Abstract
The purpose of this study is to identify dysfunctional paradigms that supported the explosive expansion of inefficiency, moral degradation and corruption throughout the whole Romanian education system. Critical analysis has been used to i) relate current hypotheses about dysfunctional paradigms to other paradigms that have been mentioned in various international and domestic scientific papers, books and reports and ii) to assess and predict impact of current dysfunctional paradigms on the state of Romanian education. Only a limited number of dysfunctional paradigms have been identified, described and assessed: The Quality Paradigm, The Abstract Thinking Superiority Paradigm, The External Locus of Control Paradigm, The Acceleration Paradigm, and The Stupid Teacher Paradigm. Just like factors that lower the immunity of organisms, dysfunctional paradigms compromise the ability of the education systems to fight off corruption, abuse and bad management, lack of empathy, solidarity and respect. Conclusions are being formulated about the need to replace the dysfunctional paradigms.
Keywords: Education paradigmsdysfunctional paradigmquality of education
1.Introduction
The current state of Romanian education is extremely disappointing: School dropout and illiteracy
are on the rise, success rates at national examinations collapsed, results at international tests like PISA are
far below expectations, Romanian students are among the most unhappy in the world, teacher salaries are
about a quarter of those of Turkish teachers, Romanian universities go down in international
classifications, less than 22% of adults in the 30-34 age group are higher education graduates. On the
other hand we still read statements from prominent education gurus that Romania has too many
universities and too many students.
We have for quite some time explored various alternative hypotheses about factors that may
explain the lack of progress to a better state of domestic education. Finally, the dysfunctional paradigms
hypothesis presented itself as the most promising.
2. Paradigms in Education: The Dysfunctional Paradigms Hypothesis
When examining the various definitions of paradigms in psychology and education, from the
pioneering volume by Thomas Kuhn (1999), going through reputed dictionaries (Merriam-Webster
Dictionary, 2016), charismatic personalities like Sir Ken Robinson, (2013), reputed experts like Robert
Barr and John Tagg (1995), prestigious organizations like Gordon Commission (Gordon, Gordon, Aber
and Berliner, 2013) up to domestic contributions from Claudia Rusu (2014), Maria Borsan (2014) or
Violeta-Maria Caragea (2011), one finds expressed in various forms the idea of a set of implicit
presuppositions that are not meant to be scrutinised. We find equivalents of this idea in other domains.
In mathematics, classical philosophy or modern logic we find
In politics we find the
presidential campaign.
In counselling and psychotherapy we find the
Jones, 1993, 1995) or the
However, there is one important difference.
Regarding the education paradigms, we identify the underlying idea that every new paradigm is
either
context. The Industrial revolution paradigm was replaced by the Divergent thinking paradigm (Robinson,
2013); the Instruction paradigm is being replaced by the Learning paradigm (Bar and Tagg, 1995, Borșan,
2014), or by Intellective competence paradigm (Gordon, Gordon, Aber and Berliner, 2013).
On the other hand, we notice that
rational or irrational. Also, we observe that politically correct ideas can be fiercely contested (Trump,
2016).
This prompted us to generate the
more dysfunctional paradigms may become dominant in a particular education system and block, disrupt
or derail well intended attempts to optimise it.
This indeed seems to be the case for the Romanian education system, where an endless chain of
„reforms” only produced a continuous deterioration. Usually, the lack of success in reforming the system
was blamed on teachers (see the interview from 2014 of ex Minister of Education Professor Miclea) or
even on students (Ziare.com, 2014).
3. Dysfunctional Paradigms Identified and Explained
3.1. The Quality Paradigm
The current Law for Quality in Education was passed by Romanian Parliament in 2006
(Parlamentul României, 2006). The Romanian Agency for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
(ARACIS) has been established within one month after the law being passed. The methodology for
external evaluation, including standards, standards of reference and performance indicators was also
published in 2006, in both Romanian and English (ARACIS, 2006). A similar track was followed by the
Romanian Agency for Quality Assurance in Pre-university Education (ARACIP). ARACIS started
conducting quality assessment sessions beginning with the 2006-2007 academic year. There was at the
time and there still is no evidence of any scientific study to prove that meeting the standards and
performance indicators was conductive to a better quality.
The
quality is essentially about standardisation and uniformity, rather than about creativity and diversity.
Quality of educations means meeting the standards and performance indicators formulated by the external
evaluation agencies. The education institution is the sole responsible for providing quality (ARACIS,
2006). The funding of education or the legislative framework provided by the government are not taken
into account. Written documentation is the main type of evidence of quality that is expected from
education institutions. Apart from preparing documents for external quality assurance agencies,
institutions may develop parallel documentation systems (Universitatea Spiru Haret, 2015).
We have already shown a long list of issues associated the Quality paradigm (Lisievici, 2009;
Lisievici, 2011; Lisievici, 2013; Lisievici, 2014). The quality assurance system was designed using faulty
constructs for both education and quality of education. It favours control versus support, uniformity
versus diversity, centralization versus academic freedom. It diverts large financial, human and time
resources from teaching, scientific activity and research. Instead of promoting an ”evaluation culture”, it
generated a culture of preparing documentations and reports and rigging procedures for better scoring. It
does not provide support that would be instrumental in meeting the demands it formulates. It diminishes
capability of education institutions to respond to identified training and research needs.
The content of teaching activity changed, an ever larger proportion of time being allocated to
writing documentations and reports for quality assessment agencies. There are indications that such
components may occupy up to 60% of job related time (Lisievici&Ticuşan&Todor, 2013). This situation
has also been pointed out by international experts that visited Romania, like the Counsellor for Education
of the Finnish President (Kangaslahti, 2016). He noted that Romanian teachers, instead of facilitating
student learning, have to write reports and accomplish other various bureaucratic tasks. Activity content
changes led to a diminished attractiveness of teaching profession (Lisievici&Ticuşan&Todor, 2013).
We have also pointed out that the current quality paradigm contributed to the degradation of
academic climate, by allowing conflicting interests of competing institutions or individuals to influence
assessment judgements, by restricting capability of managers to function as models for younger members
of faculty, by encouraging dishonest strategies to boost scientific productivity or by discouraging
cooperation and communication between competing universities, departments or faculty members.
Finally, the quality paradigm completely disregards the needs of education providers (”the
forgotten side of quality”, Lisievici, 2014).
The quality paradigm ended up in justifying the continuity of existence for bureaucratic structures
and also, in providing a solid source of power and income for a group of education ”elites”.
3.2. The Abstract Thinking Superiority Paradigm
In April 2016 we ran an internet search, in Romanian, for ”fabrica de genii (genius factory)”. We got
13,600 hits. A typical hit was about an ”excellence” centre, club, system or foundation
that has been recently established or has been successfully working for some time. Another typical hit was
about an individual teacher, usually called ”trainer” or ”manufacturer” of geniuses.
In both cases, the institutional or individual focus was on
results were consistent with public discourse promoted by mainstream media.
It is interesting to note that a similar search carried out in English returned a much smaller number of
hits, a typical hit being about recruiting Nobel Prize winners or other remarkable individuals as donors for
a sperm bank.
Putting together the information provided by the internet search we conclude that in Romania, the
public discourse on education claims that genius can be manufactured or trained, that the genius
production technology consists of studying Mathematics and/or Informatics up to an excellence level, that
the main quality of a genius is a very high level of development of abstract thinking.
We have therefore compiled the
of thinking or intelligence (see for example the nine types of intelligence identified by Garner - Gardner,
1993), the abstract thinking or the logical-mathematical intelligence is superior to any other. Mathematics
and Informatics are the main curriculum components instrumental in developing abstract thinking. The
highest priority of Romanian education is to develop abstract thinking beginning with preschool and
primary cycles.
The consequences of this paradigm being used are multiple and easily observable: The special status
of Mathematics and Informatics subject matters among the rest; the special status of teachers for these two
subject matters; the curriculum time allocation for the two subject matters; the “enormous” volume of
homework that students have to prepare, that was noted even by the current Minister of Education,
Professor Mircea Dumitru (Minister of Education, 2016); the ever-growing volume of private tuition
needed for students to cope with learning tasks and homework volume; the ”theory oriented education”,
that generates not only continuous complains from employers, but also criticism from foreign experts
(Hinkley, 2016).
Last but not least, the parents became fascinated by the paradigm and instead of associating to
protect the mental health of their children, are asking for more mathematics and informatics.
3.3. The External Locus of Control Paradigm
We have found a very relevant quote from a highly reputed Romanian education expert: “Since
universities depended on ARACIS for their legal survival, they formally complied with external
requirements for quality assurance without necessarily developing systems of their own” (Vlăsceanu et al.
2011, p. 25, translation in Geven et al., 2015, p. 45). Thus, the legal survival of a university does not
depend on the satisfaction of the students, the reputation of the faculty members, ability to identify and
diversify funding sources, academic climate etc.
The
institution or education staff member should entertain the idea that they are autonomous. Instead, external
entities should have the final say on what programs of study they are allowed to offer, what people should
they hire, what academic titles they should distribute and to whom, how many students they should enrol,
what is the value of the diplomas and how many they are allowed to issue, how much money they are
supposed to spend and on what. In order to stress the position of the locus of control, the external entities
will frequently request reports, statistics and various other documentations. These will be used as means
to generate culpability and submission, as the complicate and ambiguous requests will create
opportunities to express criticism or to reject reports and ask for new versions.
The external locus of control paradigm will also act as a subtle incentive for corruption: Sooner or
later, the idea to appease the external controllers will appear and generate expected and interesting
consequences.
3.4. The Acceleration Paradigm
Back in 2001, a friend of mine published a book (Negreț-Dobridor, 2001) that rationalized a paradigm
already incognito roaming the Romanian education system. The
cognitive development of humans can be accelerated to such an extent that first graders can be exposed to
learning situations involving abstract thinking, and also, that learning results involving abstract thinking
can be expected from all students, years before the traditional limits of the ”formal thinking stage” as
defined by Piaget.
There are a couple of arguments currently used to rationalize the
”children of our friends” argument (”I have friends whose children can cope with learning tasks involving
abstract thinking”); b) the ”my students” argument (”I have second grade students who can cope with
learning tasks involving abstract thinking”); the ”performance argument” (”The future of the country
needs an education designed for gifted students or elites, abstract thinking and high performance
oriented”).
The consequences of the paradigm acceptance and propagation include a)
and complexity of learning tasks and assignments is frequently above the level of cognitive development
of students);
frustration as a result of cognitive overload);
the school requirements and drastically reduce the value they attach to school and learning);
Director of one elite college from Bucharest: ”(…) students do not want to learn” (Ziare com, 2014).
On the other hand, the paradigm supports the expansion of the education market share for the creators,
producers and distributers of abstract thinking development materials, like collections of problems,
textbooks, etc. It also raises the probability for students to request afterschool paid private tuition from
their teachers.
3.5. The Stupid Teacher Paradigm
The
problems of their students and consequently, they need to be provided written documentation with
procedures to follow in specific situations. In order to demonstrate compliance with the procedures they
are supposed to observe, teachers have to produce written documentation like ”didactic” plans or
scenarios, detailing how they should go about applying recommended actions and/or procedures.
The gradual expansion of paradigm circulation is supported by the centralized examination system that
grants access to a teaching positions and then tenure. The written examinations are ”national” and focused
on theoretical knowledge, rather than learning facilitation skills. The rate of success may be under 50%
(Ziare.com, 2014a). Results of the ”national examination” are being shown and commented by media and
then used to generate culpability, low self-esteem and ultimately compliance to the diagnostics and
solutions from system management.
4. Conclusions
The endemic corruption in the Romanian society did not spare the education system. Practically, every
attempt to optimize education ended up as a lucrative business for a small group of ”education
establishment people”.
All education reforms were ultimately about commissions for IT software or hardware, construction or
rehabilitation contracts, textbooks printing contracts, study visits abroad prior to borrowing millions from
World Bank, accessing European funding, keeping alive parasite bureaucratic structures or maintaining
control on the education system.
The dysfunctional paradigms are being used to control perceptions of teachers, parents and students on
the current state of education.
Identifying, exposing and countering the dysfunctional paradigms are critical steps to be taken towards
a healthier education system.
References
- ARACIS (2006) (E), Methodology for external evaluation, standards, standards of reference, and list of performance indicators of the Romanian Agency for Quality Assurance in Higher Education.
- Bucharest, www.aracis.ro.
- Barr, R. B., Tagg, J. (1995), „From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education.” In Change, Vol. 27, No. 6.
- Borsan, Maria (2014), „Schimbare de paradigmă în societatea cunoaşterii” (Change of paradigm in the knowledge society). In Educaţie şi cultură, no. 9, 2014, http://ccdmures.ro/cmsmadesimple/index.php?page=sdp Caragea, Violeta-Maria (2011), Paradigma învățământului centrat pe student. Abordarea etnografică a unei comuntăți profesionale (Rezumatul tezei de doctorat) (The Student Centred Education Paradigm). Universitatea București: Facultatea de Psihologie și Științele Educației.
- Ellis, A. (1962), Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. Secausus, New Jersey: Citadell Press. Gardner, H. (1993), Multiple Intelligences:The Theory in Practice. Basic Books.
- Geven, K., Maricuţ, Adina, Sabic, N., Santa, R, Sârbu, Oana, (2015), “Why Do Romanian Universities Fail to Internalize Quality Assurance?”, in Curaj et al. (2015), Higher Education Reforms in Romania Between the Bologna Process and National Challenges, pp. 43 - 61. Springer.
- Gordon, E. W., Gordon, E. W., Aber, E., Berliner, David (2013), Changing Paradigms for Education: From Filling Buckets to Lighting Fires To Cultivation of Intellective Competence. The Gordon Commission on the Future of Assessment in Education: http://www.gordoncommission.org/rsc/pdf/gordon_gordon_berliner_aber_changing_paradigms_educa tion.pdf Hinkley, J. (2016), http://m.adevarul.ro/locale/cluj-napoca/julian-hingley-expert-britanic-educatie-In-romania-elevii-invata-curricula-secol-xix-trebuie-revolutie-domeniu-1_552d09b6448e03c0fd9c8474/index.html Kangaslahti, J. (2016), http://m.adevarul.ro/educatie/scoala/verdictul-expertilor-finlandezi-educatiei-romania-profesorul-sarcini-birocratice-loc-faciliteze-invatarea-1_573b41fa5ab6550cb8081896/index.html Kuhn, Thomas (1999), Structura revoluţiilor ştiinţifice (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). București: Editura Humanitas.
- Lisievici P. (2013), „Analysing Risks Associated with External Quality Assessment in Higher Education: A Case Study on Romanian Higher Education System”. In Vrontis, D., Weber, Y., Tsoukatos, D., Confronting Contemporary Business Challenges through Management Innovation. 6th EuroMed Conference of the EuroMed Academy of Business, Estoril, Cascais, Portugal, September 23rd – 26th, Conference Readings Book Proceedings pp. 1390-1397. EuroMed Press.
- Lisievici, P. (2009), ”The quality assurance system for Higher Education in Romania: Part of the solution or part of the problem?” In Dobrescu, P., Pricopie, R., Ionescu Mihaela Alexandra (Eds), “Proceedings of the International Conference” R&D perspectives: Promoting Innovation through Education, Culture and communication”. Bucharest: Editura Comunicare.ro, pp. 329-336.
- Lisievici, P. (2011), ”Methodological, technical and ethical issues of quality assessment in higher education: The case of Romania”. In IATED, 4th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Madrid (Spain), 14th -16th of November 2011. Proceedings CD.
- Lisievici, P. (2014), ”The forgotten side of quality: Quality of education construct impact on quality assurance system”. In Elsevier: Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 180, ( 2015 ), pp. 371 – 375.
- Lisievici, P., Ticusan, Marilena, Todor, Otilia (2013), “An Exploratory Inquiry into the Attractiveness of Teaching Career in Romanian Education System”. In Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, no. 78, pp. 260 – 264. Elsevier Ltd.
- Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2016), http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradigm Miclea, M. (2014), http://www.ziare.com/mircea-miclea/profesori/politicienii-in-complicitate-cu-profesorii-darama-refoma-educatiei-interviu-1277102 Minister of Education (2016), http://republica.ro/ministrul-educatiei-znu-cred-ca-e-o-solutie-scolara-foarte-buna-aceea-de-a-insista-asupra-unui-numar-enorm Negreț-Dobridor, I. (2001), Accelerarea psihogenezei (Acceleration of Psychogenesis). București: Aramis.
- Nelson-Jones, R. (1993), Training Manual for Counselling and Helping Skills. London: Cassell Educational Limited.
- Nelson-Jones, R. (1995a), Practical Counselling and Helping Skills (Third Edition). London: Cassell Educational Limited.
- Parlamentul României (2006), Legea 87/2006 (…) privind asigurarea calității educației.
- http://www.uaic.ro/uaic/bin/download/Academic/ServiciulCalitate/legea87.pdf .
- Robinson, K., Sir (2013), Changing Education Paradigms.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSFlFD8QoXs Rusu, Elena-Claudia (2014), Teorii și paradigme contemporane în psihologie. Curs în tehnologie ID-IFR. București: Editura Fundației România de Mâine.
- Trump, D. (2016), https://youtu.be/5DoPeuOU9mg.
- Universitatea Spiru Haret (2015), Program operational privind îndeplinirea criteriilor legale, a cerințelor normative obligatorii, a standardelor și indicatorilor de performanță la Universitatea Spiru Haret pentru anul 2015 (Operational program for meeting legal criteria, compulsory normative
- requests, standards and performance indicators in Spiru Haret University in the 2015 academic year) . Internal document distributed by Rector, 21.01.2015.
- Vlăsceanu, L., Miroiu, A., Păunescu, M., & Hâncean, M.-G. (Ed.) (2011). Barometrul Calităţii 2010. Starea Calităţii În Învăţământul Superior Din România (The Barometer on Quality 2010. The State of Quality in Romanian Higher Education). Braşov: Editura Universităţii Transilvania.
- Ziare.com (2014), http://www.ziare.com/scoala/bacalaureat-2014/director-intr-un-liceu-de-elita-rezultatele-dezastruoase-pentru-ca-nu-acceptam-ca-sunt-elevi-care-nu-vor-sa-invete-interviu-1289957 Ziare.com (2014a), http://www.ziare.com/scoala/profesori/rezultate-titularizare-2014-peste-jumatate-din-profesori-au-picat-examenul-1313009
Copyright information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
Publication Date
25 May 2017
Article Doi
eBook ISBN
978-1-80296-022-8
Publisher
Future Academy
Volume
23
Print ISBN (optional)
-
Edition Number
1st Edition
Pages
1-2032
Subjects
Educational strategies, educational policy, organization of education, management of education, teacher, teacher training
Cite this article as:
Lisievici, P. (2017). The Dysfunctional Paradigms of Romanian Education. In E. Soare, & C. Langa (Eds.), Education Facing Contemporary World Issues, vol 23. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 61-68). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.05.02.9