Discussion Paper Juni 2005

Institut für
Politische Wissenschaft
Discussion Paper
No. 11
Recent Education Policy and School
Reform in Bavaria: A Critical Assessment
von Ralph Rotte und Ursula Rotte
Juni 2005
http://www.ipw.rwth-aachen.de/for_paper.html
ISSN 1862-8079
Recent Education Policy and School Reform in Bavaria: A Critical Assessment
Ralph Rotte
Institute for Political Science, RWTH Aachen University, Germany
Ursula Rotte
Institute for Education, University of Munich, Germany
1 Introduction: Educational federalism in Germany
The Federal Republic of Germany consists of 16 states ( L a e n d e r ) which are autonomous in
educational and cultural affairs. Federal competences are limited to aspects like joint financing of
universities and special education projects. The function of the Federal Minister for Education
and Science in this system is mainly to motivate and moderate L a e n d e r activities. As a
consequence of this state autonomy being at the core of political self-confidence and regional
peculiarities and traditions, educational systems differ from L a n d to L a n d within Germany. Some
fundamental coordination of education systems and policy is provided mainly by L a e n d e r
cooperation in a permanent conference of state and federal education ministers, and by the common
legal framework of the federal constitution demanding a relatively generous minimum
equivalence of living standards throughout Germany (Baumert et al., 2002: 3 9-42).
Especially strong federalist feelings and traditions can be found in the southern state of Bavaria
with its area of 70.5 square kilometres and its population of 12.4 million (Germany: 357.0 square
kilometres and 82.5 million inhabitants). This strong sense for political autonomy may be
explained by its long history.1 In 1806 Bavaria became a kingdom (until 1918) and remained a
sovereign state until its joining of the German Reich established in 1871. Within the Reich
Bavaria retained a number of reservation rights in taxes, military affairs, public
The Bavarian country and people established themselves as early as in the 8th and 9th century, and since the 12th
century the Duchy of Bavaria was an important and increasingly autonomous state within the Holy Roman Empire.
Following the gradual internal dissolution of the Empire in the 17th century Bavaria became even a player on the
European political scene, trying (and failing) to become a great power. “Ignoring some peripheral alterations,
Bavaria today is still the arbitrary amalgam of principalities, dukedoms, towns and bishoprics thrown together and
declared a monarchy by Napoleon in 1806” (Sutherland, 2001: 19).
1
administration and education policy (Volkert, 2001: 62-98). Between 1919 and 1933, the
Bavarian government tried to strengthen the federalist aspects of the Weimar Republic, and even
during the national socialist regime from 1933 to 1945, Bavarian individualism and stubbornness
could be found especially in school affairs (Rotte and Rotte, 2003). Following Germany’s defeat
in World War II, the existence of a Bavarian state was declared by the U.S. Military Government
as early as on 19 September 1945. Based on its history of political autonomy within the
framework of a greater political entitiy, after the Second World War, political “myth-making in
the German federal state of Bavaria has largely succeeded in bracketing the period of the Third
Reich and emphasizing continuity instead; the preamble of the Bavarian constitution of 1946
refers to 1,000 years of Bavarian history” (Sutherland, 2001: 13-14). As a consequence of this
traditional and conservative attitude of continuity, while accepting and implementing democracy
and human rights as fundamentals of any education, Bavarian policy also resisted structural
changes in the school system urgently demanded and even ordered by the U.S. miltary
government in 1946-1948. Instead of introducing an all-day compehensive school for grades 7 to
12, based on a primary school of six grades, Bavaria returned to the pre-Nazi system with a fourgrade primary school and selection of pupils for the differentiated secondary schools at the age of
ten (Deffner, 2004: 242-249).
Since the 1950s and 1960s Bavaria has developed from an agriculturally dominated country to a
center of German and European industry, high technology and scientific research. Bavarian selfperception, political culture, and, consequently, education policy after World War II have been
decisively coined by the Christian Socialist Party (CSU) founded in 1946 which has governed the
state continuously since then except for a three-year break in the 1950s. “Bavaria’s post-war
development from a backward, agricultural economy to one of the richest Länder in Germany is
inextricably linked to CSU policy and is extremely important to the party’s image of credibility.
(…) The CSU has attempted to present the 12 years of Nazi rule as a tragic hiatus in Bavarian
state tradition and continue a process of nation-building which began with the creation of the
Bavarian monarchy in 1806. (…) The CSU derives its vision of Bavaria from a historical myth of
statehood, territorial continuity and democratic state of law, which also recognises internal
diversity. Particularly important to the party is the preservation of Bavaria’s long-standing though
limited, legislative sovereignty and administrative autonomy” (Sutherland, 2001: 20-2 1). Today,
Bavaria has a reputation of having an excellent education system strongly coined by the CSU’s
conservative attitudes (Oerter, 2003: 72-73), probably the best in Germany except for its
neighbouring state of Baden-Wuerttemberg.
3
2 B a v a ria ’ s scho o l sy st em in a nut shell
In 2003/04 Bavaria had 5,505 schools with 1.88 million students and 105,500 teachers. 1.51
million and 174,000 pupils were educated in public state and local community schools,
respectively. 190,000 went to private schools which employed 14,500 teachers (Bavarian State
Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs/BMoE, 2004a). In 2001, the state and local
communities spent EUR 4,600 on each student, which is above the German average (EUR 4,500)
mainly driven by the city states of Berlin (EUR 5,100), Bremen (EUR 4,900) and Hamburg (EUR
6,300) (Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft, 2004: 120). The Bavarian state budget for schools were
EUR 5.9 billion (16.7 percent of total state spending), local communities added EUR 2.2 billion
(14.7 percent of total spending). Together, outlays for schools amounted for 2.2 percent of
Bavaria’s GNP, a ratio which has been constant since the end of the 1990s (BMoE, 2004b).
Schooling in Germany starts at the age of 6 and is compulsory to the age of 18. Nine years have
to be spent at a full time school. In Bavaria, like in most other German states, all children attend
primary school in grades 1 to 4. A crucial specialty of the Bavarian system, however, is their
having to choose between three alternative tiers after the 4th grade: (1) Hauptschule (extended
elementary school/secondary modern school) for grades 5 to 9 (or 10), leading to a certificate of
compulsory education (Hauptschulabschluss) or of qualified basic education (Qualifizierender
Hauptschulabschluss), (2) Realschule (secondary school/junior high school) for grades 5 to 10,
leading to a intermediate high school certificate, similar to the British GCE O-levels
(Fachoberschulreife), or (3) Gymnasium (higher secondary school/grammar school) for grades 5
to 13 (12), leading to a general university entrance certificate, comparable to the British A-levels
or the French baccalauréat (Abitur/Allgemeine Hochschulreife). The opportunity to attend a
Realschule or Gynmasium depends on the marks a pupil receives in the 4th grade. A good
performance in core subjects including mathematics and German is essential. In 2003, graduates
with a Hauptschulabschluss and a Fachoberschulreife made up 37.1 and 42.7 percent of the
average age cohort of 15 to 18 year-olds, respectively. 8.5 percent finished their compulsory
schooling without a certificate. 19.6 percent of the 18 to 21 year-olds had an Allgemeine
Hochschulreife (BMoE, 2004c).
4
Prior to the most recent reforms, the Realschule started only at grade 7 which meant that most
students aiming at an intermediate education certificate attended the Hauptschule for two years
before changing to the Realschule. An opposition-backed attempt to keep this orientation phase in
grades 5 and 6, and to extend it to all children including future Gymnasium students was turned
down in a referendum in 1999. Moreover, Bavarian grammar schools have been switching to
graduation after the 12th grade since 2004, and Hauptschulen have introduced special 10th grade
classes leading gifted students to the intermediate education certificate.
Additionally, there is a vast range of Foerderschulen (special school for handicapped or
maladjusted children) for students of all ages in Bavaria: There are support centers for mental,
audiovisual or physical development (grades 1 to 8), schools for educational, lingual or cognitive
support (grades 3 to 8), secondary schools for social pedagogical support (grades 9 to 10), and
vocational schools for social pedagogical support (grades 11 to 13) (Friedl and Poehlmann,
2004).
An alternative to the Realschule is the Wirtschaftsschule (higher secondary commercial school
with grades 7 to 10, 8 to 10, or 10 to 11), which also leads to an intermediate high school
certificate and has a stronger focus on subjects relevant for economics and business (BMoE,
2005a).
Both
types
of
school
provide a way to
qualify for a Fachoberschule
(technical/professional college) which leads to a special university entrance certificate
(Fachhochschulreife) enabling graduates to study at a University of Applied Sciences
(Fachhochschule).
Traditionally,
graduates
from
a
Hauptschule
or
a
Realschule/Wirtschaftsschule are considered qualified for vocational training, with the former
aiming at skilled blue collar jobs (craftsman’s trades) and the latter at white collar jobs, e.g. in the
bank or insurance businesses. The German system of vocational training combines training on the
job with two or three years of attendance of a vocational school (Berufsschule) which takes place
on one day per week or in equivalent periods every few months. Good Hauptschule graduates
with a completed vocational training may receive a Fachhochschulreife at a Berufsoberschule. In
2003, 11.4 percent of the 18 to 21 year-olds had such a certificate in Bavaria.
A Gymnasium provides an acadmically orientated general education considered indispensible for
future university students but also provides the formal qualification for vocational training.
Persistent problems in the German labor market and a growing lack of skills of Hauptschule
5
graduates, have led to worse opportunities for Hauptschule graduates to find vocational training
posts since competition by Realschule and Gymnasium graduates has increased seriously in
recent years. As a consequence, about 80 percent (i.e. about 4,100) of all Hauptschule students
repeating the 9th grade in 2003/04 did so voluntarily in order to avoid unemployment (Bayerischer
Lehrer- und Lehrerinnenverband, 2005: 3).
Today,
the
three
types
of
Bavarian
secondary
education
–
Hauptschule,
Realschule/Wirtschaftsschule and Gymnasium – have become the seemingly irrevocable and
strictly implemented pillars of a highly selective school system. Due to tradition and for
ideological reasons, the conservative Christian-Socialist party which has been ruling Bavaria
without coalition partners since 1966, has always resisted attempts to introduce comprehensive
schools (Gesamtschulen) as an alternative to the established system. Unlike many other German
states, Bavaria has not even comprehensive schools as an additional educational offer for students
and parents: There are only two experimental Gesamtschulen in Bavaria, one in Munich and one
in Nuremberg.
Formally, there are many ways to reach higher educational levels for graduates of “lower” types
of school in the officially very open and flexible Bavarian education system, which cannot listed
here. Nevertheless, these ways of qualification are actually mostly theoretically feasible only. The
mass of certificates is still acquired in one of the traditional tiers of the system. Official data
shows that, in 2003, Hauptschulen accounted for 86.3 percent of all certificates of compulsory
education, Realschulen and Wirtschaftsschulen for 66.4 percent of all intermediate education
certificates, and grammar schools for 94.4 percent of all general university entrance certificates.
59.6 and 24.2 percent of all special university entrance certificates were granted by
Fachoberschulen or Berufsoberschulen, respectively. With 0.4 and 0.1 percent alternative ways
to the Allgemeine Hochschulreife, like night school (Abendgymnasium) for working people or
special talent examinations (Begabtenprüfung) play hardly any role. In 2003, the possibility of
acquiring a Fachhochschulreife by a TV-based course (Telekolleg II) produced not a single
graduate in Bavaria. The only significant change in this traditional pattern has been caused by the
introduction of the 10th grades at Hauptschulen. As a consequence, Hauptschulen provided 11.8
percent of all intermediate education certificates in 2003 (BMoE, 2004c).
6
3 T h e p e r f o r ma n c e o f t h e s y s t e m
According to the Ministry of Education, international comparisons like PISA 2000 or PIRLS, and
corresponding intra-German tests (PISA-E, IGLU-E) have demonstrated the outstanding quality
of the Bavarian school system. In the German context, Bavarian students showed the best
performance in all three aspects of the PISA tests, and Bavaria was ranked among the best
performing OECD countries (together with Baden-Wuerttemberg and Hesse) participating in the
primary school test PIRLS (Ebert, 2004). While most German L a e n d e r reached results clearly
below the OECD average in PISA, only Bavaria (in reading, mathematics and science) and
Baden-Wuerttemberg (in mathematics) were ranked significantly higher than the OECD average
of 500 points (Baumert et al., 2002: 62-73, 101-113, 130-136). In reading literacy, Bavaria (510
pts.) reached about the level of Sweden (516 pts.), Austria (507 pts.) and Belgium (507 pts.), in
mathematical literacy the score of 516 points equalled about the French (517 pts.) and Austrian
(515 pts.) results. 508 points in sciences put Bavaria close to the Czech Republic (511 pts.). With
448, 452 and 461 points, respectively, the worst performing German state, Bremen, hardly
reached the level of Portugal (470, 454 and 459 pts.) and Greece (474, 447 and 461 pts.). As a
consequence, Bavarian education policy took PISA as a proof of the quality of the traditional
three pillar school system and once more turned down ideas of fostering comprehensive schools
like in the Skandinavian countries since L a e n d e r with G e s a m t s c h u l e n had performed so bad.
A closer look at PISA, however, shows that the Bavarian system is just about mediocre when
compared to internationally leading countries. Seven of the eight Australian states or territories,
for example, reached clearly higher scores in all three areas of literacy (the exception was New
Brunswick). Similarly, seven of eight Canadian provinces (exception: Northern Territory)
outperformed Bavaria in reading literacy, which is why Bavaria has been ironically termed
“Canada’s Bremen” in the German discussion (Baumert et al., 2002: 223-225). PISA has
demonstrated that there are at least three main problems which the Bavarian school system faces:
(1) Bavaria is the German state in which access to higher education is strongest associated with
the socio-economic background of a student’s family. A child from an academic white-collar or
leading civil servant’s family, for example, is ten times more likely to attend a Gymnasium than
one from an skilled blue collar worker’s family. Even if one controls statistically for
7
cognitive skills and actual reading literacy, the odds ratio remains at 6:1 (Baumert et al., 2002:
166-169). Concerning the actual performance as measured by the PISA score for reading literacy,
the positive correlation between socio-economic origin and reading competence in Bavaria is
about the German average (Baumert et al., 2002: 181-185). Thus, while Germany as a whole is
one of the high income OECD countries with the least equality in educational opportunities vis-àvis the socio-economic and educational background of a student’s parents anyway (OECD, 2002:
152-154; OECD, 2003: 173-177), Bavaria has one of the most socioeconomically selective
school systems in Germany.
(2) In the Bavarian school system students from migrant families are clearly disadvantaged.
Given the same socio-economic background the likelihood of a child from a German family to
receive an intermediate or higher education certificate is more than twice a migrant student’s
chance to achieve such a educational level (Baumert et al., 2002: 198). While about 35 percent of
German students attend a Gymnasium and about 15.4 percent a Realschule, only 10.4 percent of
the children from non-German families attend a Gymnasium and less than 7 percent a Realschule.
Since migrant children from most other countries of the pre-enlargement European Union (EU15) show no significantly different distribution among types of school, it is the students from
traditional “guestworker” families that came to Germany mainly from Turkey, Greece and Italy
in the 1950s to the early 1970s, i.e. third generation migrants, who have especially serious
problems in the school system: While 20.2 percent and 4.1 percent of the German children attend
a Hauptschule or a Foerderschule, respectively, the numbers for Turks are 40.6 and 7.2 percent,
and for Italians 37 and 11.2 percent. The ratio of the numbers of students at a Gymnasium and at a
Hauptschule is 10:8 for the Germans, but 10:57 for the Italians and 10:77 for the Turks. There are
more children of Serbian nationality attending a Foerderschule in Bavaria than a Gymnasium or a
Realschule combined (Hüfner, 2005). The most important problem of those migrant groups is
their deficits in the command of the German language which is an important empirically
significant determinant of individual reading literacy rather than nationality in Germany (Fertig,
2003: 5-7).
(3) Bavaria has the highest number of Gymnasium drop-outs who then attend a Realschule or a
Hauptschule: In 2000, almost 21 percent of all 15-year-olds had left grammar school for a less
demanding school type since grade 5. Bavaria is the German state with the lowest ratio of
Gymnasium graduates in Germany. On the one hand, this may be attributed to the high quality of
selective top secondary education, but on the other hand it leads to a serious shortage of
8
potential university students and graduates. Gymnasium graduates are thus important for a
modern “knowledge society” and an economy characterized by services and scientific dynamics.
The pressure that the system exercises on students via its tough selection mechanisms including
the fundamental choice of school type at an age of ten and parents’ ambitions is also highlighted
by the development of the private school sector and by the boom in private lessons. Between
1999/2000 and 2003/04 the ratio of students attending private schools has risen continuously
from 9.1 to 10.1 percent of all pupils. While the supply of public schools remained about the
same (4,405 in 2000 vs. 4,402 in 2004), the number of private schools rose by almost 13 percent
from 979 in 2000 to 1,103 in 2004 (BMoE, 2004a). At the same time, the demand for private
lessons has increased massively. More than a quarter of German students take private lessons,
and the estimated turnover of suppliers of private lessons (individuals like university students or
companies covering about 22 percent of the market) is more than a billion Euros each year. In
Bavaria, about 20 percent of the primary school pupils take provate lessons in order to make the
vital step to a Realschule or a Gymnasium (Lindner, 2004). Obviously, many parents are not
satisfied with the public school system any more and try to improve their children’s chances to
gain a good education certificate and to find an adequate job by choosing private (and expensive)
alternatives. In other words, Bavaria might not use the intellectual potential of its people
efficiently in its quest for international economic competitiveness.
4 Projects and measures to improve school performance
Motivated by the suboptimal performance of German pupils in earlier international studies like
TIMSS (Third International Mathematics and Science Study; Baumert et al., 1997; Baumert, Bos
and Lehmann, 2000) as well as the huge public resonance of PISA 2000 the Bavarian government
has started a number of reform projects since the end of the 1990s. These measures mainly cover
five areas:
(1) Tightening the three pillar school system
Since the relatively good results of Bavarian students (in the German context) in recent tests are
taken as a legitimation of the three tier school system, one basic step has been to complete it and
make each pillar available for students after primary school. In order to do so, after
9
several years of testing, the six grade Realschule (“R6”) was introduced as the standard
intermediate secondary school in 2000. Since then, the choice after grade 4 is not only between a
Gymnasium or a Hauptschule, with the latter being a step towards the Realschule starting at grade
7, but between Gymnasium, Realschule and Hauptschule without any detour. The previous
Realschule starting at grade 7 (R4) has been phasing out since then. Since, as a consequence, the
Hauptschule has been increasingly perceived as a kind of residual school for losers of the school
system without any good opportunities in the labour market, two novelties have been introduced
there. First, special 10th grade classes (“M-tiers”) have been created at the Hauptschulen, which
shall give gifted students a chance to obtain the intermediate high school certificate like at a
Realschule. Second, for students without any prospect of successfully graduating from the
Hauptschule, there are now so-called “practical classes” (Praxisklassen). They shall provide
potential Hauptschule drop-outs with job qualifications and training positions by directly getting
in touch and cooperating with local firms. In 2003/04, about 13 percent of all Hauptschule pupils
attended an M-class, and about 0.2 percent a practical class. In 2003, 12.4 percent of all
Hauptschule graduates achieved an intermediate high school certificate while 31.7 percent
received a certificate of compulsory education and 45.8 percent a certificate of qualified basic
education. 10.1 left the Hauptschule without any certificate (Bayerischer Lehrer- und
Lehrerinnenverband, 2005: 2/4).
Given that the average age of German university graduates is 28 years, compared to about 24
years of their British or French counterparts, the Bavarian government decided to accelerate
schooling in Bavaria by cutting one year of Gymnasium education in 2003 (Hohlmeier, 2004: 4).
In 2004 the eight-grade Gymnasium (“G8”) with a reduced and more flexible curriculum and
more frequent lessons in the afternoon started as the new standard of higher secondary education
in Bavaria. Another measure to reduce the age of school graduates in Bavaria is the successively
decreased age of entrance to primary school. In 2003, the average age of a Bavarian school
beginner was 6.7 years, due to relatively moderate rules of eligibility and exemption for primary
schools. In early 2005 the Bavarian Parliament decided that the agerelated deadline for school
beginners should be lowered stepwise from July for the school year 2005/06 to December for
2010/11 (BMoE, 2005b). Thus from 2010 on, every kid getting six years old by 31 December
will be of school-age. As the school term in Bavaria begins in September this means that by 2008
it will be standard for primary schools to have five-year-old children in their first grades. The
government hopes to cut the average age at school entrance to 6.2 years (Hohlmeier, 2004: 4).
10
Until now, the typical core schooling time ends at noon in Bavaria. The good performance of
Skandinavian and Anglo-Saxon countries in PISA, however, has initiated an intense discussion
about the merits all-day schooling in Germany as well (Wendt, 2005). Apart from increased
opportunities to support children with learning problems this would be attractive for parents
(especially women) wishing to work more than part-time (or to work at all, for that matter). Allday schooling, if properly organized, could thus have positive effects on educational performance
and on the labour market (by the growth effects of increased supply). The Bavarian government,
despite ideological reservations of the ruling party concerning the dissolution of traditional family
structures, has responded to these arguments and intends to increase the supply of all-day schools.
Since 2002 there is a project with seven all-day Hauptschulen, sponsored by a number of
employers’ associations of the Bavarian industry (BMoE, 2004e). Due to lessons in the afternoon
on at least two days per week (BMoE, 2004e: 9), the new Gymnasium will also be a step towards
all-day schooling. In 2003/04 there were 39 genuine all-day public schools in Bavaria: 30
Hauptschulen, 3 Realschulen and 6 grammar schools (G8s) (BMoE, 2003a: 6). Conservative
attitudes and a general lack of money has prevented all-day schooling from becoming a core issue
of Bavarian educational reform so far. Instead, the government has been relying on demanddriven, self-organized and only partly state-sponsored projects realized by schools offering
aspects of all-day schooling to interested parents, especially in the areas of lunchtime
alimentation of children and homework assistance in the afternoons. In 2003, about 80 percent of
the primary schools provided supervision until 1 p.m. and a total of 470 schools had some kind of
all-day offers (Hohlmeier, 2003a: 23). Officially, the government counts on “offers following the
needs of families, respects the free choice of mothers and fathers, and trusts in the pedagogical
competence of schools and local youth assistance institutions” instead of applying “unitary
concepts and spoon-feeding” the citizens (Hohlmeier, 2003a: 21).
(2) Quality management and evaluation of school performance
Following the recent shift of education policy towards an output-oriented assessment of the
school system, the Bavarian government has introduced several instruments of quality
management. Following the Bavarian tradition of centralized final exams at secondary schools
and the definition of curriculum-related grade-specific standards of competences, annual state
tests at primary and secondary schools have been introduced since 1999. These tests are to give
11
an overview of the performance of Bavarian schools and enable individual schools to assess and
improve their relative positions. Since 2003, “orientation tests” (Orientierungsarbeiten) in
mathematics and German have been compulsory in grades 2 and 3 (BMoE, 2003b). Since
2004/05 there are obligatory tests (Jahrgangsstufentests) in mathematics and German in grades 6
and 8 of the Hauptschule and Realschule, and in English in grade 7. Gymnasium students are
tested in German in grades 6 and 8, in mathematics in grades 8 and 10, and in English in grades 6
and 10. There are also tests German and English in grade 8 of the Wirtschaftsschulen (BMoE,
2005c).
At the same time the procedures to join a Realschule have become a little easier though no less
complicated. So far, in order to maintain a minimum standard, the qualification for being
accepted at a Realschule was an average mark of 2.33 or less2 in the three main primary school
subjects (mathematics, German, and science and local studies). Pupils with a worse average had
to pass test lessons in maths and German at the Realschule. Students with an average of 2.66 who
failed the test lessons by receiving marks 4 in each subject could still attend the Realschule after a
discussion of parents with teachers. Since 2004, students with an average of 2.66 but with marks
2/3 or 3/2 in German and maths in primary schools may proceed to the Realschule without test
lessons after an information round with teachers if their parents want them to. Prerequisites for
attending a Gymnasium are not changed: Students with an average mark of 2.0 or better in the
three subjects mentioned as well as those with an average of 2.33 (of which 2.0 in maths and
German) qualify directly for grammar school. The others with an average of 2.33 may join a
Gymnasium after a discussion of their parents with the teachers of the receiving school (not the
primary teachers any more). Pupils with an average of 3.0 have to pass test lessons in maths and
German with marks 3/4 or 4/3 or better. Since 2004, test lessons at Realschulen, grammar schools
and Wirtschaftsschulen have been provided centrally by the Ministry in order to guarantee a statewide equal minimum standard. From 2005/06 on, students wishing to change from a Hauptschule
to a Realschule or a Gymnasium after grade 5 will have to have a minimum average mark of 2.5
or 2.0, respectively, in German and mathematics (BMoE, 2004g). Until now, an average mark of
2.0 or better in German, maths and English is necessary for attending the 6th grade of a Realschule
for pupils having passed the 5th grade of a Hauptschule. The same rule holds for students
changing from a Realschule 5th grade to a Gymnasium 6th grade. Note that changing from a
Hauptschule to a Gymnasium is typically possible only from grade 5 to grade 5, i.e. the 5th grade
of a Hauptschule is considered
2
The school grading system in Germany has six levels of marks, ranging from 1 (very good) to 6 (failed).
12
more or less worthless for a Gymnasium. Joining grade 6 of a Gymnasium after grade 5 of a
Hauptschule requires passing of a special entrance examination, just like changing for students
with marks worse than the officially necessary average.
In 2003, school supervision authorities and a new division of the State Institute for School
Quality and Educational Research (ISB), the ISB Quality Agency (Meinel, 2004) have started
external evaluation of Bavarian schools. Evaluation teams with teachers, university staff and
representatives of parents and industry visit schools selected by the Ministry at the beginning of a
school year for several days and produce a report with recommendations for improvements of
school performance. The report shall cover all aspects of school performance and its
determinants, including school culture, class conduct, individual support, assistance for selforganized work, variability of teaching methods or sustainability of learning (Ohrnberger, 2004:
7-8). After a joint conference of all people involved and comments by the school the report is
taken as a basis for objectives of further school development which, officially, the school and the
school supervision (i.e. the Ministry or its agencies on the regional or county level) agree upon.
While this external evaluation process is still being tested, the long-term aim is a regular
evaluation of all Bavarian schools every five years (Ohrnberger, 2004: 8).
Internal evaluation and school develpoment are another way promoted for improving the quality
of Bavarian schools (Schiessl, 2001). Based on the commitment of teachers and directors, and
supported by recommendations by the ISB and ministerial advisors, schools are motivated to
review their organization and communication structures, teaching methods, and interaction and
cooperation among teachers, students and parents. In order to make selfassessment more effective
and efficient, schools are urged to use instruments originating from business adminsitration, like
the model of the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) or an evaluation
programme “bilanz ziehen” (“taking stock”) provided by the ISB (Hohlmeier, 2003b: 7). The
Ministry of Education wants to increase incentives for internal evaluation measures by a prize for
especially innovative schools (i.s.i. – Innere Schulentwicklung Innovationspreis/Internal school
development innovation prize) which is officially called the “Oscar for innovative schools”
(Stiftung Bildungspakt Bayern/SBB, 2005a), introduced in 2001, or a quality label “Center of
Excellence“ for grammar schools successful in quality management (SBB, 2005b).
13
(3) Improvement of teachers’ training
Like in the rest of Germany, all teachers are graduates from a university and have to pass two
state exams before becoming civil servants at school in Bavaria. The first state exam is taken at
the end of a teacher university program. Teachers’ studies typically cover two academic subjects
including their didactics (one consolidated subject of choice and pedagogy for primary school
teachers), and educational science. The second state exam takes place after a training phase of
two years in school accompanied by seminars organized by the school supervision authorities.
This pattern of teacher training has focused very much on theoretical and scientific academic
qualifications in the past. More often than not this has resulted in methodological and practical
deficits especially of secondary school teachers who tend to experience a “reality shock” in
school. Therefore new examination regulations for the first state exam were introduced in 2002,
emphasizing the role of internships and practical experience in the first phase of teacher training.
The new regulations (BMoE, 2002b) demand:
− an internship of 8 weeks in a firm, in order to give future teachers some insight in job realities
outside school,
− an “orientation internship” in school of 3 to 4 weeks prior to the start of university studies, in
order to give would-be teachers an opportunity to reassess their suitability for the profession,
− a pedagogical internship in class of 3 weeks, focussing on surveillance of students’ behaviour,
teaching methods, social and educational problems, and assessment of own lessons,
− a didactic internship of 3 weeks, containing subject-related curricula and methods (for future
Gymnasium teachers, the pedagogical and the didactical interships are combined and last about 5
weeks), and
− a didactic intership of 4 hours a week in one semester during lecture time.
Moreover, there is a project “exercitium paedagogicum” that gives students the opportunity to
volunteer for accompanying a class and its teacher in everyday work on one day per week during
one school year (or for a block of 250 hours). Thus future teachers are expected to improve their
practical qualifications as early as in their second year of studies, and to relieve experienced
teachers by giving them additional time to support especially weak (or, for that matter, gifted)
pupils (SBB, 2005c).
The regulations of in-service training for teachers were also changed in 2002. Since then, all
Bavarian teachers have to attend an equivalent of 12 days of courses every four years. These
14
courses of variable duration are organized by the Bavarian Academy for Teachers’ In-Service
Training and Personnel Management (Akademie für Lehrerfortbildung und Personalfuehrung) in
Dillingen, local community media centers, the Ministry of Education, local and regional school
supervision authorities, and schools (for their own staff). All schools have to develop inservice
training plans defining their staff’s specific training needs, and all institutions involved in the
training programs have to evaluate their offers in order to improve the quality of courses. Course
topics cover all areas from subject-related innovations (e.g. in mathematics, science, music or
sports) and interdisciplinary educational tasks (e.g. road safety or media education) to
pedagogical issues (e.g. diagnosis of learning deficiencies, support for weaker students or coping
with social problems) and school management (e.g. methods of evaluation). In 2003, more than
19,000 teachers took part in courses offered by institutions other than their own schools (BMoE,
2004d: 173-176).
(4) Enhancement of school autonomy
Officially, Bavarian education policy relies more and more on local and voluntary commitment of
schools, teachers, pupils and parents in order to improve school performance. As a consequence,
the traditionally very strict hierarchy of school administration and supervision tends to become
more flexible. Instead of keeping the structures of a highly formalized and regulated system of
public administration which is typical for Germany and especially Bavaria, the Ministry of
Education states that “schools are too complex a system for unitary, uniform rules being able to
guarantee a maximum level of equality and comparability” of school performance (Hohlmeier,
2003b: 6). Therefore, red tape is to be cut and autonomy of schools is to be increased. Schools
shall be granted more competences in order to improve their professional and pedagogical
performance in the long run, and to develop specific profiles and competences that might be
attractive for students and parents.
According to this new aim of education policy, there has been a pilot project MODUS 21 –
“Modell Unternehmen Schule im 21. Jahrhundert” (“Model: School as an enterprise in the 21st
century”) testing “how much autonomy schools need on the one hand, and how much central
direction on the other hand” (SBB, 2005d) since 2002. By late 2004, 44 school were taking part
in the project. MODUS 21 takes account of four areas: quality of lessons and education,
personnel management, intra- and extra-school partnerships, and administration of finances other
than outlays for personnel. Every school decides how its new relative autonomy is used,
15
e.g. in recruitment of teachers for vacancies, acquisition of equipment, innovation in teaching
methods, or organization of timetables and lessons. So far new models of individual support for
students and modern ways of examination have been priorities in participating schools (SBB,
2005d). Since the school year 2003/04 several successful initiatives of MODUS 21 schools have
been generalized for all Bavarian schools. For example, they have been granted the possibility to
organize lessons more flexible including deviations from the usual 45-minutes scheme at German
schools. Classes may be combined in joint lectures in order to make teachers available for
assistance of weaker students, and projects and lessons may be organized beyond strict class and
grade structures (Hohlmeier, 2003a: 13).
Another project, “Focus Hauptschule”, started in 2004 and aims at strengtheing the attractiveness
and qualification tasks of Hauptschulen. Three secondary schools in Nuremberg have defined
their special profiles in the areas of (1) preparation for work and employment, (2) music, arts and
sports, and (3) languages, literature and media, in order to provide actual school options to choose
from for students and to improve their labour market opportunities. One important prerequisite of
this project is the suspension of the traditional formal rule that students have to attend the school
of their local district (Sprengelpflicht), which still applies to all pupils of primary schools and
Hauptschulen in Bavaria (BMoE, 2004h; SBB, 2005e).
(5) Improvement of individual support for children
One important result of PISA was that German - and Bavarian - students of non-German origin
tend to have far more serious problems at school than natives. The most important issue is
command of the German language. In order to improve the language competence of the 87,000
students of foreign nationality at primary schools and Hauptschulen in Bavaria and thus increase
their opportunities to achieve at school, a number of measures have been taken. In 2002 the ISB
developed a special language test (Sprachstandsdiagnose) for children in transition from
kindergarten to primary school, which was first applied in 2004/05. About 4,200 children were
tested by this four-step screening method, of which about 2,400 were found to need assistance to
improve their German. Actual support is to be provided by language courses and, if necessary, by
special language and transition classes (Sprachlernklassen/Übergangsklassen) for foreign
students at primary school (BMoE, 2005d). Another way of support are preparatory courses
(Vorkurse Deutsch) for kindergarten kids. These courses of one hour of German every day take
place in May to July, i.e. before the actual
16
start of school in September. In 2003/04 there were 336 preparatory courses with about 2,800
children. 116 of them were organized at kindergartens, 220 at primary schools (BMoE, 2005d).
Since a fundamental problem of learning German is the lack of German being spoken at home,
another idea of the Ministry has been to involve mothers in language courses. Based on the
cooperation of schools, local communities, private sponsors and institutions of post-school
education, mothers of non-German students shall attend courses at their kids’ schools. Thus they
shall promote their children’s command of German not only by their own increased language
competence but also by getting involved in school life. The project is based on a similar example
realized at primary schools in Munich in 1999/2000 (BMoE, 2005d). Between mid-2003 and
early 2005, about 100 courses were organized successfully (Dirnaichner, 2005: 94). Furthermore,
the disadvantaged position of foreign pupils in Bavarian schools is to be improved by a project
“Talent im Land” started in 2005. Each year 50 gifted foreign students in Bavaria will receive a
grant in order to be able to attend a Gymnasium and reach the Allgemeine Hochschulreife. The
official aim is “to show the other face of immigration and to encourage youngsters with a
migration background. (...) Education fosters integration. We foster education” (SBB, 2005f).
Apart from providing assistance for foreign students, recent Bavarian education policy tries to
improve the general support for children at age 3 to 6. In fact, kindergarten and primary school
have been separated areas of education so far. As research results from modern neuro science and
psychology, and experiences in other countries, e.g. in the French école maternelle indicate that
especially young children have a great potential of learning, the Bavarian government intends to
promote actual school-like learning in the kindergarten. Therefore a curriculum for kindergartens
is currently introduced, and cooperation between kindergartens and primary schools is increased
(Hohlmeier and Stewens, 2003). In 2004 a project “KiDZ – Kindergarten der Zukunft”
(“kindergarten of the future”) was initiated, in which kindergarten and grade 1 of the primary
school are combined. The staffs of both institutions shall cooperate in order to create a learning
environment with a smooth transition from “learning in playing” to “playing in learning” (SBB,
2005g).
Finally, the introduction of G8 is also accompanied by the intention to improve individual
assistance to students. Here, similar to the established regulations at primary schools
(Förderunterricht/”lessons for assistance”), two or three hours (Intensivierungsstunden/
17
”lessons for enhancement”) of the weekly schedule in grades 5 to 10 are reserved for
individualized offers according to the pupils’ specific needs and interests (BMoE, 2004f: 10).
One interesting aspect of this catalogue of reform projects for Bavarian schools is the choice of
instruments and institutions for implementation. The Bavarian government not only relies on
traditional administrative structures like the Ministry, the state school supervision authorities on
the regional and county levels, and public institutions like the universities, the ISB or the
Academy in Dillingen. It also tries to get the parents and the local communities involved, and
cooperates closely with the economy. Actually, almost every project that has been initiated since
2000 has been organized by a joint foundation of the state of Bavaria and Bavarian firms. The
S tiftu n g
B ild u n g sp a kt
B a yern
(Foundation Education Pact Bavaria) is a private-public-
partnership established in October 2000 with a founding capital of EUR 4.9 million. By late
2004, 120 firms had joined the Foundation which has received about EUR 3.2 million in
donations and has spent about EUR 3.4 million on about 125 projects since 2000 (SBB, 2005h).
5 I mp l e me n t a t i o n a n d p r o b l e ms o f t h e r e f o r ms
Since the publication of the results of the most recent international comparative education studies,
especially PISA, Bavarian policy has obviously been quite creative and innovative. A whole
range of projects and reforms have been initiated which, each by itself, cover important aspects of
improving school performance. While these steps of reform take account of many crucial aspects
cited in the scientific literature or demonstrated in experiences in other countries, their actual
implementation has been facing a number of practical and overall systematic obstacles. One may
distinguish five areas of essential shortcomings that will have to be overcome if Bavarian
education policy is to achieve its aims of increasing international competitiveness as well as
domestic justice of the Bavarian school system:
(1) When one tries to assess the effects of the reform projects concerning the structure of the
school system one quickly recognizes that, contrary to the official targets, the tightening of the
traditional Bavarian system has intensified its selective character. Certainly, this does not hold for
the total distribution of students over the various types of schools. In 8th grade, when adjustment
processes (changes of school types) have practically finished, about 26 to 27
18
percent of all students typically attend a Gymnasium, about 26 percent a Realschule and 37 to 39
percent a Hauptschule. These figures have been constant since the end of the 1980s (BMoE,
2004d: 113). But a closer look at the official data reveals that the three pillars of the system have
become more and more closed: In 1989/90 the ratio of students joining a Gymnasium after grade
4 to those coming from a Hauptschule after grade 5 was 7.6. Since then it has risen constantly to
23.9 in 2002/03 and 25.6 in 2003/04.
A similar effect seems to be generated by the introduction of the R6. While in the old system (R4
with grade 7 to 10) the ratio of students coming from a Hauptschule to a Realschule after grade 6
to those joining after grade 7 only grew from 5.4 to 5.8 between 1989/90 and 1998/99, the ratio of
students joining after primary school grade 4 to those changing after Hauptschule grade 5
according to the new model has already increased from 2.9 in 2000/0 1 to 3.9 in 2003/04 (BMoE,
2004d: 114). Thus, not only is the choice of school types (and potential qualifications and
certificates) a decision made at the early age of 10 for most Bavarian students, it has even become
more and more irrevocable as far as subsequent positive vertical mobility is concerned. In other
words, once parents and children have decided on the path of the kids’ education, the way
upwards is more or less blocked or at least excessively difficult. It is not surprising that, under
these circumstances, parents try to make their children attend a school of as high as possible a
level, i.e. a Gymnasium or at least a Realschule at virtually all cost, even if this means that this is
more than their children are able to handle. This explains the increasing attractiveness of private
schools and private lessons in Bavaria mentioned above.
(2) For several years now school policy as well as all other fields of education and general policy
have been dominated by the overpowering aim of a balanced budget by 2006 declared by the
government (Stoiber, 2003: 4). Setting this strict target has been mainly motivated by the
upcoming federal elections in that same year and the ruling party’s ambition to present Bavaria as
a role model for the whole of Germany. Thus, Bavarian reform policies have not only been facing
the usual fiscal problems of public education but have even been submitted to a massive pressure
of saving money. Basically, any current Bavarian education reform has to avoid additional costs
and therefore suffers from a fundamental structural handicap. As a result, for example, the
number of language classes (Sprachlernklassen) for the almost 90,000 foreign students (half of
which may be needing assistance for improving their German) at primary schools have been
limited to 220 due to financial reasons. In part, language courses for foreign pupils have to be
paid for by private sponsors (Schindler, 2005).
19
Moreover, Bavaria has experienced a serious shortage of teachers in recent years. New
employment of teachers has been low in general, and, in a parallel reaction at the universities, less
students have enlisted for teacher programs in science. As a consequence, there is not enough
qualified personnel for specialized tasks like e.g. teaching German to non-native speakers. For
several years there have not been enough mobile reserves for teachers who are unavailable for
service because of illness, pregnancy etc. Facing a lack of teachers, especially primary schools
and H a u p t s c h u l e n sometimes have to create makeshift combined classes of more than 40
students in order to keep up lessons ( M u e n c h n e r M e r k u r , 6 April 2005, p. 9). In 2003, the
Ministry of Education has officially recommended that qualified parents take over lessons at
primary schools as part-time substitutes for missing teachers (Dannhäuser, 2003), e.g. forest
rangers. At secondary schools, university graduates without any training in pedagogy or didactics
are accepted for service at school and shall make up for their schoolrelated deficiencies in
seminars accompanying their job practice. Since 2002, for example, the Ministry has been trying
to attract graduates in physics for service in grammar schools (BMoE, 2003c). In 2001, a similar
scheme was announced for graduates in physics and software engineering to recruit R e a l s c h u l e
teachers (BMoE, 2001). In 2002, the teacher’s profession at vocational schools was opened for
graduates in electronics, mechanical engineering, business administration and economics (BMoE,
2002c).
Under these circumstances the increased involvement of parents fostered by the Ministry seems
to be a method of saving money rather than opening schools for new cooperative structures, e.g.
in lunchtime alimentation of students, as substitutes for missing teachers at primary schools, or as
sponsors for books and hardware (Junkers and Nelles, 2005: 34).
(3) Shortages of personnel at schools, increasing working time, growing social and educational
deficits of students, and a general feeling of insecurity because of the numerous reform steps and
innovations decreed by the Ministry have resulted in growing exhaustion and rising frustration
among active teachers (Dannhäuser, 2003b; Dauber and Vollstädt, 2004; Hüfner, 2004). About
50 percent of all teachers quit their job before reaching the official pension age (which is between
63 and 65 years), typically between 51 and 56 years. In Bavaria, more than half of them suffer
from burnt-out syndrome mainly caused by the stressful perception of socially difficult students,
high working hours, and too big classes (Häfner and Bauer, 2005: 85).
20
A bad image in the public (BMoE, 2002d) and a lack of adequate (material and immaterial)
reward for getting involved add to the growing disappointment and passiveness among teachers.
In Bavaria primary school, Ha u p tsch u le and R ea lsch u le teachers have no real opportunity of
getting promoted other than giving up their actual teaching in class and take over functions in the
school administration and supervision authorities (like school director or director of training
seminars) or in the Ministry. As a consequence, young, enthusiastic teachers who are
indispensable for actual implementation of reforms are quickly disillusioned and frustrated
because of missing opportunities to rise, or leave schools in order to promote their career and thus
are lost for actual “frontline” tasks. Moreover, existing incentives to get involved in school
reform by working in teacher training or local school administration are so low that, more often
than not, instruction-related positions like seminar director are only perceived as unsatisfactory
stopovers by staff wishing to make a career.
Inactivity or clinging to the old ways of doing things at schools is intensified by a tradition of
conservative civil servant mentality of teachers. This mentality still makes any attempt of
extraordinary involvement or innovation at least dubious as far as colleagues’ (and, for that
matter, the Ministry’s) perceptions are concerned. Working in teams or cooperation with parents,
for example, are often seen as unwelcome intrusions in one’s style of teaching or as signs of
distrust in one’s performance. In brief, apart from structural and budgetary constraints,
improvements of every-day work in Bavarian schools are hampered by teachers’ general fears of
innovations due to the lack of a straightforwardly defined new role as education experts and
managers of learning processes, by their deficits in perceived personal responsibility for reform,
and by their inadequate know-how about ways to actually improve their lessons (Seitz, 2005).
Moreover, self-selection incentives of teachers in Bavaria, as in the rest of Germany, seem far
from optimal. Facing the persistent economic problems of the country, especially in the labour
market, many university students choose to become a teacher because of the civil service status
which guarantees job security, decent pay and relatively favourable pension schemes. To them,
love of children, the wish to contribute to young people’s education and chances in life, and
preparedness to work in an innovative team seem of minor importance. Such conditions certainly
do not create a positive environment for reforms in a highly complex social system in which
individual and team performance depend crucially on the personality and openness of
21
the people involved. One obvious point in the discussion is therfore the idea that teachers should
lose their civil servant status in order to create more incentives by e.g. the potential threat of
being laid off in case of bad performance. This, however, might increase the feeling of insecurity
and frustration among teachers even further, and create new problems for the government. There
could be e.g. more difficulties in setting working times or in decreeing removals of personnel,
which is relatively easy with civil servants who have no genuine trade unions and must not go on
strike, for example (Bayerischer Beamtenbund, 2004).
(4) While the projects introduced by Bavarian education policy in recent years are based on good
pedagogical ideas their fundamental problem is their experimental character. Except for the
reforms in the three tier system, the introduction of centralized tests and the changes in teacher
training all projects are only steps relating to just a handful of the more than 5,5 00 Bavarian
schools. Their expansion to the whole school system is hampered by deficits in teacher
motivation, and most importantly, by the general lack in resources. Moreover there are still
massive ministerial reservations about giving up command and control competences, which
might be a result of the CSU maintaining “the tradition of a national political culture based on a
state apparatus” (Sutherland, 2001: 14).
One may add that most projects actually point at weakening and dissolving the strictly selective,
formalized Bavarian school system and therefore hint at some kind of comprehensive system in
the long run. Having to stick to the experimental character of many projects might thus be
politically welcome as a way of postponing the looming decision about a really fundamental
change in the traditional Bavarian school system and educational philosophy. The political
eagerness to initiate reforms seems motivated at least in part by the intention to demonstrate
problem awareness and leadership in the face of public opinion that has become alerted in
education matters by PISA and its aftermath. Thus, in a way, recent Bavarian education policy
has followed typical political economy aspects of modern democracies: It has avoided
fundamental reforms potentially hurting important parts of the conservative electorate and has
preferred some kind of declaratory, seemingly activist policy instead.
(5 )
Finally, one has to mention the problem that Bavarian teachers lack a coherent position vis-à-
vis central education issues and are therefore not able to articulate a joint point of view in
discussions with politicians. Basically, Bavaria’s most important teachers’ associations are
organized along school types (and salary classes), with the Leh rer- u n d Leh rerin n en verb a n d
22
(BLLV) representing primary school and Hauptschule teachers, the Realschullehrerverband
(BRLV) Realschule teachers, and the Philologenverband (BPhV) Gymnasium teachers.
Realschule and grammar school teacher are significantly better paid than their colleagues at
primary schools and Hauptschulen while Gymnasium teachers are the only ones who also have a
system of in-school promotion positions.3 Typically, the BPhV has close ties to the ruling
Christian Socialists while the BLLV sympathizes more or less with the opposition Social
Democrats’ positions. Although BPhV-government relations have cooled down recently due to
the introduction of G8 and the resulting potential danger for employment opportunities of
Gymnasium teachers, the basic conservative attitude of the influential BPhV strongly supports
maintaining the traditional three pillar school system. Apart from ideological aspects, the current
situation of public finances has also intensified traditional distribution conflicts between the
school types and thus between their associations, especially since the introduction of R6 and G8.
For the government, this is a rather convenient situation since in most cases it faces only
fragmentary public opposition by the actual experts and upholders of structural school reform.
Instead, it has been adhering to a policy style of relying on external advisers, among whom
management consultants and representatives of Bavarian business seem to play an important role.
As a consequence, Bavarian education policy has been tending to take over management and
economic perspectives (and trends) that might not always be in line with concepts of sustainable
pedagogy. In brief, one core criticism of recent Bavarian school reforms has been that they seem
to degrade schools to subcontractors of the economy. They thus reflect a technocratic,
reductionist view of education which is rather fashionable in the current public discussion
(Müller, 2003).
6 Conclusion
Reviewing the current efforts to improve education and their constraints, one may conclude that
there are two basic restrictions for school reform in Bavaria: the deep-rooted, traditional
conservatism typical for this German state, resulting in an almost sacrosanct, highly selective
three tier school system, and its relatively good performance within Germany, providing
additional arguments against too much structural innovation. As a consequence, it seems highly
unlikely that Bavaria will experience really fundamental educational reforms during the next
years, despite the activist multitude of projects initiated by the government. Nevertheless, even
3
There are also special regulations for teachers at F o e r d e r s c h u l e n which are excluded here.
23
within the existing school system several measures should be taken or intensified in order to
improve its performance in an international context. These include (1) improvement of teachers’
incentives, e.g. by introducing promotion possibilities for primary and all secondary school
teachers, (2) better training of teachers, e.g. by more in-class training with experienced colleagues
and cooperation with social workers etc., (3) intensified cooperation of teachers and parents,
genuinely opening schools to their local environment, (4) improved individual support of the
youngest children, e.g. by further integrating kindergartens and primary schools, and (5)
intensified individual support for pupils giving them a chance to develop according to their
potential instead of their parents’ socioeconomic status (Futasz, 2003; Winkel, 2003).
Given that formal organization and structures of the Bavarian school system are not debatable in
the given political and financial context, it is ironical that future improvements seem to depend
crucially on an aspect which the former Bavarian Minister of Education, Alois Hundhammer,
emphasized in 1948: When turning down the U.S. attempts of school reform during reeducation
he argued that it was “the teachers’ spirit”, not institutions that are decisive in education and
educational performance (Deffner, 2004: 257). For a sustainably better performance of the
Bavarian education system, this seems to remain the only, albeit just gradually feasible
opportunity.
Ref erences
(Note the following abbreviations in the text:
BMoE – Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs, SBB – S t i f t u n g B i l d u n g s p a k t B a y e r n )
Baumert, J. et al. (1997) Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht im internationalen
Vergleich. Deskriptive Befunde (Opladen: Leske + Budrich).
Baumert, J. et al. (eds.) (2002) PISA 2000 – Die Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland im
Vergleich (Opladen: Leske + Budrich).
Baumert, J., W. Bos and Lehmann, R. (eds.) (2000) TIMSS/III. Die Dritte Internationale
Mathematik- und Naturwissenschaftsstudie – Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Bildung
am Ende der Schullaufbahn (Opladen: Leske + Budrich).
24
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs (2001) Bayern will Diplomphysiker
und Diplominformatiker für das Lehramt an Realschulen gewinnen. Press release no. 118 (25
April 2001).
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs (2002a) Schule und Bildung in
Bayern 2002 (Munich: Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs).
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs (2002b) LPO I Lehramtsprüfungsordnung I (Munich: Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs).
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs (2002c) Bayern öffnet
Berufsschullehramt für Diplominhaber. Press release no. 42 (4 February 2002).
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs (2002d) Das Image der Lehrerinnen
und Lehrer. Ergebnisse eines Forschungsprojektes und mögliche Maßnahmen. http://www. km.
bayern.de/a3/r9/forum/lehrerimage/ (March 2003).
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs (2003a) Neues im Schuljahr 2003/04
– Informationen von der Pressestelle des Kultusministeriums (Munich: Ministry für Education
and Cultural Affairs).
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs (2003b) Nach den Pfingstferien
verpflichtende Orientierungsarbeiten für alle Drittklässler. Press release no. 181 (5 June 2003).
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs (2003c) Bayern macht erneutes
Angebot an Diplomphysiker, in den Vorbereitungsdienst für das Gymnasium einzusteigen. Press
release no. 263 (22 August 2003).
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs (2004a) Schule und Bildung in
Bayern – Grunddaten allgemein bildende und berufliche Schulen zusammen. http://www. km.
bayern.de/km/schule/statistik/bildung/uebersicht/sgesamt.shtml (March 2005).
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs (2004b) Schule und Bildung in
Bayern – Gesamtübersicht über die Ausgaben des Landes und der Gemeinden für Schulen.
http://www. km. bayern.de/km /schule/st atistik/bildung/uebe rsicht/schulen. shtml (March 2005).
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs (2004c) Schule und Bildung in
Bayern – Grunddaten Abschlüsse an Schulen. http://www. km. bayern.de/km/schule/statistik/
bildung/uebersicht/abschl.shtml (March 2005).
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs (2004d) Schule und Bildung in
Bayern 2004 (Munich: Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs).
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs (2004e) Messe der
Ganztagshauptschulen. Press release no. 159 (21 June 2004).
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs; (2004f) G8 - Das neue Gymnasium in
Bayern (Munich: Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs).
25
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs: (2004g) Änderungen beim
Übertrittsverfahren ab dem Schuljahr 2004/05. Letter to the directors of primary schoos,
Hauptschulen, Realschulen, Gymnasien and Wirtschaftsschulen of 7 October 2004.
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs; (2004h) Kultusstaatssekretär Freller
und Oberbürgermeister Dr. Maly geben Startschuss zum Modellversuch “Fokus Hauptschule” in
Nürnberg. Press release no. 153 (16 June 2004).
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs: (2005a) Welche Formen von
Wirtschafts
schulen
gibt
es?
http://www.
km.
bayern.de/km/schule/schularten/
berufliche/wirtschaftsschule/thema/00375/index. shtml (March 2005).
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs: (2005b) Vorverlegung des
Einschulungsalters. http://www. km. bayern.de/ (March 2005).
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs: (2005c) Maßnahmen zur
Qualitätssicherung an bayerischen Schulen. http://www. km. bayern.de/km/schule/
qualitaetssicherung/massnahmen/ (April 2005).
Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs: (2005d) Förderung von Schülern mit
http://www.
km.
bayern.de/km/schule/schularten/
nichtdeutscher
Herkunftssprache.
allgemein/fremdschuelerfoerderung/ (April 2005).
Bayerischer Beamtenbund (2004) Diskussion um das Beamtenverhältnis spitzt sich zu,
Bayerische Schule – Zeitschrift des Bayerischen Lehrer- und Lehrerinnenverbandes 57 (3): 2425.
Bayerischer Lehrer- und Lehrerinnenverband (2005) Bildungsangebote und Schülerbewegungen
an Hauptschulen in Bayern - Abschlüsse und Ausbildungschancen von Hauptschüler/-innen.
Paper provided at the conference “S.O.S. Hauptschule – Die Zukunft der Hauptschule in
Bayern”, Munich, 30 April 2005.
Dannhäuser, A. (2003a) Eltern als Hilfslehrer?, Bayerische Schule – Zeitschrift des Bayerischen
Lehrer- und Lehrerinnenverbandes 56 (11): 8.
Dannhäuser, A. (2003b) Alle Last den Lehrerinnen und Lehrern?, Bayerische Schule –
Zeitschrift des Bayerischen Lehrer- und Lehrerinnenverbandes 56 (12): 4-7.
Dauber, H. and Vollstädt, W. (2004) Psychosoziale Belastungen im Lehramt, Die Deutsche
Schule 96: 359-369.
Deffner, S. (2004) Die Nachkriegswirren im bayerischen Volksschulwesen 1945-1954 unter
besonderer Berücksichtigung der amerikanischen Re-educationsbemühun gen. Dargestellt
anhand konkreter Verhältnisse und Geschehnisse bevorzugt im bayerischen Franken (Ph.D.
dissertation) (Nuremberg: University of Erlangen-Nuremberg).
Dirndaichner, U. (2005) “Mama lernt Deutsch“ – ein erfolgreiches Projekt, Schulverwaltung.
Zeitschrift für Schulleitung, Schulaufsicht und Schulkultur (Ausgabe Bayern) 28 (3): 94-98.
26
Ebert, U. (2004) Internationale Grundschul-Lese-Untersuchung (IGLU) – Der Ländervergleich,
Lehrerinfo – Ein Service des Bayerischen Kultusministeriums für die Lehrerinnen und Lehrer
01/04: 8-9.
Fertig, M. (2003) Who is to Blame? The Determinants of German Students’ Achievement in the
PISA 2000 Study, IZA Discussion Paper 739, Bonn.
Friedl, E. and Poehlmann, W. (2004) Das bayerische Förderschulsystem nach dem 1. August
2003, Bayerische Schule – Zeitschrift des Bayerischen Lehrer- und Lehrerinnenverbandes 57
(5): 26-29.
Futasz, M. (2003) Wo bleibt das klare Ja zum heterogenen Lernen? - Mehr Wertschätzung für
den Lehrerberuf gefordert, Bayerische Schule – Zeitschrift des Bayerischen Lehrer- und
Lehrerinnenverbandes 56 (11): 2.
Häfner, S. and Bauer, J. (2005) Burn-out – und was man dagegen tun kann, Schulverwaltung.
Zeitschrift für Schulleitung, Schulaufsicht und Schulkultur (Ausgabe Bayern) 28 (3): 84-87.
Hohlmeier, M. (2003a) Regierungserklärung der Bayerischen Staatsministerin für Unterricht
und Kultus am 25. Juni 2003 im Bayerischen Landtag (Munich: Ministry for Education and
Cultural Affairs).
Hohlmeier, M.: (2003b) Qualitätssicherung an bayerischen Schulen, Lehrerinfo – Ein Service
des Bayerischen Kultusministeriums für die Lehrerinnen und Lehrer 03/03: 5-8.
Hohlmeier, M.: (2004) In 8 Jahren zum Abitur, EZ – Die Elternzeitschrift des Bayerischen
Kultusministeriums 01 /04: 4-6.
Hohlmeier, M. and Stewens, C. (2003) PISA, IGLU und die Folgen. Die Notwendigkeit einer
kindgerechten frühen Förderung, insbesondere im Kindergarten, Politische Studien 54 (special
issue 3): 56-69.
Hüfner, G. (2004) Arbeitsbelastung in Schulen – Ausmaß und Bereiche von Belastungen,
Möglichkeiten der Entlastung. Erste Befragungsergebnisse, www. bllv.de (April 2004).
Hüfner, G. (2005) Kein Platz für Ausländer. Kinder von Migranten sind im bayerischen
Schulwesen benachteiligt, Bayerische Schule – Zeitschrift des Bayerischen Lehrer- und
Lehrerinnenverbandes 58 (3): 7.
Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (2004) Deutschland in Zahlen (Cologne: Deutscher InstitutsVerlag).
Junkers, D. and Nelles, R.: (2005) Der Milliarden-Bluff, Der Spiegel no. 14 (April 2005): 34-36.
Lindner, P. (2004) Nachhilfe hat Konjunktur, Süddeutsche Zeitung Online (6 April 2004),
http://www. sueddeutsche.de/jobkarriere/berufstudium(artikel/825/29796/print.html (March
2005).
Meinel, P. (2004) Neue Aufgaben für das ISB, Lehrerinfo – Ein Service des Bayerischen
Kultusministeriums für die Lehrerinnen und Lehrer 02/04: 4.
27
Müller, A. (2003) Bildung als Klugheit des Handelns, Politische Studien 54 (special issue 3):
120- 127.
OECD (ed.) (2002) Lesen kann die Welt verändern. Leistung und Engagement im
Ländervergleich. Ergebnisse von PISA 2000 (Paris: OECD).
OECD (ed.) (2003) Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow – Further Results from PISA 2000
(Paris: OECD).
Oerter, R. (2003) PISA und die Spaßgesellschaft. Schulleistung aus kultur- und
entwicklungspsychologischer Sicht, Politische Studien 54 (special issue 3): 70-78.
Ohrnberger, E. (2004) Externe Evaluation, Lehrerinfo – Ein Service des Bayerischen
Kultusministeriums für die Lehrerinnen und Lehrer 02/04: 5-8.
Rotte, R. and Rotte, U. (2003) Bürokratie versus Ideologie. Zur Personalpolitik des
Kultusministeriums im Volksschulwesen während des Nationalsozialismus, Zeitschrift für
Bayerische Landesgeschichte 66 (1): 177-200.
Schiessl, O. (2001) Innere Schulentwicklung – eine Gemeinschaftsaufgabe, Bayerische Schule –
Zeitschrift des Bayerischen Lehrer- und Lehrerinnenverbandes 54 (3): 10-12.
Schindler, S. (2005) Buchstabe für Buchstabe. Wie Hauptschüler in einem
Alphabetisierungskurs Deutsch lernen, Münchner Merkur no. 78 (6 April 2005): 12.
Seitz, S. (2005) Unterrichtsentwicklung auf dem Prüfstand, Schulverwaltung. Zeitschrift für
Schulleitung, Schulaufsicht und Schulkultur (Ausgabe Bayern) 28 (4): 127-132.
Stiftung Bildungspakt Bayern (2005a) i.s.i. – Innere Schulentwicklung Innovationspreis – Ein
Oscar für innovative Schulen. http://cgi. bildungspakt-bayern.de/cgibin/grossprojekt.php
?projekt= isi (March 2005).
Stiftung Bildungspakt Bayern (2005b) Center of Excellence – Neue Qualität in der
Schulentwicklung. http://cgi. bildungspakt-bayern.de/cgi-bin/grossprojekt.php ?projekt=center
(March 2005).
Stiftung Bildungspakt Bayern (2005c) Exercitium Paedagogicum – Studenten als
http://cgi.
bildungspakt-bayern.
de/cgi-bin/grossprojekt.php?
Unterrichtsassistenten.
projekt=exercitium (March 2005).
Stiftung Bildungspakt Bayern (2005d) Modus 21 – Mehr Freiraum für Schulen. http://cgi.
bildungspakt-bayern.de/cgi-bin/grossprojekt.php ?projekt=exercitium (March 2005).
Stiftung Bildungspakt Bayern (2005d) Modus 21 – Mehr Freiraum für Schulen. http://cgi.
bildungspakt-bayern.de/cgi-bin/grossprojekt.php ?projekt=exercitium (March 2005).
Stiftung Bildungspakt Bayern (2005e) Fokus Hauptschule. http://cgi.bildungspaktbayern.de/cgibin/grossprojekt.php ?projekt=fokus (March 2005).
28
Stiftung Bildungspakt Bayern (2005f) Talent im Land - Bayern. http://cgi.bildungspaktbayern.de/cgi-bin/grossprojekt.php ?projekt=talent (March 2005).
Stiftung Bildungspakt Bayern (2005g) KiDZ – Kindergarten der Zukunft. http://cgi.
bildungspakt-bayern.de/cgi-bin/grossprojekt.php ?projekt=kids (March 2005).
Stiftung Bildungspakt Bayern (2005h) Wer wir sind. http://cgi.bildungspakt-bayern.de/profil/
(March 2005).
Stoiber, E. (2003) Perspektiven für Bayern schaffen. Regierungserklärung des bayerischen
Ministerpräsidenten Edmund Stoiber vom 6. November (Auszüge), Bayerische Schule –
Zeitschrift des Bayerischen Lehrer- und Lehrerinnenverbandes 56 (12): 4-7.
Sutherland, C. (2001) Nation, Heimat, Vaterland: The Reinvitation of Concepts by the Bavarian
CSU, German Politics 10 (3): 13-36.
Volkert, W. (2001) Geschichte Bayerns (Munich: C.H. Beck).
Wendt, P. (2005) Grundschulen als Ganztagsschulen. Auf der Suche nach einem pädagogischen
Profil, Grundschule 37 (4): 8-9.
Winkel, R. (2003) Die Schule von heute für morgen, PÄD Forum 22 (1): 10-14.
29