“We don’t need guidance from the federal government”

The Saarland Minister of Education and Culture, Christine Streichert-Clivot (SPD), is also chairing the Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK) this year. The KMK brings together the ministers and senators of the states responsible for education and training, universities and research, and cultural affairs.

Madam Minister, the main points of the Digital Pact 2.0 for schools should have been negotiated between the federal and state governments long ago. Instead, both parties are publicly discussing it. What is it?

The states recently unanimously adopted a draft resolution in the Bundesrat reiterated our demand to the federal government: At least 1.3 billion euros will be needed annually for the next six years. Unfortunately, it is still not clear that the Digital Pact 2.0 has been taken into account and that financial resources have been deposited in the draft federal budget for 2025, approved by the federal cabinet. This has led to great irritation on the state side.

Stark-Watzinger’s State Secretary Jens Brandenburg then accused the states of destroying trust, telling fairy tales and hitting the brakes. Do that?

With the attack, the Federal Ministry of Education apparently tried to divert attention from the financing issue. This sharp tone in the Federal Council was absolutely unnecessary and inappropriate. We all share the responsibility for modern education that is tailored to the lives of young people. We are therefore interested in a quick conclusion of the negotiations, especially in the interests of the young people and the local family. The first digital pact expired in mid-May and schools and school boards are now urgently waiting for its continuation. Local projects have already had to be suspended because follow-up financing is unclear. What we need are reliable figures and planning certainty.

The federal government has concrete ideas about what the digital pact should look like and therefore does not want to make financial concessions right away. That is understandable, right?

The states also have very specific ideas about continuing the digital pact. I like to compare the digital pact to building a house. You can only plan such a project properly if there is clarity about the available investment amount. So far, the federal government has only done one thing in this regard: it has unilaterally decided that it will no longer contribute to the financing in a ratio of 90:10, as was the case with the first digital pact, but only half. We cannot, do not and do not want to accept that. If digital education in the future depends on the financial strength of the states or individual municipalities, we will never make any progress.

Have you not gotten any closer to the content yet?

As I said, without a commitment from the federal government to a financial framework, there is no point in continuing to talk about the specific design. We are going around in circles. Nevertheless, there is consensus that we will use the experiences with the first digital pact to make the follow-up leaner and with less bureaucracy. The money must get to where it is needed more quickly.

The federal government wants more: He wants to have a say in the content of education for his money. It requires, among other things, that teachers undergo further training in the field of digital teaching and learning. Is this possible for you?

With this demand, the federal government is exceeding its jurisdiction. He does not recognize how committed the states have been to promoting digital education in recent years. He is acting as if we need tutoring here. This is completely inappropriate. We must negotiate on equal terms.

We are going on vacation now and we can’t tell the schools what is going to happen. That is bad.

Given the delays, is it still possible to achieve the goal of Digital Pact 2.0, which will be implemented around the turn of the year 2024/2025?

We are going on holiday now and we cannot tell the schools what is going to happen. That is bad. What surprises me most is that the FDP, which always places digitalisation so high on the agenda, is now seizing the first opportunity to have the digital pact go over the Wupper. Only if we had things in order quickly could it still work around the turn of the year. By the way: in the Startkansen programme, the financial division between the federal and state governments is 70:30. So I still see room for negotiation on the digital pact.

You yourself mentioned the start-up opportunities program that has just started for schools in socially problematic regions. Was that for the issue of equality in education?

Of course not. From the Pisa research we know that there are problems with the basic skills of the pupils, namely reading, writing and arithmetic. Here we also need to focus on education for young children. It is crucial for later academic success. Children from childcare find the transition to school much easier, also because they deal better with social interaction.

Minister Stark-Watzinger complains that it is not yet binding in all states Language tests in daycare centers gives. Why not?

Daycare centers are not schools. I cannot simply take children with special language needs and support them through targeted programs. For me, the best instrument for language development is having an available daycare place. And we know that this is not yet the case in all regions of Germany. All obstacles must be removed, especially the fees.

How’s that one doing? Combating the teacher shortage further? Most recently, the Permanent Scientific Committee of the KMK caused outrage with its proposal to reduce the part-time quota for teachers.

I don’t think that’s a good idea. We won’t be able to interest young people in the teaching profession if we deprive them of the opportunity to respond to a particular family situation. The reason for going part-time is often to raise children or to need care in the family. The KMK no longer follows this approach; each country must decide that for itself. However, we have taken up the suggestion that in the future people who have studied only one subject can also become teachers. Up to now, two subjects have always been required. This will make it much easier to attract teachers from abroad or career changers.

Is the KMK prepared for the fact that AfD ministers could also join its ranks after the eastern state elections in the autumn and block this institution, which only recognises the unanimity principle?

First of all: I can only urgently warn against voting for a party that, for example, doubts the educational rights of children with disabilities. We are aware that the education department is extremely interesting for right-wing extremist parties. We know this from history. We must therefore ensure that we remain able to act if a country adopts a fundamental blockade policy.

What exactly should that look like?

We are currently discussing which topics are open to majority decisions. We have a good discussion situation there. We will put the first proposals on the table in the summer and there should be an agreement in December. All those involved are aware that our decision-making structures need to become more resilient and agile.