The management of schools / kindergartens / out-of-school institutions is mostly afraid of autonomy like wildfire.

The management of schools / kindergartens / out-of-school institutions is mostly afraid of autonomy like wildfire.

To begin with, let’s understand what autonomy is. Autonomy of educational institutions (preschool, out-of-school institutions and schools) is a state-guaranteed and legally enshrined independence, independence and responsibility in the adoption of educational, organizational, financial, personnel and almost all other issues of their activities (Articles 1, 23 of the Law "On education").

In addition to the general concept, the law has radically changed the rights of the head of an educational institution. Now it is he who determines the order of office work and accounting. But the main thing is that the management of the educational institution decides how, what and how much money the school will spend (kindergarten, out-of-school institution). And, as a guarantee of this, the law has changed significantly, writing and lab report or rather. cut the rights of the founder – in our case the local council.

To understand what needs to change in a community that is on the path to education reform, let’s look at how the power vertical is built now. For example, take Mariupol. Quite a typical control scheme for large cities. And quite indicative in its controversial effectiveness.

So, there is a city council that determines the level of funding for education. As a rule, all funding barely covers the minimum needs for salary, utility bills and, if you’re lucky, cosmetic repairs. We are not talking about providing methodological material or modernizing the educational process. This is silently transferred to the shoulders of parents.

The decision on funding is made by the council on the basis of proposals from the executive committee and the department of education. The Department of Education is the body that collects the wishes of educational institutions, ungodly cuts them and submits in truncated form as proposals for inclusion in the budget (funding). The role of the educational institutions themselves is at least minimal, at most insignificant.

And if you look at the problem more broadly, it is the Department of Education that makes all the decisions on the development of education in the city. Although for the most part, all his activities come down to complicating the lives of schools and kindergartens through the endless appearance of control. Reports, inspections and other self-justification of one’s own existence. A structure with controversial necessity and indisputable inefficiency.

And what should change now?

The first is that the budget must fix a certain amount of expenditure on education. And, not on a salary or payment of a communal service, namely on development (methodical material, repairs and maintenance of activity). Further, ideally, distribute these funds among educational institutions, based on the number of children and allow the principals themselves, together with the staff and parents to determine the order and amount of specific funding. The second is, if not eliminated, to minimize both the staff and the influence of the education department (or any other local education management body). Because it does not have de jure powers and de facto – is the main stop in the development of autonomy. The third is to initiate a change in the charters of educational institutions, to set deadlines for self-determination of the school staff (kindergarten, preschool institution) and to give the opportunity to choose between centralized or local accounting.

These three steps are quite possible and feasible. Yes, this year it is unrealistic to pass them before the approval of the city budget with ready sums. But nothing prevents to fix the sum in the budget this year, and to distribute it in the next when the specified steps will come to the logical end.

And these steps will be the best evidence of whether there will be a reform and change in the quality of education in the city or not.

What will autonomy give in practice?

For example, now the school / kindergarten will decide for itself how many teachers / educators it needs. Overcrowded classes for 36 children? The solution is only through real autonomy.

The educational institution gets the opportunity for strategic development planning. And, of course, with the participation of parents. What do we buy and when, interactive whiteboards, projectors, reagents for experiments? Detergents, toilet paper or office – now decide the school / kindergarten.

In addition, educational institutions for the first time received an official and legal opportunity to earn. Rent, tutoring within the school walls, paid clubs / courses, etc. now do not require separate approvals and permits. Freedom limited only by the ability and desire of directors.

Well, parent funds. Now you can not only decide for yourself what and how much, but also effectively control the entire process of material costs of your school.

And most importantly, not to be confused. Repairs (capital and current) have been and remain the responsibility of local councils. And they must be financed separately, regardless of the autonomous funding, this is also stated in the new law regarding the responsibilities of the owner (local council).

As a result, autonomy is a complex but the only possible path of development. It is the development, not the maintenance of the already controversial level of education.

But will they take such a step on the ground? Alas, it is very doubtful. Unfortunately, neither the city government nor the directorate of educational institutions themselves, for the most part, are not only not ready, but also do not want such autonomy. This is a rule common to all big cities.

Municipalities are afraid of losing the possibility of not only control but also influence. As without agitation at the right moment, PR, ostentation with cutting of red ribbons and here it with the assistance of the mayor, the deputy of council – it is necessary to substitute.

Departments of education do not want to stay overboard. Because autonomy deprives them of their very meaning and so meaningless existence, and it is impossible to turn them into an effective structure. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

The leadership of schools / kindergartens / out-of-school institutions for the most part fear autonomy like wildfire. They understand perfectly well that responsibility comes after opportunities, and it will not be possible to transfer from a sick head to a healthy one. Plus, transparency is added to autonomy, which means that parents have complete control over their money, funds and responsibility.

What to do? Here the answer is simple and complex at the same time. Remember that you are not the only parent who owes. And first of all – parents who have rights. I’m not talking about the revolution. Start small. Explain to other parents what autonomy is. What advantages does it give? And don’t give money to "school funds" until there is full autonomy. Small steps that will lead to great results. The main thing is not to stay away …

The original

education lawsecondary education reformblogsPetro Andryushchenko


What loopholes for development and risks exist in the "Window of Opportunity" of the new law "On Education"

V. Gromova: 10 loopholes in the law "On education"

Author: Victor Gromovoy, educational expert, Honored Teacher of Ukraine.

I still want to be understood correctly at the top …Mikhail Zhvanetsky

The adoption of the law "On Education" is not yet a reform of education. The law only provides certain opportunities for the educational community to use certain tools to launch the process of lower education reform (for example, individualization tools based on the legally recognized right to an individual educational trajectory and choice of educational program, or tools to ensure academic integrity of participants or selection management staff).

I found in the new law at least 10 loopholes that open up potential for change.

Shparinka No. 1

Possibility of gradual renewal of management staff in education.

We have what we have: the reverse selection of management staff, the emergence of the category of "perpetual" principals who perceive the school as received for life use neofeudal allotment.

It should be according to the new law: principals will be elected by competition for a maximum of 2 terms of 6 years (it will not be possible to work as a principal for more than 12 years in one school).

Risks: imitation and profanation of competitions to fill vacant positions of school principals given the long tradition of administrative and corruption in the field of personnel policy.

Shparinka No. 2

Opportunity to create a new system of teacher training.

We have what we have: formal and non-alternative professional development for teachers every 5 years on courses only in local institutes of postgraduate pedagogical education (IPPO).

It should be according to the new law: the assertion in practice of the freedom to decide "how", ie the opportunity for teachers to independently choose the place, time and forms of in-service training (150 hours for 5 years), to pass voluntary external independent certification.

Risks: protectionism against traditional forms of in-service training based on IPPO, lack of funding mechanisms for alternative forms of professional development.

Creating an effective system for assessing the quality of school work.

We have what we have: a completely inefficient and corrupt procedure for attesting schools, school ratings based on questionable indicators, sporadic "checks" by inspectors of district education departments.

It should be under the new law: the procedure of school attestation and inspection in district education departments is eliminated, once every 10 years the central executive body for quality assurance of education will conduct the so-called "institutional audit of educational institutions" as the only planned measure of state supervision (control) school.

Risks: there may be a situation "If Daniel did not die, the sore crushed!" in case the same people with institutional memory about the ways of organizing "control" come to work in the regional divisions of the State Inspectorate of Educational Institutions.

Shparinka No. 4

Transition from "external management" to "school-based" management

We have what we have: absolutely dependent on the arbitrariness of local officials and extremely inefficient administration of the school in "manual mode".

It should be under the new law: the creation of real academic, organizational, financial and personnel autonomy of all educational institutions, which will give impetus to the development of school management (for example, general secondary schools will be able to develop their own educational programs to use standard, and their principals can appoint their deputies and teaching staff).