Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-07-Speech-1-099"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030407.7.1-099"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, before focusing on some specific points, I would like to say an informal ‘thank you’ to the European Commission, in the person of Mrs Reding and her colleagues, and the Greek Presidency, in the person of the Minister for Education, and Mr Tsiakaris, the chairman of the education committee. It is their availability, in particular, during these two months of intense work, which has enabled to us to respect the timeframes we set ourselves for the adoption of this report, which, I have to say, has been produced in a very short space of time.
For these reasons, I consider that the Commission proposal should give greater weight to finding the most effective ways for teachers to integrate use of the Internet into their teaching and to encourage the dissemination of good practice in this sector.
I would also point out that the amendments to the European Commission’s proposal have been agreed with both the Commission’s services and the Council representatives. We are all quite aware that our greatest achievement in adopting this programme will be precisely launching the related calls for proposals in a short space of time.
A lot of progress has been made with regard to eLearning since the Lisbon Council in March 2000, and we have now moved from the proposal for action to implement new technology in the field of education to a legislative resolution which will lead to a genuine multi-annual programme.
As I pointed out previously during the work on the Commission's first communication, particular emphasis has been placed on the role of teachers as a channel enabling the development of digital literacy in our schools. This is why the issue of training teachers or, in any case, equipping them to make use of the new technologies, is an absolute priority, and the endeavours which can be glimpsed in some pages of the Commission proposal must certainly be rewarded and supported.
I nonetheless consider it advisable to make some changes to the Commission proposal, particularly as regards the multi-annual budget. The question I asked myself at the start of our work was: what should be regarded as an 'appropriate' budget for an ambitious multi-annual programme such as this? It is not easy to answer this question because resources for culture and education always seem to be particularly limited. What encouraged me and prompted me to persevere in this matter
was the proposal made by the European Commission itself in the 2003 budget: budget line B3-1000 has been allocated EUR 18 million in commitment appropriations for the preparatory actions in the 2003 budget.
The reasoning behind my decision to amend the Commission’s current proposal of EUR 36 million is this: would it not be unusual to spend less each year on a multi-annual programme than on the preparatory actions which preceded it? In this sense, I think the Commission should be grateful to me for pointing out to it that, actually, EUR 18 million multiplied by three equals EUR 54 million, which would appear to be a more appropriate figure.
The question of the distribution of the budget warrants further emphasis. Initially, in the Commission’s proposal, 25% of the budget was dedicated to fighting the digital divide. I want to clarify why I have called for this amount to be reduced in my amendment. I am absolutely convinced of the need to fight the social causes of the digital divide. I am equally convinced that the funding should be sought within other Community instruments – the Structural Funds, the European Social Fund and the Leonardo da Vinci programme – because, if we were to wait in order to use the eLearning funds to respond to the need to bridge the digital divide, even then providing essentially only the most basic of responses, almost the entire budget for the eLearning actions would be used up.
As regards the E-twinning of European schools, in line with the objectives adopted in the European Parliament's previous resolution, I wish to stress that training teachers remains a priority within the programme. I want us to reflect on the fact that, on average, 90% of primary schools, 98% of secondary schools and 99% of vocational and technical schools in the Member States were connected to the Internet in 2002. However, only 39% of primary school teachers, 50% of secondary school teachers and 58% of teachers in vocational and technical schools used the Internet as a teaching instrument. These averages actually conceal dramatic differences between Member States: while the average for Denmark is approximately 75%, the corresponding figure in Greece is not even as high as 9%.
These figures, which are clear enough in themselves, point to two conclusions. The first concerns the use of the Internet as a teaching tool. It is not just a matter of the availability of infrastructure or educational equipment; sometimes the problem concerns the training of teachers and educational organisation. The second conclusion concerns the use of technological resources. The goal can really become that of exchanging methodological and didactic good practice between teachers in various Member States, or the start-up of 'virtual training rooms'."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples