The issue of data protection and data security in the (pre-Lisbon) EU third pillar

The key functional operability in the pre-Lisbon PJCCM pillar of the EU is the exchange of intelligence and information amongst the law enforcement bodies of the EU. The twin issues of data protection and data security within what was the EU’s third pillar legal framework therefore come to the fore. With the Lisbon Treaty reform of the EU, and the increased role of the Commission in PJCCM policy areas, and the integration of the PJCCM provisions with what have traditionally been the pillar I activities of Frontex, the opportunity for streamlining the data protection and data security provisions of the law enforcement bodies of the post-Lisbon EU arises. This is recognised by the Commission in their drafting of an amending regulation for Frontex , when they say that they would prefer “to return to the question of personal data in the context of the overall strategy for information exchange to be presented later this year and also taking into account the reflection to be carried out on how to further develop cooperation between agencies in the justice and home affairs field as requested by the Stockholm programme.” The focus of the literature published on this topic, has for the most part, been on the data protection provisions in Pillar I, EC. While the focus of research has recently sifted to the previously Pillar III PJCCM provisions on data protection, a more focused analysis of the interlocking issues of data protection and data security needs to be made in the context of the law enforcement bodies, particularly with regard to those which were based in the pre-Lisbon third pillar. This paper will make a contribution to that debate, arguing that a review of both the data protection and security provision post-Lisbon is required, not only in order to reinforce individual rights, but also inter-agency operability in combating cross-border EU crime. The EC’s provisions on data protection, as enshrined by Directive 95/46/EC, do not apply to the legal frameworks covering developments within the third pillar of the EU. Even Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, which is supposed to cover data protection provisions within PJCCM expressly states that its provisions do not apply to “Europol, Eurojust, the Schengen Information System (SIS)” or to the Customs Information System (CIS). In addition, the post Treaty of Prüm provisions covering the sharing of DNA profiles, dactyloscopic data and vehicle registration data pursuant to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA, are not to be covered by the provisions of the 2008 Framework Decision. As stated by Hijmans and Scirocco, the regime is “best defined as a patchwork of data protection regimes”, with “no legal framework which is stable and unequivocal, like Directive 95/46/EC in the First pillar”. Data security issues are also key to the sharing of data in organised crime or counterterrorism situations. This article will critically analyse the current legal framework for data protection and security within the third pillar of the EU.

School-based pedagogies and partnerships in primary science teacher education: the Science Teacher Education Partnerships with Schools (STEPS) project

The STEPS project responds to international concern about primary teachers' lack of science knowledge and confidence to teach science, and recent questioning of the effectiveness of traditional approaches to teacher education.It will review and build on established, innovative and successful practices at five universities, to develop and promote a framework supporting school-based approaches to pre-service teacher education.The models involve partnerships between universities and primary schools to engage pre-service primary teachers in classroom teaching and learning that effectively connects theory with practice.Through critical appraisal of these and similar models, the project will identify key features of the approach and the critical success factors required to establish and maintain strong working relationships with schools and build student capacity.The principles, framework, and resources together with exemplifying case studies, will be designed and disseminated to promote uptake of these innovative practices in the sector.This website documents the nature of the project, the emerging Interpretive Framework, principles and resources, case studies, and other project outputs.

Establishing school university partnerships to teach science – Does what worked for us work for you?

Concerns over the quality and amount of science teaching in Australian primary schools has led to a concentration of research on the methods of delivery of science education. There is a growing interest in both Australian and International contexts on building teacher knowledge and confidence to teach science, how science is taught at the primary school level and also how pre-service teachers are prepared to teach science. The Science Teacher Education Partnerships with Schools (STEPS) project is one response to these concerns. The STEPS project is a collaboration of five Australian universities that each independently set-up their own school-based partnership approaches with schools to deliver their science education programs. Each university aimed to provide pre-service teachers with the genuine experience of teaching science while being supported by university teaching staff. The project has drawn on feedback from pre-service teachers, teachers, principals and teacher educators involved at the five universities to examine the prevailing practices and led to the development of a set of tools and process, referred to as the Interpretive Framework (IF)(Hobbs et al. 2015). The IF describes how to create and maintain effective partnerships with schools, based on this research. This current paper reports on a survey conducted in 2014 which aimed to feedback from teacher educators across Australia to explore the extent to which school-based teaching opportunities in science for PSTs were in use across the country and to identify the range of approaches and theories driving their practices. Some respondents were followed up for interview and key factors were analysed and reported here. These data will be used to further refine the IF.