Mrs Barbara Nowacka, late a minister, or as she defines herself by insulting the law and reason: the “minister” of education, has seemingly become confused. Looking at her subsequent public statements, I am increasingly convinced that they are being prepared ad hoc, unthought-out and completely inconsistent. While Przemysław Czarnek pushed forward with a concrete concept of the functioning of public education, with which 1 could agree (more often) or not (more often), Mrs Nowacka seems to have taken over by chance. Now he is rambling chaoticly trying to put something together quickly.
The Minister's next inflections are becoming more and more surprising. It started with a large ideological tug. Just after taking the seat of Minister Nowack, she declared to limit the number of spiritual hours at school. She stated that the hourly lesson of religion in schools was entirely sufficient. She besides announced that she would effort to guarantee that the grade of religion was not counted to the average on the evidence “because she is not an evaluator of knowledge, but an evaluator of formation and faith” and that spiritual lessons were in the first or last lesson. This is all she could do in this regard, due to the fact that the presence of catechesis in the school itself results straight from the evidence of the concordat, so the global agreement in force.
To the consternation of teachers Barbara Nowacka announced that from the beginning of April the regulation on the resignation of housework would come into force. First, it is to be about simple school. But in the future it is to be expanded. "I am certain that after respective years of non-housework in primary schools, this will besides be abolished in secondary schools," Nowacka said.
As of September, the Ministry's preparation of a 20% leaning of the current programme base is expected to enter into force. This announcement remains enigmatic so far, so it is not known which subjects and scopes are to be covered. The announcement of the elimination of HiT lessons is besides unclear. It is not known in which expression it would take place and what about the young first class, which education on this subject should end after the second year of study. In fact, the Minister's very statement, "in this formula, with this manual, I can't imagine the operation of the HiT object" shows that Mrs Nowacka has no cognition that HiT teachers have a choice between textbooks of various publishers and authors. Thus, it may be assumed that she is not aware of others.
A completely different kind of inflection is the establishment of a student rights Ombudsman by means of a bill. It is intended to "protect children and guarantee their rights at school". As we know, nothing increases the well-being of children like the appointment of another spokesperson for their rights.
Mrs Nowack's "reformative" ideas combine many things: they are not accompanied by any discussions, no research, no consultation with teachers, no substantive building. They are so the purest and most harmful form of political populism. Nowacka wants to build her political position by giving not so much to students as their parents an illusion of a “cool” school. Only school isn't to be cool.
Why is school right? – this is just a seemingly trivial question. erstwhile talking to educators and didacticians, especially those who specialize in the explanation of the functioning of education, 1 can get the impression that the intent of the teaching process is to make young people, discover and make the talents of young people or grow their intellectual horizons. That's evidently bullshit. As long as we pay public money for public education, we should consider it an investment.
It is in the interests of society as a full that future generations get circumstantial competences and qualifications useful to the economy. To get the cognition and skills that will enable them to function efficiently in the labour marketplace and in the social environment, thereby improving both their own well-being and the full collective. It is in our common interest to rise the next generation of conscious citizens who know not only their rights but who realize the obligations of belonging to the community. If, by the way, we support someone's self-development, discover hidden talents, or grow their head horizons, that's great. However, it is only a possible added value, not a goal in itself.
For years I have heard that Polish education is dysfunctional, that it needs to be reformed. That you gotta go with the spirit of time. That the mythical Prussian model of the school is evil, anachronistic. That we gotta break the pattern, give the students more slack. little focus on cognition and more on creativity. It's the curse of reality.
The essence of the problem of Polish education was never its “prussity”, but only its prussical denial of the urawnilovka. So this harmful codification, the equation down. present it is even more visible than in the Polish School or the post of Polish People's Republic that I attended. For it is not lawful to praise the prominent, not to offend the mediocre, not to set as examples of the industrious, not to origin discomfort to the lazy. Above all, however, it must not be required to “take distant children’s childhood.”
Meanwhile, childhood is simply a phase of increasing up. A young man preparing to enter adulthood should learn to work, independency and responsibility. Otherwise, he will grow up to be a lazy, dull, and nonchalant adult. He should face stress, which is an inherent part of life. He should be exposed to competition, due to the fact that it alone leads to success.
So we don't request any further deconstruction of the Prussian model of the school. We request his restitution, in all 4 pillars. We request a compulsory education that focuses on the improvement of knowledge, skills and moral values in young people. But adapted to the real economical and social needs, not to fashion, desire or exuberant ambition.
We request to keep the standardisation of the curriculum, which contributes to its effectiveness and to achieving its objectives. We request a hierarchy in teaching, due to the fact that without it we cannot monitor the quality of cognition transfer and educational values.
Above all, however, we must build a fresh position of teacher. Teachers in the Prussian strategy had a key function in developing student skills. They were authorities and guides who not only transmitted cognition but besides shaped the characters of their subjects. They were besides mentors who tried to adapt teaching methods to the needs and capabilities of individual students, allowing for a better knowing of material and the improvement of individual talents. I want they were back.
However, for the time being, we bring the discussion of the improvement of the education strategy to respective populist proposals and declarations of raising teachers' salaries. It's a road to nowhere. Even ambitious targets can be achieved. Before that, however, they must be determined. Then, with consequence, carry out. It's not light, easy or pleasant. But necessary.
Przemysław Piasta
