One of the most contentious features of the new Education Act is currently being implemented—curricular reform. Whilst legislation throughout the 1990s took the necessary steps to abolish the teaching of Marxist ideology and began to redistribute central powers, the new act continues redistribution via curricular reform to a new degree. Each individual school within the Czech Republic must now develop its own curricula. But according to many educational professionals, curricular development is too hefty a burden to relegate onto the shoulders of school headmasters and teachers. They are trained for this purpose and lack the time, teaching aids, and further training necessary to take on this new and unsolicited responsibility.
The act stipulates that each school will create a School Educational Programme [školní vzdělávací program] (ŠVP). The ŠVPs must follow guidelines outlined in corresponding Ministry documents called Framework Educational Programmes [rámcové vzdělávací programy] (RVPs), which broadly address main teaching subjects and lesson time (the min. number of hours for each subject). Specific content is not addressed, but left up to the individual schools. This two-part curricular development reform went into effect in the first and sixth level of primary education in 2007/2008. Secondary schools are scheduled to initiate their programmes in September of next year.
A European Union Import:
The reform’s controversy stems, in part, from its emphasis on values, (i.e. Key Competencies), which are meant to generate a new approach to teaching and learning. The competencies stipulated in the RVPs for Primary (ZV) and Secondary (G) schools are the same: learning, problem-solving, communication, social, personal, civic, and working (entrepreneurial) competencies.
The decision to define and integrate key competencies into Czech curricular reform is not an innovation specific to the Czech Republic, but rather a worldwide phenomenon that began in the late 1990s. In 1997, the notion of key competencies resulted from two programmes (initiated by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)): the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Programme for the Definition and Selection of Competences (DeSeCo). DeSeCo’s final report “Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society” was issued in 2003, and it outlined how competency-based education will produce individuals who can participate in a democratic society. The European Union currently promotes the integration of key competencies into the educational systems of its member states in their “Education and Training 2010” campaign.
The new Education Act places the Czech Republic on a course shared by other OECD and EU countries. Consequently, the MŠMT’s decision to adopt key competency education in the Czech Republic appears to be logical, legitimate and necessary. But as the Ministry’s lack of direction and half-hearted implementation of the reforms has become apparent, one must question if the authors of the reform took into account the problems and characteristics specific to their own nation’s education system. Jana Straková of the Standing Conference of Educational Programs [Stálá Konference Asociací ve Vzdělávání] (SKAV) comments, “I think that the development of all these changes did not come from national needs…we were just following the development in other developed countries.” Curriculum reform has consequently taken priority over adequately addressing controversial issues like multicultural and minority education.
The Debate: What Defines Education in the CR?
It appears that the Ministry adopted the key competencies into the Czech education system to address a form of teaching that Straková describes as traditionalism. Although critical of parts of the curricular reform, Straková states that the Czech education system does need to undergo some sort of transformation. Czech schools are still “very traditional: there are few practical activities and questions not encouraged; students must simply listen and reproduce facts from memory…. the school does not equip children with communication-skills, problem-solving skills, critical-thinking, at all.” The reforms seek to transform schools from a place of instruction into a place of engagement and development.
The RVP for secondary schools states that “the aim of education at grammar schools is to teach them to incorporate information into a meaningful context for everyday practice….” The teachers must now take on a new role, to turn their students into citizens—individuals who are ready and willing to cope and contribute to the demands of a new age characterized by diversification, globalization and technological innovation. The new approach, in the simplest of terms, is characterized as “learning by doing.”
These key competencies present a noble vision for Czech education. It is not unlike Masaryk’s own philosophical and humanistic approach to education. It is, therefore, in the application of these key competencies where the concerns and criticisms lie. On the one hand, a fear exists that the competencies may never leave the pages of the curricular documents, due in part to the absence of a means of evaluation.
Individuals like Straková at STAV fear the reforms will have no effect on transforming the Czech school system into a viable conduit for teaching and learning in modern society. Straková believes that the key competencies are a necessary part of curricular reform, but that “there is a very realistic danger that the curricular reform will only be implemented on a formal level. And that it is more difficult now to prevent this formal implementation as people already have their prejudices.”
The Education Act’s approach to curricular reform does, in fact, have many critics who are concerned that the reform will further the current trend in the depreciation of student knowledge and educational standards in the Czech Republic . In September 2007, 101 university professors, scientists and cultural workers signed a document entitled Every Voice Is Heard [Všem, jejichž hlas je slyšet], which called upon the media to address this issue. In October 2007, Lidové Noviny published an editorial The Communicative Idiot – Our Goal, [Komunikativní blbec - náš cíl] which stated that an educational system established on key competencies will teach children to converse about nothing—for they will have learned nothing to converse about. Essentially, they will become “communicative idiots.”
Critics of the reform are not in opposition to the key competences themselves, but in their potential to monopolize classroom time. The president of ASUD, the Association of History Teachers in the Czech Republic, [Asociace Učitelů Dějepsisu české Republiky} Helena Mandelová affirms “that only when pupils have knowledge can they [have] discussions, make arguments, and so on. Without knowledge it is not possible to build competencies.” Logically, the key competencies will only function effectively in tandem with a knowledge and skill-based education. It is ASUD’s belief that the competencies must become a part, neither separate to nor more important than knowledge and skill-based learning.
The Issue of Implementation:
Both Straková and Mandelová’s concerns find common ground in their criticism of the Ministry’s decision to give the task of curriculum development to individual schools. The Ministry has offered teachers very little guidance towards the integration of the key competencies into the curriculum. Despite the positive assertion that “key competencies are not an isolated phenomena, they are mutually linked and intertwined… and can only be acquired as a result of a comprehensive education process,” the competencies are, in these documents, detailed in isolation and separated from the list of “Educational Areas” (i.e. fields of study). While some might call this a mere technicality, it exemplifies the fact that the reform’s authors may themselves lack the will or know-how to implement the changes.
Where the Ministry has fallen behind in this respect, it is up to organizations like ASUD and those within SKAV to work with teachers to provide them with adequate training and effectively implement these changes. “What SKAV is trying to do now is show schools how it is possible to implement the reforms, to incorporate key competencies, to define key competencies practically, to design some instruments to help teachers learn how to assess key competencies.” Straková notes that headmasters and teachers are not trained to develop school curricula in general, and especially not curricula with key competencies.
Following the reform, ASUD prepared ten booklets, “Methodological Inspiration: Suggestions on how to complete educational school programs for the subject of History [“Metodické Inspirace: Náměty ke zpracování švp dějepisu“] in order to “offer instructions and ideas based on practical experiences from developing school curricular programs.” The first few pages reproduce the material the Ministry has provided. The absense of ministerial guidance or direction is striking; indeed, the Ministry’s FVP program for the 4 years of history education in a primary school fills no more than four pages. “We think that it is not the work of the teachers to choose [what to teach] from world, European and Czech history…. We think that the main work of teachers is to choose the methods and the teaching aids to motivate the pupils and [inspire] their interest. They are not prepared [to choose] what to teach,” Mandelová states. After ASUD voiced their concerns and criticisms about the reforms, the Ministry cut off funding and publically criticized them.
The Absence of a Civic Dialogue
A significant problem is that there is no mutual dialogue among civic organizations, Ministry officials, educational professionals, parents, and those who influence thinking and ideas (i.e. the media). The absense of any sort of dialogue has created a situation in which many teachers and headmasters are not only unprepared to develop and teach this new curriculum, but they do not understand the reasons behind the reforms.
As Straková states, some teachers don’t understand the reasons behind the reforms “because they were repeatedly told that the educational system in the Czech Republic was excellent, and that it provided students with everything that they needed.” Moreover, many parents worry that their children will fall behind in their knowledge and skills, especially in comparison to the rest of Europe. “Society does not understand. Parents do not understand,” said Straková, “And our elites are against this reform…so sometimes they [issue] warnings that the school is unorganized and not up to standards, [which makes] the parents afraid that the students will be disadvantaged in business prospects, in future studies and in entrance examinations.”
Jan Kovařovic of the Independent Interdisciplinary Group for the Transformation of Education (NEMES) states that the MšMT confined discussions regarding the reform to the Ministry and has done little to promote them. “There are too few people who have a sufficient level of knowledge or wisdom to take part. I think this reflects the role of the old regime, in that the discussions of politics is done within the confines of the party,” Kovořovic said. The Ministry must banish this mentality that still thrives, and it must promote a social and political debate about the reforms within society.
As Kovařovic says, “Education must be the first concern…because of the ethos.” The task of every Czech citizen is now to become actively engaged—to think, discuss, and agree on how to effectively implement educational reforms. These things are necessary if Czech society wishes to edify neither learned robots nor communicative idiots, but something human in between.
Lack of Vision
When Kovařovic speaks about educational changes in the Czech Republic, he uses terms like “transformation,” and he speaks about “energetic” individuals and “idealists” who hold “visions” for the future. It is unfortunate that Kovařovic refers only to years in the past. Kovařovic alludes to what has been absent from the Ministry’s reforms.
Throughout the 1990s, individuals, institutions and civic organizations like NEMES, PAU (Engaged/Involved Teachers Association) and IDEA (Independent and Diverse Educational Alternatives) developed a number of educational policy proposals to bring about a “transformation from within the school system.” But what these organizations lacked, as Kovařovic reflects, was a “harness”—someone or something to channel their zeal and efforts through. While the Ministry could have become this harness, it chose not to.
Consequently, a state now exists in which the civic reformers who were once full of zeal are now doubtful; the teachers who once believed in the excellency of the Czech educational system are now doubtful; the parents who fear that their children will fall behind their European counterparts are now doubtful. Doubt is not the worst of the fears. What is to be feared, however, is ministerial apathy.
Without a civic dialogue, without cooperation from above and below, without the proper training for teachers and headmasters, the Czech Republic’s curricular reforms will threaten to be in Kovařovic’s words, “a still-born child.”
Elena Green is the former editor-in-chief of The New Presence. She is currently attending graduate school in the USA.
Autumn 2008 Issue