
An end to the digital pact for schools, demands the Federal Court of Auditors in a fundamental criticism of the program through which the federal government is pumping 6.5 billion euros into the federal states for IT equipment in schools. Although its extension, a digital pact 2.0, is one of the most important educational policy goals of the traffic light.
But as Spiegel first reported, the auditors consider the pact’s structure to be flawed. The Federal Ministry of Education has too few steering and control rights to ensure that the states spend the money sensibly. There are too many decision-making bodies involved, and the funds are distributed to the countries by watering can, not according to need.
Digital policy, regulation, artificial intelligence: the briefing on digitization
And all this in view of an educational sovereignty that clearly lies with the federal states. “Also in view of the financial situation, the federal government should concentrate on its constitutional tasks. School matters are not one of them.”
It is the second Court of Auditors report this year that accuses the Federal Ministry of Education of drastic shortcomings in its digital policy. In January, the examiners wrote to the budget committee of the Bundestag that the implementation of the “National Education Platform” by the Federal Ministry of Education was a “blatant violation of the principle of economic efficiency and the requirements of budgetary law”. There is a risk of a “funding ruin”.
Decided by the GroKo in 2020 and celebrated in 2021 with a large train station by ex-Chancellor Angela Merkel and ex-Federal Minister of Education Anja Karliczek (both CDU) as the core of a new “Initiative digital education” to date, very few have understood what the added value of the 630 million euros equipped large-scale project exists. Just like the “Digital Education Initiative” hasn’t been heard of since the change of government.
The Federal Court of Audit auditors even found that there had never been a viable, overarching idea – also because the BMBF had not conducted any market research or economic feasibility study before the platform was announced.
“According to budgetary law, it is insufficient to only ask yourself during the implementation of a measure whether it is necessary, economical and sustainable,” wrote the Court of Auditors and saw “with increasing concern the danger” that the BMBF would spend hundreds of millions for “small-scale and unconnected projects, the results of which are not required and which, in the end, have no follow-up perspective”.
Because of the expected annual operating and follow-up costs for the federal and state governments, if they participate, in the two to three-digit million range”.
The critics’ criticism of the so-called “cross-state measures” in the digital pact, for which 250 million of the 6.5 federal billion are reserved, was hardly less severe. In order to get them, several federal states have to join forces to create common infrastructures. But due to a lack of suitable structures, they had only just managed to plan 53 of the 250 million by the time the pact was halfway through in early 2022.
And even the seven financed projects are predominantly those that the federal states had planned before the digital pact and are now financing with its funds. The Court of Auditors spoke of “free-rider effects” and double structures – while the actual goal of persuading the countries to new forms of cooperation was missed, because they “did not show the necessary interest”.
Some examples. Since 2018, the federal states have wanted the Media Institute FWU, in which they are shareholders, to establish a Germany-wide ID management system so that students and teachers only have to register once and securely when using digital educational content from different providers.
When the digital pact came, they decided to use it to finance “VIDIS” – by order to the FWU, which according to the Court of Auditors was “contrary to the funding requirements” of the digital pact. In addition, ironically, the BMBF had previously funded the approach of such a service at the Hasso Plattner Institute (HPI).
Namely, as part of the school cloud, which the ministry had had developed by HPI since 2016, although most countries had their own clouds at the start and, as the Court of Auditors saw it, showed “no interest in building a Germany-wide school cloud”. Today only Brandenburg, Lower Saxony and Thuringia operate HPI school cloud portals.
Even when the BMBF offered all schools nationwide free access during the Corona lockdown in 2020, according to the Court of Auditors report, only two percent of the schools accessed it – the rest had already found other solutions for themselves.
One thing is certain: Of the 53 million digital pacts planned for transnational measures by January 2022, 34 alone will go into the further development of the HPI school cloud in these three countries – although according to critics there have been suitable offers on the market for years. “But not like that,” countered HPI boss Christoph Meinel two years ago.
And then there is “SODIX”, the search portal for educational media also implemented by the FWU, paid for with digital pact money, where the Court of Auditors says: Wait a minute! The BMBF supports another portal for educational media with www.wirlernenonline.de.
The list of Court of Auditors allegations from January is much longer. They all boil down to the demand that the funding line for the transnational digital pact measures be ended as quickly as possible. The BMBF has failed in its efforts to promote nationwide measures and uniform standards for digitization – and should therefore refrain from further strategies and accompanying projects outside of the digital pact.
“Not only does he lack responsibility for this. Rather, his initiatives lead to offers that are redundant to those of the federal states and are therefore uneconomical.”
As is usual with Court of Auditors reports, the BMBF had the opportunity to respond in both cases. And has experienced them extensively, both under old and new management. The ministry rejected most of the points of criticism: Of course it was responsible, and the need for digitization in the schools was “so obvious” that an assessment of the needs would only have led to years of delays.
And the construction of the digital pact is such that the ministry cannot unilaterally impose its ideas on the federal states. Incidentally, one cannot see a connection between the digital pact and the national education platform.
There is no doubt: Just because the examiners criticize something in clear terms does not mean that they are automatically right on all points. Especially since a lot has happened on the education platform in the past seven months and a transnational system like “VIDIS” makes more than sense. Even “SODIX” (also for licensed content) and “www.wirlernenonline.de” (only OER) are not the same with the best will in the world.
In any case, the Court of Auditors pursues its very own perspective, which is in line with its self-understanding, as it emphasizes in the objective way in which it formulates its reports. One of them is that he is less interested in long-term political goals, which can sometimes only be achieved in a roundabout way under federalism. All the more so for the correctness of the procedures down to the last detail.
The cost-effectiveness of the individual parts is not always synonymous with the cost-effectiveness and social benefit of the whole. But the auditors are often concerned with the – regulatory – principle.
Nevertheless, the January report by the Federal Court of Auditors opens up a great opportunity for the BMBF management under Bettina Stark-Watzinger (FDP). The CDU/CSU parliamentary group recently made a parliamentary inquiry as to exactly what Anja Karliczek’s successor intends to do with digital education. Stark-Watzinger can, she must, use the Court of Auditors’ criticism and take it to heart where it is justified. Not to leave the promised Digital Pact 2.0, but to make it better.
For example, by making the federal states more responsible, avoiding new duplicate structures and doing their part to ensure that the procedures for project selection and approval are less complex and at the same time more transparent. She should also work to ensure that the municipalities, as the actual school authorities, are given a greater right of co-determination in the next pact. Then the pact investments will also work better. The errors so far are those of its predecessor. All future mistakes are then their own.