Uladzimir Dunaeu: Heads of universities heard President’s message; the Minister was disavowed

At the photo: Mihail Zhuraukou at home, photo by TUT.BY

Why did universities’ heads started to show off, while Belarus is buried under the “trash” of education, dying from the itch of reforms and spits on subordination?

The empty armchairs of universities’ heads at the recent final board of the Education Ministry of Belarus remained almost unnoticed if it were not for the photo of TUT.BY that took a picture of this fact.

Nonappearance of minor bigwigs to the session says little to a person who knows little about ministries and business ethics; but not to an expert.

Uladzimir Dunaeu, professor of philosophy, a former Vice Rector of the EHU, the member of the public Bologna committee sees a disdain of a new Education Minister Mihail Zhuraukou by the officials and even open demarche in that.

- In your opinion, why did a lot of heads of universities failed to come to such an important event as the final board of the Ministry of Education?

- I don’t think that TUT.BY has completely distorted reality in its coverage that not only stated the fact but also had a photo of empty armchairs. In general, the board reflected skepticism in relation to the authority but also to the Minister’s real possibility to change something in the system of education.

According to the Minister, the answer that he got to his attempt of stimulating the universities’ heads innovative initiatives related to new programs and strategic vision could only be laughed off.

I think this is the consequence of the fact that universities’ heads heard the message sent by the President: there will be no reforms. And quite cautious attempts of the Minister Zhuraukou to somehow state about more or less perspective programs related to the Belarusan language in education caused very harsh reaction. The Minister was basically disavowed.

After that it became completely obvious that the universities’ management (and, probably, not only universities’) no longer perceives any declarations about strategic innovations seriously.

- I.e. the reason of skepticism towards Zhuraukou was his statement about the need to teach some subjects in universities and schools in Belarusian?

- The reason was the reaction of the President to this statement. In fact, it was for the first time over long time that the President has demonstrated how he sees the role of the Ministry. As when Siarhei Maskevich held office (the Minister of Education in 2010-2014 – EuroBelarus) the Ministry tried to become a centre of cautious reforming; an actor at the educational scene, where not only presidential administration, but also heads of universities claim to make steps on decentralization of management.

2013 and 2014 marked quite radical and principal criticism of the existing educational policy. As by law it fully belongs to the thoughts and actions of only one person – the President of the Republic of Belarus, indirectly it was criticism of his role and claim for redistributing the authority, give more opportunities for forming this policy to other actors – the Ministry, heads of universities, heads of schools and so on.

However, tough assessment of the situation with educational policy was also given by Anatol Tozik, the head of the working group on complex analysis of the education system. I.e. the result was quite challenging for the presidential administration, which led to Maskevich’s and Tozik’s dismissals, and in rebuff to Zhuraukou, who took upon himself the role of an active elaborator of educational policy and tried to somehow implement it.

I believe that all that was revenge of the presidential administration that decided that the players on the scene of educational policy went too far with their claims for decentralization.

- The situation clearly demonstrated that reforms in the educational sphere of Belarus is out of the question, especially now, on the threshold of the president election, didn’t it?

- Yes, it did. Moreover, the impulses that the President sends are mutually exclusive. On the one hand, he criticizes situation in education hard, claiming that there is no politics there, that students are taught “trash”, that higher education is not ready to professional activity.

After such harsh statements something like a call for serious, deep reforms should follow. But after that we hear a phrase: “Who is itching to introduce reforms? Is it, perhaps, Maskevich?” And we know what happened afterwards.

Thus, no reforms; as if the situation in education was the result of some reforms. It was the result of absolutely inadequate reforms related to secondary education, as what Tozik demonstrated was crash of reforms on transfer to 11-year education. This conclusion proves that it is basically impossible to provide the quality that we had few years ago in the system of secondary education.

Now the blame for unsuccessful reforms is laid on someone else. And on the threshold of elections it is particularly obvious, as in our country people associate educational reform with a catastrophe. That is where the order to introduce no reforms comes from.

- Unfortunately, even on the threshold of deciding on Belarus’ joining the European Higher Education Area the authorities just tie the hands of those, who could somehow influence that.

- This is true. And I think that if academicians (employees in higher education) understand the need of serious reforming. And, of course, in this atmosphere no one will dare to demonstrate these intentions.