on an integrated basis) the theoretical knowledge required to act in an appropriate fashion. The fundamental idea of a comprehensive, inter-related learning system is similarly put into effect in the proposals of the other work groups. Attention should once again be expressly drawn to the fact that the methodological proposals contained in the framework curricula are to be regarded as recommendations. The educational procedure that is put into effect in each individual case is substantially dependent on the overall organizational circumstances within schools, the willingness and the ability of the teachers to cooperate, the equipment in the schools and the effectiveness of the further trainings for teachers. Above all, the freedom of teachers to select their own methods should be preserved; only the objectives and content of the curriculum constitute mandatory requirements. Problems The points described above fell essentially within the scope of the first objective laid down in the project proposal. Although the work may be regarded, by and large, as successful, despite the tight time schedule, several significant problems arose: Due to infra-structural shortcomings, a major part of the work on job profiles was undertaken by teachers. Given the regular teaching duties, this was certainly not the best solution. The work on the job profiles took much too much time. The problem of producing a profile showing general educational needs (analogous to the job profile) remained unsolved. While the world of work provides an extra-curricular justification for the job profiles, no such grounds exist in relation to the field of general education. There was insufficient participation of teachers engaged in general educational disciplines, especially the lack of a sufficient number of language teachers proved to have negative effects. The degree of precision applied to the formulation of learning objectives is often inadequate to ensure the rapid realization of technology-based teaching methods (computer-based training, multi-media concepts,…). Such precision still needs to be applied to the current framework curricula. Similar arguments apply to the area of evaluation. In a number of fields, the degree of precision is insufficient for the introduction of any empirically meaningful system of evaluation of new methods. Closely connected with this problem is the assessment of students' knowledge, skills and competencies. A holistic teaching and learning approach calls for totally different evaluation and assessment procedures (cf. project PROOF). 2. The PERICLES project The shortcomings in the field of general education led to a major debate in the Ministry for Education. It became obvious that the work accomplished in PROF in this area was but a weak basis for the vocational education curriculum, and that it was definitely not an adequate basis for further developments in the field of general secondary education. Especially the legitimation of the defined goals was extremely questionable. Based on a 1993 strategy paper of the PROF scientific advisory group, it was decided to launch a new project, specifically devoted to the problem of general education. The goal of this project was two-fold: To answer the open questions from PROF in the field of vocational education. To launch a similar effort to PROF in the field of general secondary education. The project was called PERICLES, after the Greek philosopher. It started in 1994. One of the major differences between vocational education and general education that had been disclosed in PROF is the difference in external references for establishing goals: Rather well defined groups of employers and employees able to provide valuable information on the one side, the "society" on the other side, without well-defined legitimate representatives capable of efficiently dealing with these question. In the very beginning, the PERICLES
project management decided not to focus immediately on educational
goals, but rather on quality criteria and to derive goals at a later
stage. From a procedural point of view, the project started with
a symposium on challenges and perspectives for Luxembourg?s general
secondary education. The symposium addressed the following topics:
The main role of the symposium was to "set the scene" for further discussions. After the symposium, a survey with about 1000 Luxembourg students was launched. It aimed at tracing the educational pathways and analysing the students? judgement about the Luxembourg general education system. In parallel to this survey, a series of interviews was conducted. Representatives of relevant groups within the Luxembourg society were interviewed, and the interviews aimed at gathering comprehensive information in order to get the full picture of the challenges facing the Luxembourg educational system. Based on the symposium results, the survey results and the outcomes of the interviews, a three-round Delphi procedure was implemented in order to deliver the fundamentals for further work. Participants in this Delphi procedure were decision makers from both industry and politics/administration, higher education teachers, and experts in the field of educational and social sciences. The goal of these Delphi rounds was to learn from Luxembourg experts: Which fields of school education they identified as most relevant, where they saw the most urgent problems, and which attainment goals they proposed. How they would like the problems to
be solved and which measures they proposed to reach the goals. After this preparatory work, a series of round tables took place in order to discuss and consolidate the results. It turned out to be necessary to run a second students' survey in order to obtain more precise information on some areas. All in all we can say that the work starting here was based on a very broad and well-documented information base. It had been planned to continue after this first phase in a PROF- like way, i.e. to define the education/training profiles, the framework curricula, and at the very end the final curricula. For multiple reasons, the project deviated from this path. Instead of rigorously following the PROF methodology, the work groups immediately jumped to defining subject matter oriented profiles, some of them enhanced by information on key competencies. On the one hand, this speeded up the work considerably; on the other hand it led in the end to a rather diversified, mosaic-type picture. The links between the different subjects are weak, and the quality of work within different subject matters varies substantially. As a conclusion, we might say that there has been major progress in the elaboration of curricula for general education, but the results are far better on the product side than on the procedures' side. This is obviously a reason why, right now, it proves to be extremely difficult to resume the PERICLES work and to realize the updates necessary in a fast developing society. 3. The PROOF project In parallel to the PERICLES project, another 4-year project resulting from the successful PROF project was carried out. The project name refers to the predecessor project PROF and also to the noun "proof" and thus to assessment procedures. It seems obvious that after successfully implementing a new curriculum, you have to transcend the traditional assessment and examination methods as well. This is especially true when switching from a rather traditional, theory-oriented, ex cathedra teaching to a more holistic and task based approach. Within PROF, new curricula were developed for twelve different subjects at the level of vocational secondary education. In addition, new didactic concepts were introduced. For instance, students now learn to work independently on problems that are typical of, and as close as possible to, their future working environment. In this way, they can acquire strategies to deal effectively with the problems that they will likely encounter in their future jobs. The PROOF project aimed at developing and evaluating instruments to examine the students' professional competencies. New exam questions were developed which tap the students' cross-curricular competencies in addition to measuring their job-specific knowledge. This novel type of exam questions forms the basis for new performance tests which are used to assess the students' final achievement level, and also to evaluate their progress in the training program. Two teams of teachers, each covering a different subject area, were involved in the project. The office administrators - team started in September 1994. The electricians - team started in September 1995. a) Characteristics of the new exam questions A typical exam question designed to assess a student's professional competencies is based on a realistic description of a professional situation and the roles of the persons involved in that situation. The description of the situation may be supplemented by a dossier, which may contain, for instance, an organizational flowchart of the company, a description of products and services, or lists of customers and suppliers. The students have to execute complete assignments within this fictitious professional situation. For instance, they may have to write a letter in which they file a complaint, they may have to negotiate with a client in a role-play, they may have to develop the control system for a conveyor belt, or they may have to produce an ISDN installation under certain constraints. The students receive precise task descriptions and all the materials they need to accomplish the task. A priori specifications describe the students' expected behavior and the required results of their work. The specifications also comprise both evaluation forms as well as guidelines for assessing the students' performance using these forms. In this way, it is possible to assess the students' competencies in a standardized way despite the complexity of the setting. b) Evaluating the new examination instruments Before the new exam questions started to be used in final examinations, they had to be evaluated in several schools and classes. One goal of the evaluation was to acquire information about the process of designing new questions. Another goal was to assess the objectivity, the level of difficulty, and the practicability of the new tasks. It was also intended to gain insights into how well both the students and the teachers would receive the new examination tasks. An additional purpose was to acquaint students with the new types of examination tasks. The results of the evaluation and the subsequent discussions, which involved the teachers, proved to be very valuable for the development of subsequent final examination tasks. c) Using new instruments in the final examination Up to this point, the new instruments
for assessing students' achievement levels have been used in the
final examinations for office administrators in the summer terms
of 1996, 1997 and 1998 and for the electricians in the summer terms
of 1997 and 1998. The reactions to the new types of examination
tasks were entirely positive, especially by the electrician students.
They appreciated the practical task, and many said they wished to
have had worked with such tasks even earlier during their training
program. However, a group of teachers criticized the increased time
and effort they had to spend on developing the new tasks, but it
is expected that less time and effort will be needed in the future
as teachers develop more fully the necessary skills and routines.
It must be emphasized that many of the potential future employers
of the students were enthusiastic about the new final examination
format. 4. Conclusion After 10 years of continuous efforts for a coordinated educational reform, the results are somewhat ambivalent. The first half of the last decade was remarkably successful. Although the projects clearly demonstrated the limits of a very small country in running such a major programme on its own, the effort spent on the task has been rewarding both from a scientific and an applied point of view. However, the longer the operation lasted, the more the "philosophy" of the project was watered down, and the more short-term "pragmatic" decisions triggered the process. The following paragraphs briefly describe which original goals have been reached and which have not. The development of a methodology for defining goals and curricula in vocational education has been fully reached. The methodology proves to be useful in very different areas, it is scalable to different environments and budgets and it is flexible and transparent enough to be implemented and accepted in very different settings. The situation for general education has been substantially improved through the PERICLES project, but quite a few problems remain. One of the major goals, both of PROF and PERICLES, that has not been reached, is the creation of a permanent structure capable of sustaining and continuing the successful work. This turns out to be a major failure, as the lack of such a structure inevitably leads to a drain of know-how as soon as the original players leave the scene. Luxembourg is right now facing this problem, while trying to update the outdated profiles. The acceptance of the innovation, especially among teachers, is extremely ambivalent. Some teachers were enthusiastic from the very beginning, and actually they must be considered as the basis for a successful implementation. Some other teachers simply disregarded the innovation, and some have been fighting the whole concept from the very beginning. A pilot study on the reasons for this differential behavior yielded some extremely interesting results, but the authorities supported no further evaluation. The acceptance problem became most obvious during and after the PROOF project. Assessment and examination were traditionally completely in the hand of the teachers. The project PROOF imposed quite a few constraints on the assessment procedures, and although this type of assessment was highly welcomed by both employers and students, a substantial number of teachers simply refused to collaborate in further developing assessment tasks. In the field of electro-mechanics this led to the whole operation being stopped last year. From a purely scientific point of view, the project has been extremely successful. The results were taken up in a European project on the assessment of Problem Solving and the results of this project impacted the development of instruments both for the ALL and the PISA study. Very often, a situation such as it is described in the preceding paragraphs is caused by an insufficient involvement of teachers in the innovation process. This can be excluded here, as teachers were very much involved in all steps of the process. During the implementation, however, it turned out that the teachers were divided in at least two sub-groups, those open for innovation and those who are rather reluctant. Very obviously, teachers participating in the projects mainly belonged to the first group. Such a constellation is already dangerous enough, but the problematic situation was aggravated by the Ministry's attempt to negotiate with the second group at a very late stage of the innovation process. There is no unique solution to such a dilemma, but one lesson can be learned: The authority which triggers the innovation should seek for broad consensus before starting a major innovation process, but should avoid renegotiating the fundamentals at the very end of the process (except of course in case of complete failure).
CURRICULUM VITAE Name: Dr. Jean - Paul Reeff Education Background: Ph.D. Psychology/Physics University of Innsbruck, Austria Present Position:
Director of Luxembourg educational Project Projects (selection): Since June 2000 "E Computer
fir all Kand", a project to provide both a laptop and Internet
access to every student from grade 1-13 and to accelerate the transition
to a new digital economy in Luxembourg 2000 Finalization of the Problem
Solving instruments for the "International Adult Literacy and
Life Skills Survey" (ILSS/ALL) and preparation of the field
trial 1998-2000 EC project "New
Assessment Tools for Cross-Curricular Competencies in the Domain
of Problem Solving" 1994-1999 "New Assessment
Procedures in Vocational Training". 1989-1994 "Luxembourg Curriculum
Reform in Vocational Training." Since 1993 "Evaluation of
the Luxembourg Educational System." 1990-1994 "Computer Simulations
in Education". 1987-1990 "Computer-simulated dynamic systems." Work Experiences: 1991-1992 Researcher/Project
Manager at the Centre de Recherche Public - Henri Tudor (Luxembourg) 1990-1991 Researcher Project Manager at the Centre de Recherche Public-Centre University Luxembourg) |
