1

Jesus M. Goñi – University of the Basque Country

Irene López-Goñi – Public University of Navarra

2

INTRODUCTION"Recommendation of the European

Parliament and of the Council, of 18 December 2006”

The objective of this paper is to analyse this European Union proposal and the way in which it has been embodied and developed by two member states: Spain and France

3

THE DOCUMENTS"Recommendation of the European Parliament and

of the Council, of 18 December 2006” 1. Communication in the mother tongue. 2. Communication in foreign languages. 3. Mathematical competence and basic

competences in science and technology. 4. Digital competence. 5. Learning to learn. 6. Social and civic competences. 7. Sense of initiative and entrepreneurship. 8. Cultural awareness and expression.

4

THE DOCUMENTSThe Spanish state: The Organic Act on

Education (LOE): APRIL 2006

1. Competence in language communication. 2. Mathematical competence. 3. Competence in knowledge of and interaction

with the natural environment. 4. Information processing and digital

competence. 5. Social and citizenship competences. 6. Cultural and artistic competences. 7. Learning to learn competence. 8. Personal initiative and autonomy.

5

THE DOCUMENTSThe French state: The "Socle Commun de

Connaissances et de Compétences“, July 2006.

1. Mastering the French language.2. Fluency in a foreign language.3. The main principles of mathematics and

scientific and technological studies.4. Mastering the techniques of information and

communication.5. Humanistic culture.6. Social and civic skills. 7. Autonomy and initiative.

6

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: Europe – Spain 1- In the European proposal there are two language-

related competences: Communication in the mother tongue and communication in foreign languages. The Spanish proposal combines these two competences into one, entitled: Competence in language communication.

2- In the European proposal there is a single competence entitled: Mathematical competence and basic competences in science and technology. The Spanish state divides this competence into two: Mathematical competence; and Competence in knowledge of and interaction with the natural environment.

3 - The competence which the EU proposal terms as a: Sense of initiative and entrepreneurship can be considered to be included in the competence entitled: Autonomy and personal initiative.

7

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: Europe - France 1 - The specification of French as the mother tongue is a

matter which takes on particular importance, given the fact that there are some minority language communities in France (Breton, Occitan, Basque …) in which French is not the mother tongue of all the inhabitants.

2 - The disappearance of Learning to learn from the list of competences included is the most important structural difference.

3 - The difference in wording between the (European) Cultural awareness and expression and the (French) Humanist Culture; whilst both concepts can be considered similar, the latter appears to be of a more academic nature than the former.

4- With regard to the Sense of initiative and entrepreneurship indicated in the European proposal, like Spain, this Sense of initiative disappears in the French proposal, which is stated as Autonomy and initiative

8

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: France - Spain- Whilst, in Spain, the new proposal of

competences is part of a new act on education (LOE 2006), in France the publication of the Socle commun does not alter the remaining regulations governing the education system.

This difference would initially appear to give greater force to the proposal implemented by the Spanish central government, however we consider that an in-depth study reveals this not to be the case.

9

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: France – SpainKnowledge and competences: With regard to the LOE (Spain) , there is no explicit

connection between these two structural elements (knowledge and competences), given the fact that both are established as parallel annexes. There is, in fact, a rhetorical connection which appears at the start of the presentation of each core competence, indicating how the various areas into which the curriculum is divided can contribute to the development of a particular competence. The reverse relationship has not been developed.

10

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: France – SpainKnowledge and competences.In the Socle commun, each competence proposed is

accompanied by a body of knowledge which, it is considered, must be learned for the subsequent development of that particular competence

In the Socle commun, each competence has the following basic structure:

a) A brief introduction or general comment

b) A three-part analytical framework :

b-1: Knowledge

b-2 Skills

b-3 Attitudes

11

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: France - SpainThe assessment (LOE)It is established that "diagnostic assessments" shall be

conducted on the basis of the core competences defined by the Act, adding that they "shall be used for formative and guidance purposes". The nature of this type of (diagnostic) assessment and the fact that it is conducted in intermediate years and not on completion of the Primary and Secondary stages means that the results have no direct bearing on the successful completion of the aforementioned stages or on the qualifications obtained on completion.

Primary Education has a 6 year duration and the diagnostic assessment is conducted in the 4th year. Secondary Education has a 4 year duration and the diagnostic assessment is made in the 2nd year.

12

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: France - SpainThe assessment (Socle commun)Three stages have already been defined. - An initial stage, on completion of the basic learning cycle

(2nd year of primary education (CE1), particularly relating to the acquisition of fluent reading and writing (specifically these students shall be given an oral reading test and a reading comprehension test).

- A second stage, at the end of primary education, to specifically confirm knowledge of the basic rules of grammar, conjugation, elementary arithmetic and the four operations.

- Finally, the Diplôme National du Brevet diploma shall be used to assess proficiency in the common core of skills on completion of the first cycle of secondary education (collège).

13

CONCLUSIONS 1- The key competences recommended by

the EU are accurately included in the proposals made by France in the decree of 11th July 2006 enacting the Socle Commun de Connaissances et de Compétences and in those made by Spain in the Organic Act on Education of 3rd May 2006.

14

2. There is a certain difference with regard to the status and the form selected to draw up the aforementioned state regulations.

With regard to Spain, the proposal for key competences is part of a new education act which completely reforms the curriculum. The key competences are included as one of the annexes of this act, the other annex develops the curriculum by subject areas.

With regard to France, the aforementioned decree does not contain references to the curriculum by areas, which according to the text is not questioned as such. The French government's document simply deals with the subject of competences, although it certainly does so with a great deal of emphasis, using words such as "act to re-shape the French schooling system".

CONCLUSIONS

15

3. The French proposal equates the French language with the mother tongue for the entire French republic. This is not the case in the Spanish proposal which does not define this question so forcibly. In fact, in a number of autonomous communities in Spain, in education, the mother tongue is not Spanish in compulsory education.

CONCLUSIONS

16

4. The French proposal establishes a clear relationship between knowledge and competences, specifically indicating the knowledge required for the development of competences.

This is not the case in Spain, where there is but a vague and rhetorical connection between competences and knowledge, with no structural connection between the two.

This, in our opinion, is a significant difference, as it exerts a considerable influence on the way in which schools tackle this new approach, which has come to be called "the competence based curriculum".

CONCLUSIONS

17

CONCLUSIONS5. The way in which the French and Spanish regulations

address the matter of assessment is another noteworthy difference.

The Spanish regulation opts for what the regulation calls "diagnostic assessments" which have a formative and guiding purpose but are not taken into account when awarding the qualifications for the compulsory education stage, these qualifications are achieved through tests relating to the subject areas of knowledge.

With regard to France, there is a dual relationship between competences and assessment; on the one hand these competences are used for assessment and, on the other hand, however, and unlike Spain, these competences are also used as a reference for the Diplôme du Brevet diploma, the qualifications obtained on completion of the compulsory education stage.

18

CONCLUSIONS 6. In principle, the curricular structure of Spain is far more

decentralised than that of France. In Spain the curricula are determined by the autonomous communities, whilst observing the minimum core curriculum requirements established by the central government. In France, the legislation is made from Paris for the entire state.

In practice, this difference is scarcely noticeable, given the fact that the Spanish administration has set the minimum requirements so high that, apart from a few occasional matters, the Autonomous Communities almost literally repeat the central Government's provisions. However, if the contents are analysed, the fact that the proposals in the French regulation are slightly lower than those included in the Spanish one, would lead us to think that the paradox may arise whereby a theoretically centralist policy in actual fact affords greater autonomy to schools when deciding the curriculum in school syllabuses.

19

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION