The article introduces a special issue of Policy Futures in Education on changes and challenges in educational policies and systems of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The countries in the region share some characteristics, such as their historical experience with the authoritarian–socialist or communist rule and its impact on education policies, as well as their long-lasting economic semi-peripherality. Differences within the region are also discussed in the article: from macro-level economic gaps to relative dissimilarities of education systems' structures, as well as international assessment benchmarks. The articles in this issue present analyses of educational policies in Belarus, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Russia and Ukraine. A theme that emerges most clearly across these texts is the complexity of East–West relationships. Read together, the contributions serve as a call for a more nuanced and contextualized look at CEE. Transformation of educational systems that entails the interplay of past legacies and borrowed policies can bring about troubling outcomes, exacerbated by the entanglement of education in a wider agenda.
Keywords: Neoliberalism; policy borrowing; semi-periphery; socialism; teachers
The objective of this issue of Policy Futures in Education is to examine recent transformations within the field of education in former socialist countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), almost three decades after the systemic transition. The CEE region's specificity, marked by the histories of authoritarian state and central-command economy, the impact of neoliberal policies accompanying the transition processes, and the countries' continuing semi-peripheral or peripheral condition, provide the context for the study of educational dynamics in terms of institutional policies and structural arrangements as well as micro-politics and manifestations of agency among educational actors. We invited our contributors to explore ways in which educational policies and practices are shaped in CEE countries, taking into account national and international challenges and developments, including the processes of internationalization, standardization and competitiveness, socio-economic conditions of systems and those operating within them, as well as other issues that occur as vital to educational researchers studying the region. While these themes have already been explored in Policy Futures in Education in relation to different countries throughout the world, the CEE region has so far attracted relatively little attention in the journal (but see [
In the historiography of the former socialist or communist states of Europe, the period of the late 1980s and early 1990s is commonly identified as a turning point. While the overall significance of such a view remains reasonable, it is necessary to note that the post-1945/1948 era (and even post-1917 in Russia) should not be seen as some monolithic 'age of communism' but as a historical period spanning several generations, with changing international and national power dynamics, ideological tensions, or even rifts between official ideology and actual policies, as well as a contextualized range of social attitudes towards regimes. In other words, 'communism' meant not only a variety of approaches to state rule and economic policy across countries, but also changing power arrangements and social relations within particular states and societies.[
differences between countries became increasingly significant, as a result of long-standing legacies and the relationship of each education system with its economic and political context. Some Communist regimes allowed more innovation and knowledge circulation through increased contacts with Western Europe and the non-Communist world. ... [T]he Soviet influence in education should be conceptualised both as an imperialist force and as a voluntary borrowing, followed by internationalisation with local adaptation in the Communist area. Nevertheless, as a result of transmission and translation processes, Communist education cannot be conceived of as a coherent model. Soviet education itself was transformed over time and incorporated Western and elitist elements.
The notion of post-socialist/post-communist 'transition' or 'transformation' rests on two primary features: formal political democratization (or retreat from the party-state bureaucratic dictatorship) and economic marketization (or the restoration of capitalism). Educational changes should then be seen as an effect, and part, of those systemic shifts, not merely having paralleled reforms in other fields, but also having been motivated by them ([
As in other sectors, also within education, the reforms were framed as modernization efforts, and entailed implementation, or perhaps rather imitation, of some variants of educational policy models developed originally in the West. The notion of imitation refers to borrowing or transplanting not merely general principles and ideas, but also particular solutions and institutional design from the systems of the West. Due to their perceived higher standards, the latter are looked to as trend setters who can salvage the lagging-behind societies (cf. [
The very definition of which countries count as CEE is not an unambiguous one. While geography does not necessarily overlap with (geo) politics, our intension was to invite contributions on educational policies in countries that share historical patterns of authoritarian rule as a variant of communism or party-state socialism and the transition out to some form of democratic government and capitalist economy. For this purpose, we adopted a broad understanding of the region as composed of the former socialist states, most of which are today members of the Council of Europe.[
The entire region barely shares common macroeconomic traits. Eleven countries are members of the EU, and seven of them belong to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). This institutional affiliation of some with the 'most developed' economies is reflected in indicators such as gross domestic product (GDP) per capita: in 2016, the measure for Moldova (ca. 5300)[
Despite the semi-peripheral status shared by the CEE states, deriving common patterns in their educational systems and policies would be a difficult and risky task. Comparison of the major features in structures of national education systems within Europe itself reveals significant differences between CEE countries. According to a recent report covering 43 systems in 38 states ([
Graph
Table 1. Age in compulsory education and entry age for schooling in Europe, 2017/18 school year.
Compulsory from age (years) Compulsory until age (years) Countries (CEE Elementary education (ISCED 1) begins at age (years) The highest level included in compulsory education/training (including part-time) 3 16 6 Part of ISCED 3 4 15 Switzerland (in some cantons compulsory from 5 or 6) 6 ISCED 2 16 Luxembourg 6 Part of ISCED 3 United Kingdom–Northern Ireland 4 Part of ISCED 3 Between 4 and 5 15 Cyprus (compulsory from 4 years 8 months) 5 years 8 months ISCED 2 5 15 6 ISCED 2 Greece 6 ISCED 2 16 7 Part of ISCED 3 7 ISCED 2 Malta 5 Part of ISCED 3 United Kingdom–Scotland 5 Part of ISCED 3 United Kingdom–Wales 5 Part of ISCED 3 18 Austria (5–15 compulsory full-time) 6 ISCED 3 Netherlands 6 ISCED 3 United Kingdom–England (5–16 compulsory full-time) 5 ISCED 3 Between 5 and 6 15 6 years 6 months ISCED 2 17 Turkey (compulsory from 5 years 6 months to 17 years 6 months) 5 years 6 months ISCED 3 19 5 years 7 months ISCED 3 6 15 6 ISCED 2 6 ISCED 2 7 ISCED 2 Liechtenstein 6 ISCED 2 6 ISCED 2 6 ISCED 2 16 Denmark 6 Most of ISCED 2 Finland 7 ISCED 2 France 6 Part of ISCED 3 Iceland 6 ISCED 2 Ireland 4 Part of ISCED 3 Italy 6 Part of ISCED 3 7 Most of ISCED 2 Norway 6 ISCED 2 6 Part of ISCED 3 Spain 6 Part of ISCED 3 17 6 Part of ISCED 3 18 Belgium–all 3 systems 6 ISCED 3 Germany–12 lands 6 ISCED 3 7 Part of ISCED 3 Portugal 6 ISCED 3 19 Germany–5 lands 6 ISCED 3 7 16 7 ISCED 2 Sweden 7 ISCED 2
1 Source: Based on [
The CEE countries stand out, however, in terms of the economics of education, a tendency that clearly reflects more general macroeconomic disparities highlighted above. Some indicators illustrate this observation. In 2014, annual expenditure by educational institutions per student throughout the region was lower than the OECD average, with the notable exception of Slovenia's spending on elementary education being actually higher (107% of the OECD average). In other states, national expenditures in elementary education relative to the OECD average ranged from as low as 43% for Hungary to 80% for Poland. On the secondary level (overall), these proportions fell as low as around 50% in the Russian Federation and Lithuania (actually, non-OECD members) and reached as high as 81% and 87% in the Czech Republic and Slovenia, respectively. Expenditure per student in tertiary education ranged from Hungary's and Russia's 54% of the OECD average to Estonia's 76% and Slovenia's 75%. As a percentage GDP, these expenditures in all CEE countries fell below the OECD average of 5.2%, with Estonia reaching 5.0% and Russia as low as 3.3%. Estonia (1.9%) and Lithuania (1.7%) were exceptional across the region in exceeding the OECD average (1.4%) spending on tertiary education as percentage of GDP. Unlike most other top spenders, Estonia has an overwhelmingly high share of public expenditure on tertiary education (cf. [
One striking aspect of the CEE countries' educational economics concerns teachers' salaries. In terms of salary cost of teachers per student in public institutions, almost all countries of the region fell below the OECD average in 2015. In elementary education, national proportions relative to OECD average (US$2848 at purchasing power parity (PPP)) were as low as 26% in Latvia (US$753) and as high as 85% in Slovenia (US$2450). Slovenia was again unique in reaching above the OECD average (US$3514) in secondary education (US$4592 PPP or 130% of the average), while Latvia's cost (US$1,136) was slightly less than one-third of the average (cf. [
Graph
Table 2. Teachers' starting salaries (2015).
Elementary education Lower secondary education(general programs) Upper secondary education(general programs) US$ PPP Proportion of OECD average US$ PPP Proportion of OECD average US$ PPP Proportion of OECD average Czech Republic 17,906 58.1% 17,906 55.6% 17,906 52.9% Estonia 17,314 56.1% 17,314 53.7% 17,314 51.2% Hungary 13,300 43.1% 13,300 41.3% 14,572 43.1% Latvia 8555 27.7% 8555 26.5% 8555 25.3% Poland 15,468 50.1% 15,468 48.0% 15,468 45.7% Slovak Republic 12,742 41.3% 12,742 39.5% 12,742 37.7% Slovenia 25,711 83.4% 25,711 79.8% 25,711 76.0% OECD average 30,838 100% 32,202 100% 33,824 100%
2 Source: [
Given the relatively disadvantaged economic standing of the CEE states, there seems, however, to be no general or easy-to-interpret pattern characterizing them when it comes to educational benchmarks in cross-country comparisons. It must be noted here that such measures – in particular, the test-based OECD's Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) along with educational structural adjustment strategies such as the Bologna Process and the European Qualifications Framework – received criticism for lacking democratic legitimization and pushing towards a model 'which reduces education to a capitalist utilitarian logic in the strict sense' ([
A first glance at PISA results gives the impression that students in high-income countries and economies – and countries/economies that can and do spend more on education – perform better. ... On average, students in high-income countries and economies score 79 points higher in science than students in countries whose per capita is below the USD 20 000 benchmark ([
While the definition of 'high income' as per capita GDP exceeding US$20,000, given our earlier observation, seems somewhat too broad and arbitrary – lumping together some CEE countries with much wealthier economies – the study acknowledges that the strong positive association between expenditure on education and PISA science scores 'is not the case among high-income countries and economies, which include most OECD countries. ... Among these countries and economies, it is common to find some with substantially different levels of spending per student yet similar science scores' ([
The contributions collected in this thematic issue present case studies of various aspects of educational policy and practice from six countries of the region: Belarus, Croatia, Hungary Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. Read together, they serve as a call for a more nuanced look at CEE that would take into account the complexities and diversity of the region, including its educational policies. As they demonstrate, different models that have been developed in specific countries should be identified, instead of promoting a unified view of the region. Simultaneously, however, the contributions reveal striking similarities between the different states that result both from their common legacy of the socialist past and the exposure to Western ideologies.
A theme that emerges most clearly from the articles is the complexity of the inevitable relationships between the East and the West following the systemic changes the countries of the region underwent in the 1990s. Several contributions challenge some of the popular beliefs we have discussed above: from the assumption that there exists a clear-cut West–East distinction, to the perception of the power dynamics between the East and the West, where the former is supposed to imitate the latter in the attempt to catch up with a supposedly more developed system, to the presumed homogeneity of the West (and of neoliberalism as its trait) as well. In her contribution delineating the development of Russian quality assurance and evaluation (QAE) policy, Galina Gurova warns against the dichotomous perception of 'neoliberal' and 'socialist' practices. She argues that both socialism and neoliberalism are complex and incoherent phenomena, and specific mechanisms of QAE cannot always be unambiguously attributed to either of them. While pointing to the role of transnational bodies, such as the World Bank or the OECD, in shaping current QAE policy in Russia, she makes it clear that the legacy of the socialist past is just as important. She observes, for instance, that:
the economically-driven call for the applicability of knowledge does not appear only in market economies, but was also in place during the Soviet time, and that holding teachers accountable for the poor performance of their pupils while ignoring the socio-economic context is an understanding that can be found in very different political systems.
The past cannot be simply left behind following the transformation to a new political system, and the old and the new intertwine to produce sometimes incoherent entities. A similar conclusion can be drawn from Piotr Zamojski's contribution, in which he develops a theoretical framework based on the notion of cultural codes to help understand typical educational phenomena in Poland, and demonstrates how historical legacies constantly shape current practices. For instance, centralization and unification tendencies, which Zamojski identifies with the real socialism period, are still present at the policy level and in everyday teaching practice decades after the systemic transformation.
The issue of the complexity of the transformation of educational systems is taken up in Tatiana Shchurko's analysis of the development of gender education in Belarus. As she demonstrates, it has happened through the interplay of a set of factors, including complex legacies of the past, influences of external bodies (often international agencies with their own vested interests), and local actors at different levels, also having their own agendas. What she argues for Belarus, when claiming that its system of education is 'a conglomerate of Soviet politics, neoliberal ideology, international institutions, authoritarian power, and national ideology,' could as well be applicable to other countries in the region.
The transformation of educational systems that entails the interplay of past legacies and borrowed policies can bring about troubling outcomes, exacerbated by the entanglement of education in a wider agenda. The articles collected in this issue provide ample evidence on this. Ivana Cosic examines the ramifications of the introduction of standardized testing at key points of educational careers in Croatia, taking as an example state matura exams that replaced previous school-based examinations. Meant as a universal measure of upper-secondary school attainment at the exit point, it created, however, unequal conditions due to varying curricula between grammar and vocational schools. As the author argues, curricula in different types of secondary schools 'celebrate the diversity of talent, whilst the matura test concentrates on one set of learning outcomes. ... [O]n the surface the matura provides clinical and neutral test settings but the examination itself can be interpreted as unfair.' Similarly, Tamás Tóth, György Mészáros, and András Marton, drawing on the world-systems theory and post-colonial perspectives to examine transformation processes in Hungary, trace the creation of an educational system characterized by vast vertical and horizontal selectivity and segregation. As they demonstrate through an analysis of teachers' protests in Hungary, the legacy of the socialist past, combined with the impact of neoliberal ideology, serve as a force that effectively stifles bottom-up attempts to introduce real changes, or at least oppose detrimental reforms. In her contribution, Shchurko reveals another unintended consequence of entwining borrowed policies and ideologies and local circumstances. Through the discourse analysis of policy documents and textbooks in gender education, she shows how egalitarian and potentially subversive ideas of gender equality can be used to support traditional gender ideology, seen as constitutive of national identity. For instance, she notices how the emphasis on national security understood in demographic terms and linked with an ideal of a strong, traditional family, finds its reflection in gender education textbooks in Belarus, which set to prepare students for their future roles in traditional Slavic families. Finally, Gurova documents how the processes of imitation rather than implementation of Western QAE instruments increase bureaucracy in education without having an unquestionably positive impact on schooling practices.
The contributions serve as a reminder of a need for a more contextualized exploration of the education sector in CEE countries. The article by Abel Polese et al., problematizing the phenomenon of corruption in education in Ukraine, is a telling example here. The authors look for alternative interpretations of this practice, arguing for considering it in terms of informality, rather than corruption, as well as for placing it in a broader context of systemic failures (when the state does not perform its functions as required) and the social perception of qualifications (the presumed need for a university diploma to be competitive on the labor market). Ivana Cosic, in turn, building on previous research on borrowed policies, demonstrates that matura examinations serve a different purpose than standardized tests in the West, as well as that the phenomenon of cheating, which did not vanish with the introduction of high-stakes examinations, should be analyzed in a more nuanced manner than merely as an emanation of postsocialist mentality. By situating cheating in the context of learning theories, and drawing on Sen's notion of transcendental and comparative justice, she contributes to efforts aimed at decolonizing knowledge production about the CEE region.
Finally, Karin Taylor and Caroline Hornstein-Tomić remind us that not only policies, but also people, travel. In their contribution, they look at the ramifications of young Croats' migration and the resultant brain drain. They shed light on the entanglement of educational policies within wider societal processes, related to ideological divisions grounded in remnants of the past (identification of the left with socialism and Yugoslavism), labor market demands, and the influence of international bodies (both international testing programs and organizations such as the EU or the World Bank). Their contribution provokes fundamental questions concerning the role of education, as the results of the authors' analysis of public discourse on education in Croatia reveal the significance attached to increasing the employability of graduates as a potential solution against further brain drain.
All these contributions provide insights into a number of questions that can be analyzed within historical-systemic frameworks positioning the CEE region as both specific and internally diverse. These questions are also the subject of political and civil-society debates in particular countries and their national contexts, and should therefore be carefully taken into account as to avoid unnecessary generalizations. Still, the studies presented in this issue may prove useful for a broader international comparative education perspective. By addressing problems present in other national contexts or related to the international dynamics of economy and governance, the authors contribute to a better understanding of contemporary policy design and educational concerns way beyond regional boundaries.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Katarzyna Gawlicz is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Education at the University of Lower Silesia in Wrocław, Poland, where she teaches courses on early childhood education and care.
Marcin Starnawski is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Education at the University of Lower Silesia in Wrocław, Poland, where he teaches sociology of education.
By Katarzyna Gawlicz and Marcin Starnawski
Reported by Author; Author
Katarzyna Gawlicz is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Education at the University of Lower Silesia in Wrocław, Poland, where she teaches courses on early childhood education and care.
Marcin Starnawski is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Education at the University of Lower Silesia in Wrocław, Poland, where he teaches sociology of education.