We bravely left the school buildings during sixteen minutes of silence and on the steps of the same buildings, gave speeches about the unshakable principles behind which we stand. We prepared for the consequences, but the retribution did not come as a verdict, suddenly and definitively, but in stages, like a temporary tide that you think will bypass your school.
First they were last summer. the principals of some schools were replaced, then the old and new eligible principals decided not to extend the teachers' fixed-term contracts. Some found employment in schools where there was a lack of staff and so the cards got a little mixed up, the fighting collectives were thwarted, some started court proceedings and it seemed that education was at least a little on the back burner. And yet, the entire public opinion was taken aback by the latest proposal to amend the Law on the Basics of the Education System by the Ministry of Education.
It was immediately clear to everyone that the proposed changes were actually a way to prevent any indication of mobilization and organization of students, parents and professors in the future. In the forest of technical corrections and formal solutions, there was also the disputed Article 79, which specifies that students can only organize themselves into the Student Parliament, which is under the supervision of a coordinator, most often from the ranks of teachers. There is also Article 149 on the revocation of the license of a teacher who does not teach, although ZOSOV already prescribes measures and punishments for violating work obligations, and certainly the most controversial, Article 120, which drastically reduces the number of members of the Parents' Council, which practically expels parents from schools.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION WITHOUT MEDIA AND MOBILE PHONES
The proposed changes came in the middle of summer when people are most often away, and the Ministry decided to take another quick action - on Monday 3 August, it scheduled a public hearing for Wednesday 5 August and opened online applications. Although the temperatures are high and the government has a general doubt that anything can be achieved through a public hearing, about fifty of the fastest of us managed to sign up, attend and present arguments against this harmful proposal.
It was immediately clear that this public hearing would be different from the one for national textbooks. More precisely, she informally started already in front of the elevator. The security demanded that we hand over our phones, because any recording is prohibited, and in connection with that, media representatives were not allowed to attend either. We rebelled, because the event is public in the first place, therefore, it should be transparent and open, and we asked to be told on the basis of which law this is required of us. Some also showed fear for their safety and the safety of their phone. Soon, the minister himself came by and joined in with an unwavering attitude that only the person who leaves the phone will attend. The excuse for that is that he does the same "when he goes to the Government", as well as that they wanted the conversation to be democratic and open (because when it's being filmed, isn't it like that?). After half an hour's discussion, it was agreed that we would put the phones in a box in the hall itself and that it would be in front of us until the end of the stand. The representatives of the Ministry kept their phones.
The moderator immediately read the rules of behavior and participation, as well as the agenda of several points, although after five hours the discussion only reached the third point.
We discussed the safety of children, the safety and protection of employees, and it seemed as if we were actually having a meaningful dialogue, exchanging arguments and agreeing on solutions. The state secretaries were quite extensive in their presentations, they informed us in great detail about what they considered to be key to a certain point. During the discussion on the second agenda item, the minister joined the conversation. I must say that it seemed that everyone was relieved, especially the representatives of the Ministry because they have reinforcements and are no longer on the receiving end of questions, and us because we expect answers from the central figure of the system.
The moderator who initially tried, rather unsuccessfully, to time the speakers and to take care of the order of speaking and replicating, has now completely given up. The minister did not stick to the topic at all. Personal impressions, impressions from the assembly, a condescending attitude towards colleagues from the opposition (although immediately after his arrival he set a rule that he would not talk about politics, because "politics has no place in schools"), direct addresses to the union representative Ana Dimitrijević, which varied from insulting to humorous, created a noise that hindered the discussion and disturbed the participants. In addition to everything, the minister interrupted each speaker, sometimes because he needed clarification (namely, the minister had never worked in elementary or high school), so the secretaries also helped, sometimes because he did not agree and did not accept what he heard, and sometimes because a quote from Max Weber or Charles Sanders Pierce came in handy.
photo: jovana kulasević / tanjugMINISTER OF EDUCATION OR MINISTER OF REVENGE: Dejan Vuk Stanković
THAT'S JUST WHAT IT SAYS
The third item on the agenda, which was reached only in the fourth hour of the discussion, was related, among other things, to the obligations and responsibilities of students, parents and employees. When asked by a high school student present why students are deprived of the opportunity to join informal groups when such associations, for example in the field of robotics, have achieved success at the international level, the minister replied that the proposal does not say that it is prohibited. Although the attendees pointed out that it has now been crossed out, which means that it is being eliminated, and that there will no longer be any association other than the Student Parliament in schools, because the law will no longer provide for it, the organizers of the panel maintained that it is not and cannot be prohibited, because they do not see anything objectionable in it either. When we asked why the position was being crossed out, we moved on to the slippery slope of legal formulation of the solution. One of the minister's main arguments was that "it just says so", that it must be seen how it will turn out in practice and that the solutions must be comprehensive and broad, as they should take into account all schools from city high schools to schools in passive areas. He taught us that the law gives a general course, and the by-laws will work it out precisely.
LIKE IN A BADLY DIRECTED MOVIE
Tired, hungry and thirsty, we reached the topic of all topics: the flagrant cutting of the role of the Parents' Council. It was like in a poorly directed movie where the climax of the dramatic action develops for a disproportionately long time, and then in the last half hour the plot unravels and leaves the viewer in awe. To all our appeals to reduce a large democratic body that has an advisory role to something that could be a commission or board, we only got the answer that the councils rarely met and made decisions, and that due to their size, they often did not have a quorum. The present parents and teachers refuted it in vain, the minister, with the prompting of the secretary, insisted that everything would be the same, that the representative of his class should only "throw a Viber message", as the secretary Borko Petrović formulated, and as they obviously believe that the Council of Parents should function. Activist-minded parents, who correctly understand their role and participation in the school, are valuable allies for teachers and, paradoxically, the amendment of Article 109 confirms this. It is about the rules of behavior in the institution, which is being supplemented - instead of only employees having the obligation to contribute to a favorable atmosphere in the institution, now it is the obligation of both parents and students. Recognizing parents and students as equal actors with teachers is proof that they have become visible to the system. Now only the system should accept them as allies, not as enemies. Therefore, it should introduce them into the ranks of key actors in education by including them, and not by removing them and introducing bans and sanctions, even though it states that they are important.
The parent is a key supporter of the education system when it needs to replace what the local government or the state is responsible for: to buy and maintain air conditioners, to bring a hygiene package, to donate for curtains, smart boards, door, window, toilet repairs, to pay. Then he is a welcome guest, but if he needs to review the spending of money, the decisions and actions of the school administration, to support or to call to account, the parent is not welcome. Such a thing is considered interference in the affairs of the school. Then the parent is transferred, as if the user is the service and the school is the enterprise or company. The little space he had in the school's most democratic body - the Parents' Council - is being taken away from him.
Although the contested bill has other numerous shortcomings, such as the exclusion of the school secretary from public procurement, the abolition of the Self-Evaluation Team, the presence of representatives of the Student Parliament at the School Board meeting only at the proposal of the president, etc., they can be discussed. But the article that changes the powers and structure of the Council of Parents must be a red line.
School collectives and parents' councils, which have shown that they are united and united in the suspension of classes, are the biggest threat to the regime. During the public discussion, it was clear that the government is most afraid of our community and that is precisely why it wants to establish complete control over the education system and lead it towards greater centralization. That is why it is extremely important that we constantly connect, agree and act united in a force that at a certain moment can only stop everything and in spite of everything.
The author is a teacher of Serbian language and literature and coordinator of the ZLF Education Program Group
Only in August: Save three thousand dinars on the annual subscription to the digital edition of "Vremena"! Take advantage of the discount here and support independent journalism.
