Many teachers are on strike today. The MR deplores the union communication aimed at frightening them, while the government's goal is to improve the quality of education and tackle the shortage in the sector.
An enormous amount of false information is circulating about the 2025 education budget. This budget did not come out of nowhere. It follows on from the Pact for Excellence in Teaching. It should first be recalled that this Pact is a legacy of previous legislatures (without the MR), aiming to improve the results of all pupils and reduce educational inequalities. This is a systemic reform, negotiated, organised and planned over the long term since 2017.
One of the Pact's objectives was precisely to end the excesses of the “renovated” system, which kept multiplying options, and to better steer vocational education. The reforms being discussed today are therefore part of, and always have been part of, the Pact. The unions are not telling the truth when they claim they are only discovering these reforms today.
We also know that the Wallonia-Brussels Federation's education budget is among the higher average of OECD countries. Yet our results in international surveys are not good. So it's not simply a matter of extra budgetary investment. Our vocational education in particular benefits from substantial funding: more than one billion euros are allocated to it annually:
- Vocational education represents between €9.5k and €10.5k/pupil/year, versus €6.5k to €7.5k/pupil/year for general secondary education.
- We are among the leading OECD countries in this regard, and the measures taken will not change that, as they affect less than 5% of the total vocational education budget.
- If budget determined the quality of a system, we would be on the same level as Sweden, and outperform Denmark or Finland, which is far from being the case.
Among the measures mentioned is one concerning adult pupils, no longer subject to compulsory schooling due to their age, who re-enrol in the 3rd and 4th year of secondary school. These are pupils, more than half of whom are aged 19 or over, who had dropped out of school (i.e. not enrolled in compulsory education for at least a year). Placing them in classes intended for 15-16 year-olds benefits neither them (mismatch with much younger pupils), nor the teachers (already managing highly heterogeneous classes), nor the other pupils in the class. Other providers exist to support these pupils, such as adult education. This seems more logical and effective, enabling these young people to train and access employment alongside people their own age.
Another measure concerns pupils enrolling in the 7th year of technical and vocational education while already holding a qualification (CESS). These are pupils, more than half of whom are aged 20 or over (30% are even 21 or over), who have already obtained their CESS and wish to pursue further training to specialise (e.g. CESS in hospitality plus a sommelier specialisation). However, this removal of the 7th technical year has three exceptions, for dental prosthetics and optician training (since certification only occurs at the end of the 7th year, not the 6th), and for security prevention assistant (an agreement with the federal level). In almost all cases, at least one alternative exists nearby within the same “catchment area”, whether through adult education or IFAPME: this is therefore not about eliminating training pathways, but continuing and completing them through training providers whose target audience this is. The schools, pupils and education networks concerned will be supported through the transition.
Finally, in order to avoid the proliferation of very “small classes” in vocational education, it was decided to encourage institutions to reorganise: staffing/funding for vocational education will be set at 97% of its current level (in other words: out of 100 teaching periods given today, 97 will be given tomorrow, i.e. 3% fewer teaching periods). This does not equate to fewer jobs but increases the pupil/teacher ratio, which today is very low in many options. One of the objectives of the vocational education reform is to encourage institutions to specialise rather than endlessly multiplying options. Out of 5,400 options in the Wallonia-Brussels Federation, 2,700 had on average fewer than 10 pupils per class, of which 1,300 had a similar offering within less than 10km.
According to the PS, 3 out of 100 teachers would lose their jobs, but this actually refers to loss of teaching load, not jobs, and support is planned to reassign the teachers concerned. We are in a context of shortage, and 7 out of 100 teachers already leave the profession every year (e.g. through retirement). In other words, jobs are available.
Specific support is planned for pupils affected by this measure, to inform them and guide them towards the training pathways and providers best suited to their needs and aspirations. Support is also planned for teachers: this is part of the social dimension of the Pact managed within the administration, aimed at supporting the reassignment of teachers losing teaching load and working on inter-network mobility. Support is also planned for schools affected by these measures, and meetings with the organising authorities are underway to work together on this tailored support. According to the administration's current simulations, only one school is likely to fall below the pupil threshold, putting it at risk of closure. It will receive specific support.
Minister Glatigny's plans also include new policies:
- To support sick children kept away from school: improving their schooling through digital tools (ClassContact) to enable them to follow lessons remotely and stay in touch with their classmates as much as possible
- Launch of a digital platform (CEPAGE) to better manage teachers' pay (avoiding errors and improving staff working conditions)
- Extending the substitute teacher pools from 2 (Brussels and Southern Hainaut) to 4 zones (adding Namur and Luxembourg). This is a “pool” of teachers who make themselves available to organising authorities to replace absent teachers, by zone, ensuring a teacher is present in front of every class to guarantee learning and improving working conditions for the education teams concerned.
- Raising the salaries of professionals (recognising up to 7 years of experience) who wish to retrain for shortage roles in teaching (e.g. language teachers). This measure could bring up to €200 in extra net income for second-career teachers taking up a shortage role
- Rebalancing funding between education networks, putting an end to a historic injustice in funding between schools of different networks. Other information circulating on elements related to the measures in the programme decree amounts to disinformation
Abolition of teachers' “sick leave pot” in January 2025. FALSE. No draft text on the “sick leave pot” exists, so it will certainly not be abolished in January 2025. However, it is true that during this term, thought will be given to arrangements at the start and end of careers, including analysis of the principle, which exists only in teaching, of accumulating all unused sick leave days in order to retire earlier.
- End of DPPRs. FALSE. No draft text concerning DPPRs exists, nor is this part of the Community Policy Statement. What is true, however, is that the administration is analysing the DPPR budget line, among others, as it is logical for an administration to keep an eye on the cost of each item within it. It is also necessary to understand the impact of DPPRs on the teacher shortage. Next year, other budget lines will be analysed in the same way, in a logic of sound budget management and good governance. This is far from new and is part of public policy evaluation. Monitoring the cost of a measure does not mean “abolishing it”, but also “ensuring it can be continued”.
- End of teacher appointments/status from January 2025. FALSE. The government has indeed announced the end of permanent appointments from January 2025, but for administrative staff, NOT for teachers. It is true, however, that thought will be given, as part of modernising the teaching career, to a new type of contract (e.g. a tailor-made open-ended “Teacher” contract including a second pension pillar) for young 4-year graduates from 2027, as well as a transition period for teachers currently undergoing appointment. The aim is to replace the current lack of status for young teachers, and the job insecurity this entails, with an open-ended contract suited to the teaching profession. But no text exists to date. Future texts will be negotiated with the sector. Nothing is planned for January 2025! And appointed teachers will never lose their appointment.
- Increase in workload. FALSE. This government is working on the one hand towards a shock of administrative simplification, and on the other towards more autonomy for education teams, precisely to lighten the workload.
- Loss of 500 jobs due to the budget measures. FALSE. The budget measures concerning vocational education affect the periods/hours allocated to schools, not teacher redundancies. There could therefore be certain “losses of hours” for teachers. In a context of shortage, where teachers retire every year, the aim of the measure is not to “dismiss” teachers. The government is working with the administration on measures to ensure that teachers losing a teaching load (“hours”) find it again, either at their own school or at other schools, notably through teacher mobility between education networks.
- A CGSP union comic strip “En avant pour le passé” implying that accident-at-work insurance, maternity leave, pressure and denunciation for open-ended contracts, TV time-tracking, larger class sizes and the disappearance of unions are at stake. FALSE. Not only does no text exist on any of these points, but none of this is part of the Community Policy Statement (DPC). Moreover, the career reform included in the DPC aims to strengthen the attractiveness of the profession, not reduce it.
End of free school supplies. FALSE. Free school supplies have not been abolished and still fully exist for pupils up to and including the 3rd year of primary school, as before. It is true, however, that an evaluation of the scheme is planned. This is nothing new. This evaluation was planned for late 2024 in the decree introduced by the previous government. We are at the end of 2024, so the evaluation is underway, as should be the case for every public policy to analyse its effectiveness. Evaluating, again, does not mean abolishing but checking whether the scheme works well and reaches its target, here, the most vulnerable families.
- There has also been much talk about salary scale 501. The proposals concerning this scale must also be read within the overall context of the Community Policy Statement, which contains numerous proposals to improve teachers' daily lives, particularly their pay. Teachers already on this scale, or those wishing to qualify for it, will be asked to carry out additional tasks, within specific roles, contributing to improving the quality of learning, in order to justify the extra pay, within a defined budget. This also aims to make the best use of the qualification obtained, since it gives the teachers concerned expertise their colleagues do not have. There is therefore no question of abolishing this scale. It should also be noted that the government will propose an intermediate scale between scale 301 and 501. This too represents a prospective pay rise for many teachers.
All the measures in the Community Policy Statement will be adopted in consultation with the sector.