EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
One of the most frequently repeated refrains from the Bulgarian teachers’ union is that the amount of money Bulgaria allocates to education is too small. It is true that the Bulgarian state’s spending on education as a share of GDP is the lowest in the EU, but this fact alone is not enough to convince us that the miserable state of education is due to underfunding and that only more spending can improve its quality.
While in the free market, in order for a company to grow, it must offer a relatively higher quality product, in the state the exact opposite principle applies - any request for more spending is a sign of realized failure.
This is exactly how we should interpret the latest insistence of the Bulgarian teachers' union for more education spending. Although in 2013 these expenditures were 5.9% (160 million leva) more than last year - they are clearly not enough to see the improvement in quality that teachers have been promising since the beginning of the 20th century.
In typical union-style conflict of interest, Yanka Takeva, the president of the Bulgarian teachers' union, admonishes us that in order to improve education, teachers' salaries must first be increased. Apparently, the state monopoly in the field is not that problematic (if at all).
Takeva also does not fail to vilify the so-called system of delegated budgets, which, according to her, worsened the psychological climate in schools. Delegated budgets were introduced with the idea of increasing competition between individual schools, by tying the size of the school budget to the number of students enrolled in it. Competition did indeed appear, but not of the kind sought.
Due to the unwillingness and inability of principals and teachers to offer a better product, they understandably referred to the wishes of the lowest denominator among the students, and so the quality actually collapsed even further. With their decision, the teachers gave carte blanche to the students to do whatever they wanted, because one less student would also mean a smaller budget. This circumstance caused a deterioration in the "psychological climate" among the teachers in recent years, but they can only be angry with themselves, because they chose the option of no additional efforts, but always with a smile for no reason.
And in fact, quite a few people already understand (consciously or not) that the education offered by the state cannot be changed for the better and have therefore chosen to take matters into their own hands. According to the latest data from the National Center for Public Education survey, released yesterday, from 41% in 2010 the number of young people paying for private lessons increased to 46% in 2013.
And hopefully more people will wake up to reality, so they will waste much less of their time and effort in the mediocre and outdated institution of public education.
I have a few comments about your article:
First you stereotype.... a stereotype puts everyone under one common denominator!
Do you think that some teachers (I include myself in this number) do not understand and realize the extreme need for functional reform in Bulgarian public education? We live in the 21st century, and we have read, listened to, and understood Sir Ken Robinson!
Unlike Sergey Ignatov! And Klisarova ... or maybe they understand it, but they don't have a say!
We understand it, the question is whether there is anyone to hear us! And what exactly can we do with the current regulatory framework: understand the PDO and the regulations for the application of the PDO as well as its accompanying regulations! As well as several beautiful regulations from the Ministry of Health (24 of 06.09.2006). When you get acquainted with all the documentation, you will understand that the teachers have the least fault, if we can even talk about fault! Yes - the Law on Public Education is a moral, economic and historical fossil created in 1993 and patched up thousands of times, but dear Mr. Georgiev, when we write functional proposals to the Ministry of Education, the automatic response system is turned on and it responds like this:
"Thank you for your suggestion. The team and experts of the Ministry of Youth and Sports will carefully consider your suggestions!"
And so on... and the legislator and the experts write exactly what they are told!
I can give at least ten examples from the last ten years of things that my colleagues and I openly laugh at, but somehow with sadness. Laughter through tears!
Second: The radical idea of a lack of state education and the presence only of private institutions performing educational functions and offering such services condemns some of the poorest people to a lack of any education, even of poor quality. And if we have to choose between no education and poor education, which is the lesser evil? Especially for the most socially vulnerable groups! Which on the one hand may be very effective, but is hardly very humane and in line with the Charter of Human Rights. And it is something really good!
Give an alternative to this if you please!
It is true that it is their choice whether to study or not, but the state guarantees it as a right in the constitution, which is also a moral, economic, and historical fossil, which is infinitely ineffective in the current environment of globalization and digitalization of every sphere of human activity!
Both the German constitution and the Icelandic one... they simply allow for the possibility of error and indicate ways for its correction, even by the individual person, if he wants to, it is not impossible. Here, however, the constitution is infallible and unchangeable, and it is full of many, many things that need revision!
Third: You discriminate against the personality of the teacher and his functionality! Surely you yourself learned to read and write? I hope so! Personally, I am a supporter of the idea that the only education that can exist is self-education! That is, if you want to learn and have an interest in a field, no one can stop you and that's how it should be! The good thing is that libraries and the Internet offer very good conditions for self-education and, despite everything, I would not allow myself to discriminate and belittle the narrow specialization of the teacher in one field! The mentor, the coach with vast experience in preparing certain fields of activity! The teacher's job is to systematize and formulate and sift out the essence of the studied information in the context of the time. To filter and select the most key and important and to give freedom for interpretation, creativity, transformation of information! And to be very up to date with the times .... this is done not only with reforms, not only with information, but also with money. Another question is about the sieve and how some people become teachers!
Finland has found the answer to who can be a teacher and who becomes a teacher there! The top three to five percent of university graduates!
The sieve, the sieve, Mr. Georgiev, but also the money! I agree with you on that.
Fourth: The unions honestly and openly do not work! The unions have been allowing huge discrimination within the educational process itself since 2006 and their lawyers frankly have at least ten legitimate violations in education with which they can ruin the state with fines, compensation and court at the national and international level, but they do not do it! And the individual does not have the strength and opportunities to change anything legally! Even the very fact that an individual does not have the right to refer to the constitutional court is eloquent, let alone bear the costs of such a battle! Just please do not create the stereotype of the illiterate and inadequate Bulgarian teacher, because although we are not without sin, we are placed in a situation in which the individual can do very little, if not nothing ... no matter how well-read, literate and strong-willed and have a desire to change the current situation! I will quote the words of a person with over 30 years of pedagogical experience:
"The education system is everyone against everyone! Teachers against teachers, teachers against students, principals against teachers, ministry against principals and in an atmosphere of constant confrontation! From which you can expect nothing good!"
Fifth: I do not accept the existence of what would be defined by someone as the public interest. Societies are only names. At the basic level, there are only individuals, and these individuals are victims of the cultural and social environment and their values. But there was a saying that went like this:
A ruler must know three things:
1. That he manages people.
2. That he governs them according to the laws.
3. And that he will not rule forever.
In this line of thought, teachers are executors and they govern us. They govern us according to the laws, and as Mahatma Gandhi said:
"It should be clear to everyone that just as there are unjust people, there are also unjust laws!"
And now I have the feeling that they will rule us forever! And no one said or did anything, when a law full of nonsense was written for 4 years and it took a huge amount of work, nerves and people and vain hopes and in the end they say: Are we starting over?
I can bet that they will write the new law for at least two years (if they are in power), they will discuss it publicly for another year, and by the time it is supposed to come into effect, something or someone will happen and nothing will change!
Because they don't need free, thinking, creative and ambitious individuals!
They don't even need TEACHERS!
They need things to manage!
And we all bleat sheepishly in fear of the knife!
And there is no guarantee from the state that this will not happen again! This law is not written by professionals, but by "experts"!
And for the last 20 years, so many young people have been ruined by lack of opportunities!
If we get to the Constitution, it says that the state is responsible for actions and consequences caused by it! But how? Who can make it bear the consequences? Paper illusions and paragraph 22!
Strasbourg intervenes only if the possibilities of national legislation and courts have been exhausted, and if the legislation and judicial system itself are the problem? What solutions do we have then? Should we be careful who we choose to be our legislator?
And do we have a choice?
The puppet on the left, right or in the center?
Or a selection of several hundred puppets?
And what intelligent and honest person would do that? By entering politics, he will no longer be so honest, nor so intelligent, nor so strong-willed!
Laws are being attacked at the legislative and judicial levels! Which involves a lot of money! And if writing a blog is almost free - change costs money!
But suggest alternatives and I can criticize a lot, I can even explain to you the ten biggest violations in Bulgarian education, but I have set myself another goal... to create alternatives, not just criticize!
And in the spirit of constructive criticism, don't use stereotypes, Mr. Georgiev!
"A place for everything and everything in its place!" - The Bulgarian Renaissance begins with ... things being in their place!
I will take the liberty of responding to some of the topics raised in your post.
1. It is easy to explain what people who do not have the opportunity to attend school will do, and this has been happening for decades in Bulgaria as well - they will be able to benefit from charity. Let's not forget that before the state imposed its monopoly on the system, a large number of schools existed with the money of private benefactors - Aprilovska Gymnasium, Sofia University, the Academy in Svishtov, etc.
Moreover, the market has the function of creating products and services for all types of customers. Including the poorest - currently, private education is only of the expensive kind, because only this type of customer seeks it - the rest of the business has been squeezed out by the state, due to the unfair competition of "free" (paid for with taxes) education.
Even now, in the poorest parts of the world, there are many private schools that are preferred by the people there. Just one article on the subject: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/backing-the-wrong-horse-how-private-schools-are-good-for-the-poor
2. I don't think that responsible and good teachers should be very, very involved in MONM. The time has come to build alternative educational institutions, outside the grip of the state. And private mentoring is the largest sector of them at the moment.
@Stoyan Panchev
"Let's not forget that before the state imposed its monopoly on the system, a large number of schools existed with the money of private benefactors - Aprilovska Gymnasium, Sofia University, the Academy in Svishtov, etc."
The example you give is not entirely accurate.
1. The educational institutions you mention are not private, but public. That is, private individuals are only donors and benefactors, but not owners.
2. Despite the benefactors, the creation and maintenance of the vast majority of schools during the Revival was due not so much to donations as to church and local taxes collected from the population. There are sufficient documents to prove this.
At the beginning of the 19th century, a network of public schools (attached to churches and monasteries) was established on the territory of the Bulgarian land, which were free of charge. Alongside them, and much more widespread, there were also private educational institutions (in the true sense of the word), created not for non-profit purposes, but for profit. Both are known in history as "monastery schools".
What is the situation on the eve of the Russo-Turkish war?
1. Public schools have managed to modernize, and the funds of benefactors are directed specifically towards them.
2. Private ones have almost completely disappeared.
That is, in about 70 years and with an equal start (even with some superiority), honest education has disappeared at the expense of public education. Neither the Bulgarian state (which still does not exist) nor the Ottoman Empire has anything to do with this fact.
The conclusions are clear - private education cannot be dominant. The role it can have at best is complementary and/or corrective. Even if the state withdraws completely, the vacuum will be filled very quickly, but not by private initiative, but by all sorts of institutions motivated by goals that have nothing to do with concepts such as market, profit, etc. (as we understand them).
@Toto5
"That is, in about 70 years and with an equal start (even with some superiority), honest education has disappeared at the expense of public education. Neither the Bulgarian state (which still does not exist) nor the Ottoman Empire has anything to do with this fact."
I assume you are right about the facts (I am not familiar with them). However, how does it follow that private schools disappeared because they were dysfunctional/inappropriate?
By the way, the author correctly wrote:
Private schools are in a very bad situation.
They have to compete with a ZERO tuition fee. That is, to exist as a private school you have to charge students, for example, 1000 leva per year. And in a public school: zero leva. And then compete with a zero price! Especially with poor people. There has to be a HUGE difference in the quality of education for you to decide to pay.
Also, private schools have to pay taxes (they are businesses, right?) and therefore a portion of those taxes go to public schools. Have you ever seen a business that is legally obligated to support its competitors? Here you see one!
I don't see how, given the current situation, there will soon be good private schools with good facilities. Right now, if you need a laboratory, a clean room, a university room, or just good equipment, you have to buy it yourself (if you're a private school). But if you're a public school: they fall from the sky. A gift from society.
Without knowing anything, I am inclined to assume that there are majors that require a lot of capital (for training) that can hardly be taught at all in private schools in the near future. Capital is slowly accumulating, especially in the current state of affairs.
In short: We start the competition with an initial score of 10:0 for the public schools. And during the game we take points from the private schools and give them to the public schools. Then you compete with them. And when you fail, they will point a finger at you and tell you: You are a weakling, you are clearly not up to the job.
Now I remember: There are probably a lot of state requirements for what it should have in terms of buildings, teachers, and equipment. You understand, money, money, and more money. You can't make a cheaper school, but with a quality education. For example: not having a playground, swimming pool, or gym. They probably also want you to have your own building, i.e. you can't just gather children in your home and educate them (it's very cheap). In short: we want European education or none at all. If it's not European (i.e. expensive), we don't want it.
@Expendable
People like you, who have been in teaching for many years, in my opinion, know best what and how to teach, because the problems are before their eyes every day.
Don't push for new laws, because they can't possibly be better for you. You have to determine the teaching material and everything related to education in general. Then things will start to work. Unfortunately, in the foreseeable future, this won't happen. The state, this power, will NEVER let it go. And the reason is that through it, it supports itself. In school, they teach that the current state of affairs in the state is the best. Well, there were some shortcomings here and there, but it couldn't have been without it!
If the state withdraws from schools, then there will be no control over the ideas that are taught there. And then ideas that are against it (structure, goals, etc.) can emerge. And what do you do with a population that, for example, shouts: We don't want a national assembly or a Ministry of Education? Problem! That's why you explain to 3rd-4th graders how the state cannot exist without a national assembly, a Ministry of Education, etc. And the children absorb it. Go ahead and try to explain to them that there were alternatives.
I forgot to mention the following:
Everyone has to pay for public education in the form of taxes, regardless of whether they use it or not. That is, if you enroll your child in a private school, you pay twice: for the private and the public. And if you have no money left because of taxes, then what kind of private school enrollment is this?
@EU
"I assume you are right about the facts (I am not familiar with them). However, how does it follow that private schools disappeared because they were dysfunctional/inappropriate?"
Not that they are unsuitable, but they simply do not have the resources of the public ones. Moreover, at that time (during the revival) no one set conditions for their existence - to have this or that. Now, with the various regulations and requirements, the mission becomes practically impossible.
Education is a special kind of service. This is not a normal commercial activity, but a battle for the souls and brains of people - that is, it is a means of manipulation, control and from there POWER. In a word, there is no place for a market, current profits and other purely economic categories here. That is how it was, and that is how it will be.
In addition to the state, various private groups and foundations, religious communities, etc. also pour money into education, without being interested in direct profits. As a result, at present, the vast majority of private universities and colleges are non-profit institutions and do not generate profit - that is not their goal. Those that operate as normal commercial companies or the so-called for-profit universities and colleges are few in number, far behind in the rankings and practically have no significance for the educational system.
@Toto5
"It's not that they're unsuitable, they just don't have the resources of the public ones."
That's more or less what I'm saying.
I see that we are of the same opinion regarding brainwashing, which makes me happy. Let me mention that this applies to the social (not exact) sciences. There is no problem with the exact sciences.
I think the point is clear. The existence of schools that get their money anyway, regardless of what product they produce, keeping the price at 0, destroys any kind of competition.
Another element of the picture that should be noted is that the funding from church money and local taxes was much better controlled by the society that paid them. That is, they did not have a giant, centralized state to collect the money and spend it. On the contrary, the local board of trustees had control over what happened in the monastic schools - for reference "Under the Yoke".
Furthermore, taxes and levies (used for schools) in that period were collected under a much different system than the current one.
@Stoyan Panchev
"Another element of the picture that should be noted is that funding from church money and local taxes was much better controlled by the society that paid them."
I completely agree. The more local a decision is, the more information it is based on and the more accurate it can be. That is, if the state decides (the most global option) then this is the worst, if the municipality/district decides - better, if the city decides - even better, if the neighborhood decides - still better, and the best is when the specific individual decides.
The higher up the power structure you move, the more important information is lost due to generalization. Information is always local.
I think that in this way the old debate about direct and representative democracy (which of the two is better (not as bad as the other)) can also be resolved. Here are people who say: Look, in Switzerland, direct democracy works well. Let's introduce it here too. However, in Switzerland, decisions are made much more locally than in Bulgaria, for example. There, each canton (as I have heard) has great legislative autonomy. And when a decision is made, it is largely local, i.e. it concerns only the people who are directly affected and bear the consequences of it.
If Switzerland decides to introduce direct democracy at the state level, then in my opinion this will lead to huge chaos. The same will happen if we introduce direct democracy at the state-wide level in Bulgaria. Information and responsibility are lost when the group increases. Therefore, in my opinion, it is better to have representative democracy at the state-wide level than direct. At least there is a greater chance that the decisions will not be so chaotic and counterproductive.
In short: direct democracy will work better with smaller groups (and with a group of one individual it will work 100% 🙂 ). Representative democracy will work with larger groups better (it is correct to say: not so badly). This is my assumption.
Let me point out that I am against democracy and democratic decisions in general. I am simply discussing which, and in which case, I think is not as bad as the other.
I should also note that being against democracy does not mean being for totalitarianism or chaos (often confused with anarchy).
@Stoyan Panchev
"I think it's clear. The existence of schools that get their money anyway, regardless of what product they produce, keeping the price at 0, destroys any kind of competition."
In the UK, where tuition fees for higher education institutions are far from low, is there competition for public universities from private ones? How many private universities are there in the UK?
In the US, where education is extremely expensive, how many universities are for-profit and what is the relative share of students who study there? Can for-profit universities even be called competition to public and private non-profit universities, DESPITE the high fees of the latter?
In Bulgaria, where the fee for computer science majors at the Faculty of Information Technology of Sofia University is extremely low - only 750 leva, is it possible that there is no private competition? There is, and at a very high level, and at a price that is truly round 0 - the Telerik Academy. (of course, not for-profit).
To even suggest that for-profit educational institutions can be some kind of alternative to the current system is naive and irresponsible. They have a place in the market, but only as a condiment (flavoring agent, enhancer) - not as a main ingredient.
On the other hand, the fact that for-profit educational institutions are exotic does not mean that there is no competition. On the contrary, it is fierce, multifaceted, and diverse.