“School with apostrophes” is at the doorsteps of the current reform

In the course of the 1^st September celebrations on the occasion of the opening of another new school in one of the districts of the capital, Loshitsa, the President Aleksandr Lukashenko said, “We returned back to normal eleven year school programme”.

“Pillars along a great journey”

Perhaps not everyone remembers that it was Mr. Lukashenko himself who initiated the prolongation of the duration of the secondary education. It was the Head of State who on the 4^th of January 1996 signed a relevant decree in this regard. In November 2004 while delivering a speech at the II Meeting of teachers, the President confirmed the ‘correctness’ of the chosen path: “life has justified that the decision regarding the reform of the secondary education proved to be right and timely. We are entering the XXI Century with a well developed educational system that retained all the best features of the Soviet educational system”.

Also back in 2004, while delivering his annual address to the Belarusian nation at the National Gathering in the parliament, Aleksandr Lukashenko stated, that “you know what was happening in the beginning of the 90s when nationalists came to power. First of all, they ‘interfered’ with the educational sphere and started breaking and destroying everything. Now for 10 years we are not able to overcome the consequences of those two or three years of breaking. That is why we should be more careful and considerate today”.

Back then in 2004 the President initiated the establishment of a special inter-ministerial commission in order to assess the perspectives of reasonability to shift the secondary education to last 12 years. The Commission fully supported the 12-year education programme and made a decision to accept the necessity of prolonging the duration of school learning in order to achieve a good quality secondary education. In addition, that was supposed to bring us closer to the civilized world as many countries have a multi-level educational system. “The Belarusian secondary education is at the crossroads of significant reforms”, added Aleksandr Lukashenko back then.

“The Law on secondary education” was in force for one and a half years only

Another document established the 12-year secondary education system de facto, i.e. the “Law on secondary education”. Naturally, it was signed by the Head of the State. It entered into legal force in January 2007. However a year after it became clear that the shift to 12 years of secondary education was… a “mistake”.

In April 2008 Aleksandr Lukashenko stated literally the following: “What do teachers talk about when they talk on one hand about acceleration and speedy development, and on the other hand they keep 17-18 year old young people behind the desks? Perhaps I am exaggerating, however these 18-19 year old girls should already give birth to babies, so what do they do at school?”

As a result, another inter-ministerial commission was set up under the auspices of the First Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration Anatoly Rubinov. The result of work of this commission was predictable: the educational system would be shifted back to the eleven years of education in a rush.

«Teacher’s itch for reformation»

For reference, in March 2008 the newspaper “Sovetskaya Belorussiya” published an article by Anatoly Rubanov titled “Teacher’s itch for reformation”. It is worth quoting: “From time to time here or there we have an itch for a reform and proposals for radical changes are elaborated. In particular, it concerns the educational system… We remember what was happening in the beginning of the 90s. The country was in ruins, the salaries of teachers were insignificant, many left for business activities. There was no money to equip school, schools were in decline, pioneer and komsomol organizations fell apart and the process of education was undermined. Our “self-aware nationalists” were keenly interfering with the history books and replacing one history with another. It seems that, first of all, day to day problems should be addressed. However ‘no’, our ‘teachers’ put forward another task as the most significant, i.e. it was necessary to shift from 10 years of secondary education to 12 years. Why and what for? They said that was what was done in the Western countries ages ago…”

Therefore the authorities believe that the educational system was reformed to 12-year training by “nationalists and teachers” in the beginning of the 90s.

Why such rush?

The most interesting bit is that the experiment with the 12-year education was never finished. The first fully pledged graduates that went to school in compliance with the 12-year programme should have graduated in 2010. The return to 11-year programme was executed in rush. In the end of May the first ball was rolled, meaning that articles in the press occurred regarding the possible return to the eleven-year curriculum. Teachers were not aware and therefore they were shocked: it was unclear in what way the transition process will be taking place and what programmes and teaching programmes should be used and what text books?

The Presidential Decree No 15 “On certain issues related to secondary education” was signed on the 17^th of August and the school year in compliance with the new rules would have to start as usual on the 1^st of September.

What our children should expect?

The most generic change is that graduates will have to apprehend the school curriculum previously elaborated and meant for two years, in the course of one year. The new secondary school year will end up with having two graduate classes (the 11^th grade students that were supposed to graduate from a secondary school in 2009 as a result of the 11-year programme, and so-called 11^th‘ grade students that were supposed to graduate after having 12 years of education). In addition to that there will be two graduation classes in the primary school (9^th grade and 9^th’). Naturally, a shortage of text books occurred due to the fact that the new ones were not drafted and published, while, obviously, the ‘old’ ones will be used by both 11-graders and 11’-graders.

The number of teaching hours with regard to many subjects was cut down (for instance, one hour per week for learning Russian and Belarusian languages is previewed for graduate students). The number of hours previewed for learning foreign languages was also significantly cut down and children, as well, will start learning foreign languages in the course of their third year at school. Entire curriculums were abolished, such as “World Art Culture”, “Singing”. The authorities argue that it all was done in the best interests of children in order to reduce the learning pressure. Saturday will now be a day off for school children. Also, all schools will be using a unified curriculum. There will be no special classes with more profound teaching of specific subjects. If one would like to study a subject at a more serious level, he or she would have to sign up for additional classes and attend them after school. Naturally, quite a few teachers will face the necessity to resign.

Everyone is in shock, teachers, students and their parents. Perhaps, many believe that indeed, 11 years of secondary education is enough and that 18-19 year old school girls should give birth to babies and young men should go straight to the army service after school. However the consequences of this rushing and not thought through school reform were not taken into account. Therefore students, their parents and teachers will have to face uncertainty.

Ludmila Korsak