This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 04 October 2013, At: 07:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20

Towards Greater Faith inTeachers' Professional Authority:Restructuring the primaryteachers' study programme inSloveniaMojca Pecek & Cveta Razdevsek-PuckoPublished online: 01 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Mojca Pecek & Cveta Razdevsek-Pucko (2000) Towards GreaterFaith in Teachers' Professional Authority: Restructuring the primary teachers' studyprogramme in Slovenia, European Journal of Teacher Education, 23:3, 261-274, DOI:10.1080/02619760120049148

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619760120049148

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of theuse of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-

licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

European Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2000

Towards Greater Faith in Teachers’ ProfessionalAuthority: restructuring the primary teachers’ studyprogramme in Slovenia [1]

MOJCA PECEK & CVETA RAZDEVSEK-PUCKO

SUMMARY This paper analyses recent Slovenian primary school legislation and considers thenew position for primary school teachers arising from it. Its building block is the belief thatschool and students cannot succeed without teachers who are dedicated, who believe in theirwork, and who are able and willing to make their own professional decisions and stand bythem. In Slovenia, this means teachers have to learn to feel con� dent with their own decisionmaking. In order to achieve this goal, however, future teachers have to be offered suitable andupdated knowledge, which requires a more balanced mix of theoretical and practical courses intheir study programme. In this context, the paper also outlines proposals for a restructuring ofprimary teachers’ education and training in Slovenia generated by a Tempus project called theRestructuring Primary Teachers’ Study Programme. Involved in the project have been theFaculty of Education at Ljubljana University, as the project co-ordinator, and the Faculties ofEducation of the University of Helsinki and of the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.

RESUME L’expose presente des re� exions sur la situation mise en place et prescrite auxinstituteurs par la legislation relative a l’enseignement primaire de Slovenie. Il emane de laconviction que l’ecole et les eleves ne peuvent reussir sans le devouement et la foi des instituteursen leur travail, sans des instituteurs capables et prets a prendre et a defendre des decisionsprofessionnelles independantes. Dans notre cas, cela signi� e que les instituteurs devraient avoirune plus grande con� ance en soi lorsqu’ils prennent des decisions professionnelles independantes.Pour atteindre ce but, il est indispensable de leur fournir des connaissances appropriees et misesa jour, ce qui implique, dans notre cas concret, l’egalisation et l’harmonisation de la partietheorique academique et de la partie professionnelle pedagogique de leur formation. Dans lecontexte de ces re� exions, des propositions de renovation de la formation des instituteurs del’enseignement primaire de Slovenie ont ete recueillies dans le cadre du Projet Tempus intituleRestructuration du programme d’etudes des enseignants primaires. Outre la Faculte dePedagogie de l’Universite de Ljubljana, qui a assure la coordination de ce projet, ont egalementparticipe a ce projet les Facultes de Pedagogie de l’Universite d’Helsinki et de l’Universite deStrathclyde a Glasgow.

ISSN 0261-9768 print; ISSN 1469-5928 online/00/030261-14Ó 2000 Association for Teacher Education in EuropeDOI: 10.1080/02619760120049148

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

262 Mojca Pecek & Cveta Razdevsek-Pucko

RESUMEN La ponencia presenta las re� exiones sobre la posicion que brinda y prescribe a losmaestros de primer ciclo de primaria la nueva legislacion sobre la escuela primaria enEslovenia. Se basa en la conviccion de que la escuela y los alumnos no pueden alcanzarresultados positivos sin un maestro dedicado a su trabajo, que conf õ a en el y esta preparado ydispuesto a tomar y a defender sus proprias decisiones profesionales. En nuestro caso estosigni� ca que los maestros deber õ an tener mas con� anza en s õ mismos en el momento de tomarsus proprias decisiones profesionales. Para la realizacion de este objetivo es necesario dar a losmaestros un conocimiento actualizado correspondiente, lo que en nuestro caso concreto signi� cala necesidad de estabilizar el desequilibrio y la falta de coordinacion entre las partes academico-teorica y pedagogico-profesional de su formacion. En el marco de estas re� exiones se presentanlas propuestas relativas a la renovacion de la formacion de maestros de primer ciclo de escuelaprimaria en Eslovenia. Estas propuestas son el resultado de la labor hecha en el marco delproyecto de Tempus Restructuring Primary Teachers’ Study Programme. Ademas de laFacultad de Pedagog õ a de la Universidad de Ljubljana, coordinadora del proyecto, el proyectoconto con la participacion de la Facultades de Educacion de la Universidad de Helsinki y laUniversidad de Strathclyde, Glasgow.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Der Beitrag stellt einige Uberlegungen uber die durch die neue Schulge-setzgebung geregelte Situation der Grundschullehrer in Slowenien dar. Er geht von derUberzeugung aus, daß ohne einen seiner Arbeit ergebenen und engagierten Lehrer, der in derLage und bereit ist, selbstandige fachbezogene Entscheidungen zu treffen und durchzusetzen,weder die Schule noch die Schuler erfolgreich sein konnen. In unserem Fall bedeutet das, daßLehrer mehr Vertrauen zu ihren eigenen Entscheidungen entwickeln sollten. Um dieses Ziel zuverwirklichen, mussen ihnen angemessene, moderne Kenntnisse vermittelt werden, was eineausgeglichenere Balance zwischen den akademisch-theoretischen und den padagogisch-profes-sionellen Anteilen ihrer Ausbildung erfordert. Als Folge dieser Uberlegungen werden einigeVorschlage zur Erneuerung der Ausbildung fur Grundschullehrer in Slowenien vorgestellt, diewir im Rahmen des Tempus Projekts unter dem Titel ‘Restruktuierung des Studienprogrammsfur Grundschullehrer in Slowenien’ formuliert haben. Am Projekt haben neben der Fakultatfur Padagogik der Universitat in Ljubljana, die das Projekt koordiniert hat, auch die Fakultatfur Lehrerausbildung der Universitat in Helsinki und die Fakultat fur Lehrerausbildung derUniversitat in Strathclyde, Glasgow, mitgearbeitet.

Background Context

The independence of Slovenia in 1991 and its � rst democratic elections are oftenconsidered as the main motors of recent changes in the education system in thatcountry. However, old and outmoded legislation, and the necessity of legalisingexperiments which had already taken place in primary schools all around Slovenia atthe end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, as well as the in� uence ofcontemporary concepts on teaching and learning processes, are equally essential rea-sons for these changes. After lengthy discussions about visions of future education inSlovenia, and comparative analyses of education systems in selected European coun-tries, a White Paper on Education was prepared (Krek, 1995, English translation 1996)in the Republic of Slovenia. This led, in 1996, to the passing of a number of actsregulating the country’s education system. A few acts are still being discussed in theParliament and are expected to be passed in the near future. All new curricula have alsobeen approved.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

Greater Faith in Teachers’ Professional Authority 263

Recent Changes

Recent, essential changes in education merit closer examination. The most evidentchange is in extending primary school (that is, compulsory education) provision from8 to 9 years. Henceforth, children will start school at the age of 6 years (currently 7).A foreign language will be introduced a year earlier, at the age of nine (Grade 4).Primary school provision will comprise three 3-year periods. Unlike the current situ-ation, which does not allow for selection and optional subjects, the new legislationestablishes selective primary schools: in the last 3-year period, students will be rankedat three levels in three core subjects: Slovenian, mathematics and a foreign language. Inthis last 3-year period, they will also have an option of choosing three subjects from thepool of humanities and science subjects. Other changes concern the integration ofchildren with special needs, assessment [2] and team-teaching. Primary class teacherswill teach in the � rst and partly in the second period, and primary subject teachers willteach in the third and part of the second period. [3] One teacher will teach one groupof children throughout the � rst educational period. In Grade 1, a pre-school teacher orsecond primary class teacher will also be present in the classroom for half of the time,which means that two teachers should be able to work together as a team. This will alsobe the case if children with special needs are integrated into the class. In such a case,a special needs teacher will work together with primary teacher. These changes will beintroduced gradually. In September 1999, 42 primary schools in Slovenia (of 820)began introducing the new programme in Grade 1 and Grade 7 of the new nine-yearprimary school. In each subsequent academic year, the number of schools implement-ing the new programme will increase, until 2003/2004, by which time the newprogramme will have been introduced into all Slovenian primary schools.

Preparing for the Future: the challenge for teacher education and training

The new concept of primary education in Slovenia has presented a challenge for teachereducation and training from the very � rst discussions on these proposed changes. It hasalways been maintained there was no need to change the whole system of teachereducation [4] as ‘restructuring the primary teachers’ study programme’ according tothe new primary school legislation was quite suf� cient. As well as for the primary schoolitself, it has been long established it was not appropriate to use the word ‘reform’ forteacher education and training as it is an ongoing process of gradual changes and theintroduction of innovation, paying due respect to the long and rich tradition ineducation in Slovenia. The need to restructure the primary teachers’ study programme,however, has not arisen only from the system changes in the new legislation: it is alsonecessary to build up teachers’ con� dence so that they become better suited to the taskof making their own autonomous decisions. Without teachers who are dedicated, whobelieve in their work and who are willing to make professional decisions and stand bythem, the school and its pupils cannot be successful. At least in principle, such a lineof thought is supported by the new, ‘goal-driven’, legislation replacing the old ‘process-driven’ laws, and, as such, it requires more professional autonomy from teachers. Itremains to be seen whether this is going to be the case.

As this paper aims to demonstrate, the government still tends to prescribe teachers’work in great detail, and, furthermore, teachers themselves are asking to have all theirwork prescribed! Thus, it is even more important to build up their con� dence so thatthey can make their own autonomous professional decisions. Teachers will become

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

264 Mojca Pecek & Cveta Razdevsek-Pucko

more con� dent, however, only if they are helped as students at the earliest stage of theirprofessional development by a study programme better suited to their needs.

Slovenian educators are aware that many European countries are trying to � ndsolutions to similar problems (Coolahan, 1995; McCall, 1995) and are very interestedin international co-operation. For the Tempus project (Razdevsek-Pucko, 1996),whose main purpose was to � nd answers to some dilemmas about the level anddirection of change in primary teacher education in Slovenia, and to chart the scope ofnew courses which would respond better to the needs of the ‘new primary school’, wehad searched for partner countries who were addressing similar problems. After longconsideration, we decided to approach the Faculty of Education, University of Helsinki(Finland), and the Faculty of Education, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow (Scot-land), for co-operation.

The aim of our paper is to present the Joint European Phare (JEP) Tempus projectentitled the Restructuring Primary Teachers’ Programme (RESPECT), [5] and to lookat its results in the light of the new position for primary school teachers created by thenew Slovenian legislation.

Teaching Teachers to Become more Autonomous in their Professional Decisions

In the late 1980s, the � rst debates arose as to whether the proposed new schoollegislation should be ‘goal’- or ‘process’-oriented (Medves, 1991, pp. 69–90). Anexample of the former, where the teaching process is regulated directly, is the Austrianlegislation that had in the past been traditionally followed by the Slovenian legislation.Ever since the very � rst Austrian Primary Education Act of 1774, [6] schools had beenregulated by law, fully and in detail. Not only had legal acts determined the legal andformal framework for school operation, but they had also speci� ed actual contents andteaching methods. Curricula and syllabuses for all types and levels of schools were thusconsidered a matter of legislation. Government, with its mediators (inspectors, princi-pals and also teachers), had thus assumed full authority over school management anddirectly prescribed educational, organisational and didactic principles and educationalcontent, which meant that educational rules equated to legal rules.

Unlike this is the tradition of Anglo-Saxon legislation which is ‘goal-’oriented. Thistype of school system is determined by the stipulation of the types and levels ofexaminations that have to be passed in order to obtain certain rights, to be admitted toschool or to progress to a higher class standing. Such regulation allows for great� exibility with regard to school organisation, types of educational institution, andcontents and educational concepts of school work. Legislation primarily focuses onregulating the school management system and consequently on determining relation-ships between various partners who themselves can develop the contents, educational,organisational and didactic model of school.

The new Slovenian legislation combines both types of approach. School work iscontrolled as a process: the legal and formal level of teachers’ work is prescribed, as wellas a fair degree of its contents. Syllabuses set the number of hours for a particularsubject, its goals and standards; furthermore, these are quite speci� c about contents,and they provide didactic recommendations which, in combination with externalexaminations, knowledge catalogues and prescribed textbooks, [7] leaves teachers’professional autonomy very restricted. The level of teachers’ autonomy is thus small,since both teaching process and its results are controlled from outside.

The question is, however, what possibilities remain for teachers’ professional auton-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

Greater Faith in Teachers’ Professional Authority 265

omy. Dale (1989, p. 143), for example, talks about two established concepts ofteachers’ autonomy in Great Britain which signi� cantly in� uence the standing of theteacher’s vocation and its power and in� uence over decision-making in educationalpolicies. According to the � rst, weak conception, as he calls it, the teacher’s autonomyconsists of free usage of approved professional knowledge in implementing studyprogrammes that have been designed elsewhere. Consequently, teachers have littlemore in� uence over study programme design than anyone else. According to thesecond, strong conception of teachers’ autonomy, however, teachers are seen as expertsin education and thus the only, or best quali� ed persons to decide what is taught andhow. Both concepts of teachers’ autonomy are a matter of philosophical and politicaldebate. It is questionable, however, as Grace (1987, pp. 220–221) concludes, whetherteachers can gain as much autonomy and, consequently, as much faith in theirprofessional autonomy as they used to enjoy, not only in England, but also in the USA(Apple, 1989), in the era of liberal politics when their professional � eld was safe frominterference by the government, industry and/or parents.

The history of the Slovenian school system stands in contrast to the English andAmerican systems in being marked by a very detailed regulation of school work;teachers in Slovenia have never experienced the level of autonomy as seen in theabove-mentioned countries (Pecek, 1998). They have never had control over eithereducational goals or syllabus design; they have always been expected merely to im-plement them. While educational goals after the World War II more or less belongedto the domain of politics, they should be a matter of professional debate now; yet itseems that the world of politics cannot resist continuous interference. This is not to saythat teachers have been banned from discussions about the new legislation or that someof their ideas have not been taken into account. After all, there had been many forumsorganised at various stages of development of the new legislation in which they havehad an opportunity to express their views and to offer their solutions; among otherexperts, members of curriculum committees whose task was to develop speci� c syllabuswere also teachers; curriculum evaluation meetings were organised especially forteachers and the curriculum committees were bound to incorporate their suggestions orexplain why they chose not do so. The Ministry for Education and Sports hadundoubtedly opened up many opportunities for teachers to express their opinion andthus feel involved in the school reform.

However, even though teachers do have an opportunity to contribute to debates,they still do not have control over their � eld, the reason being not just a ‘possessive’government which wants to keep everything in their hands, but also lack of interest onthe part of teachers themselves. A survey showed, for example, that “teachers do notknow well the premises of curriculum reform and are not well informed about itsdimensions. Their insight into the new curriculum vertical and horizontal links is poor.They apparently do not know well even the current (still used) curriculum … so theycannot compare how a subject is presented in the old and new curriculum, and identifythe basic ideas of curriculum reform expressed in the goals, contents and methodsoutlined in the blueprint for curriculum” (Krivec, 1998, p. 7).

The only time teachers seemed to have initiated a change was in their innovationsand experiments which they started implementing in the classroom at the end of 1980sand beginning of the 1990s. This was a time when it became clear that schoollegislation had to change: the old legislation had weakened and the new one had notbeen established. Teachers thus had an opportunity to create their lessons from theirown ideas and to test their ideas in practice: their autonomy included new methods of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

266 Mojca Pecek & Cveta Razdevsek-Pucko

work, such as descriptive assessment and differentiated teaching and sometimes eventhe contents of their subject. Solutions found by teachers, however, had to be “testedby experts in the � eld and formally legalized” as the White Paper on Education in theRepublic of Slovenia (Krek, 1995, p. 71) reminds us: in other words, they had to beincorporated by the system.

The Effects in the Classroom

The autonomy of teachers in dealing with the curriculum has had a major in� uence onteachers’ autonomy in the classroom. There, teachers’ autonomy has always beenrestricted by de� nition, which applies even to more liberal times. The fact is that theteacher’s task is to meet with students’ ignorance and lack of discipline under certainconditions: the creation of an appropriate relationship between teacher and student anddemands for external assessments, among other things, place teachers under a greatdeal of pressure. Within these boundaries, however, teachers’ freedom to work as theywould like is further restricted by their status, which puts them at the bottom of theschool hierarchy and thus under the direct control of the principal. The method ofrealising the freedom with which they are entrusted, on the other hand, depends on thesituation in the classroom, on the hidden curriculum and on their own idea of what itmeans to be a teacher, developed through their experiences as a student, learned duringtheir training, and gained in the workplace (Dale, 1989, p. 142).

It remains to be seen how the new school legislation is going to affect teachers’autonomy in the classroom. Teachers’ autonomy with regard to contents and teachingmethods has always been minimal in Slovenia, many teachers not feeling con� dentenough to follow their own beliefs in the classroom and asking instead for guidelinesfrom outside: “in seminars and lectures, many teachers demand to be told what ispermissible and what is not, what is right and what is not” (Skalar, 1990, p. 100).When asked, in a study published in 1991, what they would do if they realised a topicprescribed by the curriculum was meaningless, 14.6% of teachers replied they wouldfollow the curriculum anyway; 31.5% said they would spend less time on it or deal withit with less care, whereas only 15.2% said they would dismiss it; 21.5% of teacherswould replace it by something else; 4.6% would do it only with some students whomight need it later; and 1.7% of teachers said there was no such thing as a meaninglesstopic. The author of the study concludes that “many teachers realise there are manymeaningless topics which unnecessarily (over)burden their pupils, yet only a minorityfeel con� dent and/or educated enough to act” (Skrbinek, 1991, p. 584). Similarconclusions can be drawn from the evaluation of one of the most disputed subjects inthe primary school—socio-moral education—which was, even back in the 1980s,considered unsuitable and in need of modernisation and redesign. And yet its evalu-ation from 1990 shows that “many teachers strictly adhere to the curriculum” (Se-lakovic, 1990, p. 243), and “only about 10% of teachers believed its contents wereunsuitable, whereas 50% thought it was suitable and 30% believed it was partlysuitable. Others did not answer the question” (ibid., p. 244).

The above-mentioned surveys were conducted in times when teachers’ work hadnot been controlled by external tests and examinations and inspectors. Considering thattheir con� dence in following their own beliefs was so low, it is reasonable to expect thatthe introduction of the new methods of supervision has diminished it even further.However, teachers have problems imposing their professional authority in other areasas well.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

Greater Faith in Teachers’ Professional Authority 267

The new legislation gives parents more control than ever over schools and teachers.This change is seen as positive, since it grants parents the rights and responsibilitieswith regard to their child’s education. From the teachers’ point of view, however, it isproblematic: in their disputes with parents, they � nd themselves unprotected; theybelieve that it is unclear where the rights of one end and the other begin, whichquestions are professional and thus safe from parental interference, and where inputfrom parents is constructive and desirable: “hardly a meeting or conference passeswithout teachers talking about their helplessness and even perceived threat in theirwork. Many speak of their fear of various forms of control; they fear control fromaggressive and dissatis� ed parents, especially parents with high social status, they feartheir students, numerous counsellors and ‘superiors”’ (Skalar, 1990, p. 99).

A very important issue in the quest for teachers’ professional authority is a viewwhich places too much emphasis on the femininity of the teacher’s job. It has oftenbeen underlined in various contexts that teaching is a profession in which one needs topossess—rather than expert knowledge of how to teach—a feeling for young people anda good measure of patience. Thus, teaching in the primary school becomes a matter ofthe right feeling, love for children, an ability to understand them, as well as dedicationand gentleness. Teaching, of course, is all these things. However, such a view puts atthe forefront the relationship between teacher and pupil. This relationship is no doubtcrucial for a successful learning process: but it becomes a problem when it obscures thebasic relation which has to prevail in school, and that is the relation of human being andknowledge. The above-mentioned views can undermine the importance of teachers’expert knowledge, lower their professional authority and build a mistrust of theirprofessional autonomy. Female teachers themselves often use these same arguments intheir pursuit of acknowledgement. They refer to themselves as mothers whose task is tocreate an emotionally safe and pleasant atmosphere in the classroom, and thus theyunknowingly weaken their authority as teaching experts. School work de� ned in suchterms can be seen as something that does not require much knowledge, as it is moreimportant to be patient and to have a hand for children. By emphasising these qualities,on the other hand, female teachers are pushing a female-only environment even further,since men � nd it hard to identify with the role of teacher as caring mother; and, whenthey do, they are often met with surprised concern also from their female colleagues.The younger the children, the more prevalent is this attitude. Teaching in the � rst fourgrades of primary school is almost exclusively in the hands of female teachers, and theseare the very teachers who encounter most problems in having their professionalauthority appreciated, as they rank the lowest in the primary school hierarchy.

At this level also, the question of domain seems to occur most often. Experts inspeci� c � elds claim they are the ones who should have most input when deciding whatis taught about speci� c subjects in the � rst four grades of primary school, whereas classteachers seem to be left without their speci� c expert � eld—and all they can decideabout is how the subject is taught. Of course, one of the main questions that should beresolved here is whether at this level the prevailing approach should be disciplinary orits opposite, synthetic and complex. In other words, should the principle of scienti� csystem be followed; or, rather, should the ability to relate the information from different� elds in order to solve practical problems come before the scienti� c systemic approach?If we choose the former, it is the experts in speci� c � elds who are competent to makedecisions about what is taught. However, this means there is a clear division betweensubjects already in the � rst four grades of primary school, which makes it possible topresent and develop a scienti� c system. If, however, we opt for the latter, which we

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

268 Mojca Pecek & Cveta Razdevsek-Pucko

believe is the only right way to go, then clearly it is the class teachers who are theexperts in the � eld. In no sense does this mean that class teachers can disregardscienti� c rules in their work, or that experts in speci� c subjects should not participatein curriculum development. However, if complexity is the basic approach at this level,it is certainly the class teacher who is the expert and who is and should be the mostknowledgeable, and who should therefore hold an important place when it comes todeciding what is taught and how. In order to reach this stage, however, class teachersneed to constitute and control the knowledge speci� c to their � eld. The more theyemphasise the teacher–pupil relationship as the most important element in teaching,the harder it is to form this � eld, as they are obscuring the basic relationship, that of thehuman being and knowledge. Considering that primary school teachers of the � rst fourgrades are the only teachers who have never had their own professional association, theidea of their constitution of the � eld and control over it appears even more an illusion.

Restructuring Primary School Teachers’ Education

One way of raising the level of teachers’ professional authority and, consequently, ofgaining greater faith in their autonomy, is a higher degree of generalised and systema-tised knowledge—which is the reason why a university degree for teachers was intro-duced more than a decade ago in Slovenia. In 1987, a two-year undergraduate coursewas extended to a full four-year course, which is completed by a successful submissionof a graduate thesis. This development has created much better conditions for primaryschool teachers to acquire more theoretical and practical knowledge for successfulwork. However, it has not stopped critics from questioning teachers’ ability to perform.Some critics have stressed that “extending studies and learning more theory does notwarrant in itself more professional work for there is a danger of overloading ‘academic’and in practice useless knowledge” (Marentic-Pozarnik, 1992, p. 12) [8]; others haveclaimed teachers are still poorly trained because of lack of knowledge in psychology andeducation, in other words, because of lack of knowledge on how to teach; and the thirdgroup has insisted that teachers lack knowledge of their subject, that is, knowledgeabout what to teach (Zagar, 1988).

We believe that no teacher education course can be completely free of criticism.Nevertheless, teacher education probably is in need of restructuring, given that newlegislation poses new demands on teachers. In order to choose and stand behind theirchoice of appropriate methods, to be able to analyse and re� ect their work and thuslearn from it, teachers need to possess certain specialist knowledge, as well as knowl-edge about their status in school and in society. They should understand the specialfeatures of their vocation, and they have to be aware that it is necessary to � ght for theirprofessional authority both in the classroom and in society. But it is also necessary toraise their own con� dence and belief in their professional authority. It is often said thatone can be as autonomous as one is capable of being. This is not to say that the positionof teachers is simple, for they hold a state job, they are paid by the state, the state istheir customer and the state guarantees that teachers perform their duties on theirbehalf. On the other hand, teachers’ work cannot be de� ned by laws, guidelines andrules, or by pre-set correct answers to various problems that arise from their work.The teacher’s job is much more complex: it does not allow for following prescribedrules to the letter, and any attempts to over-prescribe can be damaging to the successof their work. Thus, students training to become teachers have to be offered a suitable

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

Greater Faith in Teachers’ Professional Authority 269

and updated knowledge so they can feel con� dent to � ght for autonomy of theirvocation and so that they can maintain their autonomy also in the outside world.

The Tempus Project: the Restructuring Primary Teachers’ Study Programme

This was one of the goals of our Tempus project: to design a teacher education systemthat would enable students to acquire enough knowledge:

· to cope with any new situation that can arise due to the new legislation;· to deal with the new system of optional subjects;· to be able to take on their responsibility in broadening topics they � nd most

important.

Such a training programme should nurture those personal traits that can contributetowards greater con� dence in teachers’ work in the classroom and their encounters witheveryone who has the power to in� uence educational policy.

In this context, the main objective was to review and restructure the existingpre-service university study programme for primary school class teachers, in particularwith regard to the following issues:

· teaching younger children (early childhood education) and lowering the schoolentry age from 7 years to 6 years;

· teaching children with special needs and their integration in mainstream edu-cation;

· team teaching and other forms of team work;· earlier introduction of foreign language.

In order successfully to shape up students into teachers, it was also necessary todevelop a postgraduate programme for primary school teachers.

The � rst step in the project was the preparation of a comparative study of otherEuropean undergraduate courses for primary school teachers (Pecek Cuk, 1998). Atthe same time, lecturers and students from partner universities visited Slovenia, andvice versa. Travelling has proved invaluable for the Slovenian partners [9]. Slovenianstudents and project team members have gained � rst-hand experience in Finland andScotland about new ideas such as team teaching, early childhood teaching and teachingchildren with special needs, and thus have shaken off their potential fears of these, forthem, previously unknown practices. By taking part in various activities, planned andrealised within the project, many people have been able to learn on site and later sharetheir new knowledge with others, including lecturers, students and school teachers.Passing new experiences on to students and using the newly acquired knowledge inwork, the network of those involved has widened considerably, spreading all the way tostudents, school teachers, children and parents.

Although we are aware that restructuring curriculum is a long-term project, anumber of results have already been achieved:

· New methods in teaching younger children, team work, teaching children withspecial needs, teaching a foreign language at an early age have already beenincorporated into the existing primary school teacher education curriculum. In thisway, new knowledge acquired by academic staff on their visits to Finland andScotland have become a part of teaching practice at the Faculty of Education inLjubljana. [10]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

270 Mojca Pecek & Cveta Razdevsek-Pucko

· A range workshops for teachers who will teach younger children in the new Grade1 have been held.

· Two new study programmes have been developed: Early Foreign LanguageTeaching (for example, teaching English within the primary school) and a post-graduate masters degree (MEd) for primary school teachers. Knowledge andexperiences gained during the project have had a major impact on both pro-grammes development. Comparative studies carried as part of the project havebeen of great help too. The programmes have already been approved at all levels(Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, and the Slovenian Ministry ofEducation and Sports) and both are evaluated as modern, well-structured and inline with European trends.

· As students also participated in the restructuring project, those students whoundertook their work placement in Glasgow and Helsinki shared their experienceswith other students (special discussions were organised).

The project team has put forward a number of additional proposals to the Board ofFaculty of Education in Ljubljana. These include new guidelines for the internalrestructuring of primary school teacher education with regard to the new legislation, theneeds of the reformed school and the new syllabus. Also taken into account wereexperiences in primary school teacher education from Finland and Scotland, andnegative comparative analyses from other European countries.

· Internal restructuring involves the introduction of new contents into the existingprogramme, especially in those courses affected by considerable changes in thecurriculum for a 9-year primary school. New organisation and methodology (forexample, team work, descriptive assessment) also require new contents.

· The whole study should be more pedagogically oriented [11], or in other words,vocational and theoretical courses should have a stronger ‘educational and instruc-tional’ component. They should be more in line with the future needs of ourstudents. This does not mean that theory should be omitted, as it is a necessarybasis for autonomous educational work and for the educational redesign of contentthat teachers are expected to perform. This should also not mean overly pragmaticstudies. Instead, there should be more emphasis on the ‘educational’ element.Primary school teacher education should be integrated, including vocationallyspeci� c, didactic and practical educational components.

· In teacher education and training, it is necessary to strive for a better cohesion andcongruence between speci� c educational components. One way of achieving this goalcould be an introduction of a student portfolio with students’ work experience asits centre point. A portfolio, could also serve as one way of assessing students’practical work and should be instrumental in bringing all their studies together.Such a portfolio would enable students to see teaching in primary school as a unitrather than a number of subjects. At the same time, it would also encourage themto re� ect on their theoretical readings and their work experience. It should consistof three parts. The � rst part would be a collection of all assignments and speechesdone during their studies; the second part would consist of students’ workexperience; and the third part would be optional, including everything individualstudents do in their spare time (for example, leading an activity group, singing ina choir) and in their own view contributing towards being a teacher. The centralpart of the portfolio would include a diary of work experience; with some supervi-sion and compulsory feedback, it should eventually grow out of simple descrip-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

Greater Faith in Teachers’ Professional Authority 271

tions. A work portfolio for each period of work experience will serve as a basis forthe � nal portfolio of work experience as a record of all tasks performed.

· Improved cohesion between particular courses in the programme needs to befollowed by improved compatibility between the university and schools andteacher–supervisors who take part in student experience. There should be moretraining provided for supervisors, and relationships with schools should improve.The university needs to nurture its partnership with schools and teachers in waysin which both sides give and take.

· As there will be more systemic links between primary school teachers, earlychildhood teachers and teachers of children with special needs, it makes sense toforge similar ties between respective faculty departments by introducing jointstudent activities. For better co-operation, it is necessary to get to know oneanother better. Both � elds (early childhood, special needs) could be initiallyintroduced as options and could later become specialist postgraduate courses.

· Considering experiences from other countries, special attention needs to be paid tothe conditions of enrolment. Apart from matriculation results, currently the onlycriterion, special educational experiences and/or hypothetical solving of educa-tional problems and, most of all, good communication skills should also count.

· It is necessary to start thinking about further development of postgraduate andspecialist courses. As masters degrees have already been established, it makes senseto continue developing specialist postgraduate courses covering speci� c � elds ofwork in primary schools which require special knowledge.

Conclusion

All the above-mentioned suggestions and ideas stem from the basic idea that restructur-ing is going to be a long-term project; instead of a radical change of system, it shouldrather be a systematic, ‘goal’-oriented redesign, achievable though internal rearrange-ment, additions and, most of all, better and more systematic cohesion of courses withinthe programme. In general terms, teacher education and training in Slovenia is in linewith modern trends in this � eld in other countries: the main problem is an imbalanceand lack of cohesion between theoretical and practical sides of the study programme.By solving this problem, it is believed that Slovenian students will gain a more suitableand more updated knowledge and consequently more con� dence.

Without teachers who are dedicated, who believe in their work and who are willingto make professional decisions and stand by them, schools and their pupils cannot besuccessful. If good teachers are the key to a successful school, they need to beacknowledged as professionals, and their autonomy has to correspond to their respon-sibilities. It is questionable, however, whether the new Slovenian school legislationprovides for these needs. As mentioned in the paper, teachers’ professional judgementwill be controlled by external examinations, and the teaching itself is to be monitoredas well. Control is thus established over both what is learned and what is taught. Sucha tight hold can lead to devaluation of their expert knowledge, and a higher workloadat the other end, resulting in a greater responsibility for the results and less indepen-dence in their professional decisions.

However, all of this should be highlighted by teachers themselves. As long asteachers express their professionalism within a system which determines what exactlythey have to teach and even how they teach, their vocation cannot be highly regardedand their authority cannot be of signi� cance. It is a fact that teachers have to � ght and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

272 Mojca Pecek & Cveta Razdevsek-Pucko

have greater faith in their professional authority and room for independent decision-making also themselves. Suitable teacher education and training, however, can contrib-ute signi� cantly to their awareness of the problems, and that was one of the aims of thisparticular Tempus project.

NOTES

[1] In this paper, we have used a number of ideas presented in our papers at the24th Annual ATEE Conference in Leipzig in 1999: Pecek, M. ‘Professionalisa-tion of Teaching as a Strategy for Enhancing Teacher’s Professional Autonomy’and Razdevsek-Pucko, C., Smyth, G. & Hytonen, J. ‘The Restructuring ofTeacher Education—a case study from Slovenia: the Three C’s: Clarity, Con-sistency and Commitment’.

[2] Marks given in numbers and words (excellent, successful, less successful) forsome subjects will be replaced by descriptive assessment in the � rst 3-yearperiod, a combination of descriptive assessment and numerical marks in thesecond period, and numerical marks only for all subjects in the third period.

[3] Currently, there are two 4-year periods in the primary school. Teachers of the� rst period are called ‘class teachers’ and those teaching in the second four-yearperiod are called ‘subject teachers’. ‘Class teachers’ teach all subjects and ‘sub-ject teachers’ teach only one (e.g. Slovenian) or sometimes two subjects (e.g.mathematics and physics).

[4] Initial teacher education for primary school teachers was extended in the lastdecade and now a 4-year university degree course is compulsory for teachers ofboth the lower and upper grades of primary school.

[5] The project was approved for the period from 1 September 1996 to 31 August1999.

[6] Slovenia used to be part of Austria and later Austro-Hungary until the end ofWorld War I. After World War I, it became part of Yugoslavia, and since 1991it has been an independent country.

[7] According to the law, all schools carrying out publicly recognised programmesmust use textbooks and other aids approved by the Council for Education.Teachers are allowed to use other non-compulsory teaching aids as well.

[8] This thought results from a belief that extended teacher education and traininginjects even more theory into teacher training studies since the number oftheoretical courses has grown, while the practical part has been neglected. It isworth mentioning here that ‘class’ primary teachers are expected to complete 10weeks of work experience in their 4 years of studies. In comparison with someother countries, this may sound little. However, many other educationally ori-ented studies in Slovenia require only the bare minimum, that is 2 weeks persubject that a student will teach. As ‘subject’ teachers usually study two sub-jects, they have 4 weeks of work experience altogether.

[9] We wished to underline here the project outcomes only for Slovenia.[10] Texts dealing with these issues are published in our second book Teacher Edu-

cation for Changing School (Hytonen, Razdevsek-Pucko & Smyth, 1999).[11] Some of our suggestions, especially those marked in italics, correspond

with thoughts of distinguished academics such as Hilbert Meyer and PhilippePerrenoud, who lectured at the ATEE Conference in Leipzig in September1999.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

Greater Faith in Teachers’ Professional Authority 273

REFERENCES

APPLE, M.W. (1989) Critical introduction: ideology and the state in educational policy,in: R. DALE (Ed.) The State and Education Policy (Philadelphia, Milton Keynes,Open University Press), pp. 1–20.

COOLAHAN, J. (1995) A European dimension in teacher education: overview from theWestern Region, paper presented at the Winter University, in: Collection of papers,pp. 44–52 (Sweden, Falun Borlange University College).

DALE, R. (1989) The State and Education Policy (Philadelphia, Milton Keynes, OpenUniversity Press.

GRACE, G. (1987) Teachers and the state in Britain: a changing relation, in: M. LAWN

& G. GRACE (Eds) Teachers: The Culture and Politics of Work, pp. 193–228 (Lon-don, New York, Philadelphia, The Falmer Press).

HYTONEN, J., RAZDEVSEK-PUCKO, C. & SMYTH, G. (Eds) (1999) Teacher Education forChanging School (Faculty of Education, Ljubljana).

KREK, J. (Ed.) (1995) Bela knjiga o vzgoji in izobrazevanju v Republiki Sloveniji (WhitePaper on Education in the Republic of Slovenia) (Ljubljana, Ministrstvo za solstvoin sport).

KRIVEC, K. (1998) Ucitelji vedo premalo o kurikularni prenovi (Teachers do not knowenough about the curriculum reform), Solski razgledi, 3, pp. 7.

MARENTIC-POZARNIK, B. (1992) Izobrazevanje uciteljev med univerzo, drzavo in stroko(Training of teachers between the university, state and experts), in: F. ZAGAR (Ed.)Kaj hocemo in kaj zmoremo, pp. 8–22 (Ljubljana, Pedagoska fakulteta).

MCCALL, J. (1995) Education in Scotland: the challenge of continuity and change,paper presented at the Winter University, in: Collection of Papers, pp. 89–110(Sweden, Falun Borlange University College).

MEDVES, Z. (1991) Tipologija solske zakonodaje in narava zakonov o organizaciji ter� nanciranju solstva (Types of Educational Legislation and the Nature of Laws onthe Organisation and Funding of Education), in: M. MILHARCIC-HLADNIK & M.SEBART (Eds) Sola in ucitelj na vajetih drzave (School and teacher under govern-ment’s tight rein), pp. 69–90 (Ljubljana, Slovensko drustvo pedagogov).

PECEK, M. (1998) Avtonomnost uciteljev nekdaj in sedaj (Autonomy of teachers in thepast and today) (Ljubljana, Znanstveno in publicisticno sredisce).

PECEK CUK, M. (Ed.) (1998) European Trends in Primary School Teacher Education(Ljubljana, Faculty of Education).

RAZDEVSEK-PUCKO, C. (Co-ordinator) (1996) Restructuring Primary Teachers’ Studyprogramme—RESPECT, Tempus-Phare application for a Structural JointEuropean Project, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, University ofStrathclyde, Faculty of Education, University of Helsinki, Faculty of Education.

SELAKOVIC, J. (1990) Druzbenomoralna vzgoja (Socio-Moral Education), in: T. LOGAR

(Ed.) Evalvacija programa zivljenja in dela osnovne sole, pp. 239–250 (Ljubljana,Zavod Republike Slovenije za solstvo).

SKALAR, M. (1990) Emancipacija uciteljev (Teacher emancipation), in: Ucitelj, vzgo-jitelj—druzbena in strokovna perspektiva, pp. 99–101 (Bled, Zveza drustevpedagoskih delavcev Slovenije).

SKRBINEK, M. (1991) Kaj ucitelji menijo o obremenjenosti njihovih ucencev s solskimdelom in svoji lastni obremenjenosti? (What do teachers think about overburden-ing their pupils and about their own work overload?), Sodobna pedagogika, 9–10,pp. 579–584.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013

274 Mojca Pecek & Cveta Razdevsek-Pucko

ZAGAR, F. (Ed) (1988) Usposabljanje razrednih uciteljev pri nas (Training of primaryschool teachers in Slovenia) (Ljubljana, Pedagoska akademija).

Correspondence: Mojca Pecek & Cveta Razdevsek-Pucko, University of Ljubljana, Fac-ulty of Education, Kardeljeva ploscad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. E-mail:, mojca.pecek@guest.arnes.si . , cveta.pucko@uni-lj.si .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

07:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

013