Dr. Srebren Dizdar


ISSUES IN TEACHER TRAINING 
IN THE FEDERATION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA


	The current academic 1996/1997 school year in the Federation 
of Bosnia and Herzegovina began in somewhat different 
circumstances than the previous ones. These circumstances could be, 
in general,  described as more favorable, since the armed conflict  
had stopped a year ago. Despite many difficulties, it could be 
asserted that the overall conditions for education improved. In the 
meantime, Bosnia and Herzegovina struggled with its agreed upon 
framework under the stipulations of the Dayton Accords. The country 
was supposed to undergo the gradual process of re-integration with 
the heavy presence of the IFOR troops, and a host of international 
organizations responsible for the implementation of the Accords in 
the civil sector. Without going into necessary details, it could be said 
that many basic preconditions for the improvement of living did not 
take place. Some major results were accomplished in terms of ending 
the military aspects of the war. Once the hostilities stopped on 
October 12, 1995 there was no further, even sporadic fighting. In the 
late December 1995, 60,000 highly trained soldiers began to come 
into the country. They managed subsequently to prevent any armed 
clashes between the armed forces of the Federation of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina and Republika Srpska. Heavy arms were taken out from 
the demarcation zones and placed in the previously designated 
depots. A large number of soldiers was discharged from the armed 
forces, thus enabling an impressive labor force to become available 
for new jobs.

	The political process was often blocked from various sides 
representing sometimes totally opposed interests. There was no 
major return of refugees ensured, the persons accused of war crimes 
are still mostly at large, the pledged for amounts of international 
assistance are either not ready and available for the reconstruction 
purposes, and the ever growing international bureaucracy and 
technocracy sets up its own pace of rebuilding the most immediate 
facilities and buildings. Many dates, terms and events were not met 
as agreed. It is true that Bosnia and Herzegovina, despite such a 
situation,  had its first post-war elections in mid-September 1996, 
mostly under the strong US pressure. USA proved to be the key 
player in the past year with its strong presence and visible efforts in 
all the relevant sectors. It also influence most of the donor countries 
to pledge their commitment for the reconstruction on two 
conferences held in Brussels in December 1995 and April 1996. The 
international community was not ready to respond in the way it had 
promised during the Dayton Peace Talks and the Paris Conference  at 
the end of 1995.  Excuses and not real funds were given as to justify 
the lack of proper reaction to the enormous need in the country. 

	However, the international aid and assistance in reconstruction 
produced its first effects, and most schools began with classes in 
early September 1996. Although most of the education facilities were 
badly devastated and years would be necessary before the entire 
pre-war potential was to be operational (in terms of buildings, labs, 
gyms, school libraries  and equipment in general), the education 
process gradually but steadily found its way towards the overall 
normalization.

	Currently, at the Federation territory, there are about 280,000 
pupils in primary schools , about 92,000 in the secondary schools, 
and 18,000 students at Universities. This huge number of students 
(390,000) shows a constant increase, since there is a constant (if 
somewhat slow) return of refugees and displaced persons to the 
Federation controlled territories. For the time being, the largest 
percentage number of returnees seems to be coming back to the 
Bihac, Travnik and Sarajevo cantons, respectively. Some teachers also 
come back but their numbers are comparatively small to the actual 
needs. According to the latest estimates, there are about 10,500 
teachers in primary schools, 6,000 in secondary schools, and about 
2,000 at Universities - 18,500. Not all of them happen to be certified 
teachers, but there was a strong tendency in some cantons to apply 
stricter rules towards the teaching staff in their schools once the 
education process entered into the post-war stage. Some war-time 
temporary teachers without proper certification lost their jobs, but 
their places were not always filled with the new graduates. Although 
there is a number of teacher training establishments throughout the 
Federation, the number of graduates in them ready to start teaching 
is still rather limited. Certain spacializations among them remained to 
be in great demand, particularly foreign languages teachers. There is 
also a tendency of teachers concentrating in larger urban centers 
whereas the rural areas lag behind even more so than before the 
war. In some cantons, this creates a real problem because the 
cantonal educational authorities could not supply enough teachers for 
all the schools, or to provide an equal distribution of those currently 
available for work.

	Teachers' salaries, standard of living and the general working 
conditions would be the perpetuating burning issues in the future, 
since there is no viable economic system that could support even this 
limited number of teachers. The economic assistance from the 
international donors, such as EU, the World Bank, USA, Japan, Canada 
and some Islamic countries enabled the Federation authorities to 
intervene several times in the sector in order to raise the monthly 
salaries to approximately average 300-450 DEM, but this must be 
understood only as the short term injection. Without more stable 
revenues, both at the cantonal and Federal levels, there could be no 
stable future for the teacher population, and, consequently, for the 
education system as a whole. Possible new teachers would not be 
accessible since they would, most likely, turn to other, more 
profitable or lucrative professions. This includes both in-service 
teachers and those who could "trade off" their present positions in 
the number of other sectors - ranging from the Army or police to 
financial and banking institutions. School leaving graduates could 
possibly face the same dilemma, and the number of new students 
entering teacher training institutions even in the near future could 
soon drop dramatically. All this could seriously endanger the process 
of the teacher training reconstruction. 

	This brings us to several issues which need to be addressed 
here. One has to deal with the system as the whole. It is highly likely 
that the present framework within the system of pre-school. 
primary, secondary and higher education would remain in effect in 
the future. In the course of the war, there were certain opinions that 
such a system did not suit the needs of our people. Some educators, 
probably under the war stress and the possible donors from other 
parts of the world, advocated the education system which never 
corresponded to the public education in Bosnia and Herzegovina since 
its real beginnings in 1878. Such voices called for traditional 
education as prevailed in some Islamic countries, but, in the end, 
they proved to be rather isolated cases. The general framework was 
discussed on several occasions and nobody really offered anything 
drastically different which could change the type of education known 
in our parts. It was agreed that we could not experiment once again 
and become the special case in the family of nations that had 
accepted and developed the system of public education in 19th and 
20th century respectively. Such a system relies on a few basic 
principles:

	1. Education is seen as one of the most fundamental human 
rights and must be understood in such a context. In a normal 
democracy, which Bosnia and Herzegovina strives to finally become, 
it must encompass the largest number of potential student 
population. Education for all as an open principle must be 
emphasized as the strategic imperative in the country struggling to 
go back to normalcy in all its aspects. Children must be given a fair 
chance to be educated regardless of ethnic, religious, sexual, racial, 
social status,  cultural or any other distinctive feature or 
characteristic. The education environment  must be freed from any 
strictly applied ideological concepts and premises that favor only one 
way of thinking and exclude the right to express different, even if 
sometimes totally opposing views. At this moment, it is not necessary 
to describe such an open concept of education as either 'liberal' , 
'progressive', 'advanced', or 'mildly or positively conservative', 
although such views had been heard even in the recent past. It 
should suffice to say that it should not be different from the 
prevailing education systems in the countries of free market 
economy and parliamentary democracies. This does not mean that 
the previous system, heavily influenced by the Communist ideology, 
should be entirely dismantled and broken apart. In a manner of 
speaking, some of its key premises had been lost even a few years 
before the war in the former Yugoslavia. Bosnia and Herzegovina and 
its educators had been aware of the necessary change. Most 
documents discussed in the late Eighties and early Nineties 
recognized the need for change. Some of the postulates written in 
them could become our points of departure, only now under the 
different circumstances in the post-war society.

	2. The war consequences could not and should not be ignored 
in defining the new framework of our education system. It is obvious 
that the war wounds are still fresh and that they could not heal 
easily. One could not afford to repeat the prevailing approach under 
the Communist regime after 1945 that the existing differences could 
be solved out under the pretext of political slogans such as  
'brotherhood and unity', 'self-management and non-alignment' or 
"scientific and Marxist outlook". It would be equally wrong to adopt 
and affirm a new kind of dominant ideology, regardless of its 
potential values in promoting reconciliation among the nations in 
Bosnia and Herzegovina.  The process of reconciliation must take 
place at all levels, but in schools it must not become an empty 
phrase. One should speak, instead, about the affirmation of every 
individual and his/her right to retain and express its own specific 
features in terms of its humane, social, economic ethnic, religious, 
cultural existence as a human being and the member of larger groups 
- either national, professional, religious, cultural or even minority 
one. This should take place within the multiethnic, multireligious and 
multireligious context of a complex and mixed country. Bosnia and 
Herzegovina has always been such a country. Its current status has 
been distinctly re-affirmed under the Dayton Peace Accords and the 
recent political development after the September 1996 elections. It 
means that our education must not promote any ideas that 
jeopardize such a status, like   intolerance, hatred, national or 
religious exclusivity or any other feature that could again act as a 
catalyst for the armed conflict similar to the most recent one in our 
history. This might sound an idealistic reasoning, but we have no 
other option but to be humane and idealistic in the efforts of 
rebuilding our society on the principles of mutual respect and 
equality and guaranteeing to all of us, and most particularly our 
children a sound prospect for future.

	3. Education in such an environment should be based upon the 
principle of equal competition of ownership of the institutions which 
engage in education process. The former so called 'social' or 'public 
owned' sector need to be gradually supplemented by a variety of 
offers - ranging from private and corporate to mixed and 
international.  This is in line with both the principle of 
decentralization throughout the Federation, and the principle of 
equal opportunities given to anyone interested in securing the 
education process within appropriate legal, financial, expertise, staff 
and physical capabilities and potentials. It implies all levels of 
education - from pre-school to higher education, religious, adult, 
special, occasional, pre-service or in-service types of education. 
Naturally, it is not likely that there would be too many initiatives 
other than so called 'public or state supported' ones for quite some 
time, due to the overall limited potentials in the country. 
Nevertheless, the process of privatization and transition towards 
various forms of education institutions should be encouraged. It 
should not be seen as contrary to the current prevailing situation, 
but as its complementary advancement and much needed change. 
We should not be afraid that various form of ownership over the 
educational institutions and premises would result in a poor 
education in what is usually labeled state owned or government 
supported school system. The appropriate system of taxation and 
public expenditures, within the flexible and viable legal framework, 
could reduce the previous discrepancies. A sound competition could 
be seen as a challenge to the complacent and outdated approaches to 
education under the strict control of a state, party or anybody else 
who wishes to exert control over it as its own exclusive right. Such a 
right could not be granted to anyone since we adhere to the principle 
of the education for all, and of all types of education prevailing in the 
countries with similar social, economic and political structures.

	This brings us now to the other related issues. When teacher 
training is concerned, it must reflect these transition changes. At the 
moment, our teacher training system suffers from many deficiencies. 
It is mostly fragmented and it could not provide the much desired 
quality one would naturally want under similar circumstances. The 
system of teacher training needs to be seriously rethought in order 
to pass through several stages towards the more balanced and viable 
situation. One of the main purposes of this project us exactly in 
defining such a framework. The current situation  resulted from the 
traditional organization, which did not differ much from any other 
country around us, or in Central and Eastern Europe for that matter. 
In the last thirty or so years, the efforts to influence the teacher 
training process revolved mostly around the issue of secondary 
teacher training schools and pedagogical academies. The world trend 
to increase the number of years spent in training for the teaching 
profession ended secondary teacher training schools in the early 
Seventies. Pedagogical academies did not obtain proper status in that 
period. One of the consequences was the decrease of interest for 
teaching professions in terms of the best students available.

	 At the same time, there was no 4-years long University 
institutions which would be the real establishments for educating the 
new teachers. Due to the political slogans in the seventies for 
'directed' (usmjereno) education, and the everlasting call for 
technological training at the expense of the humanistic ones, there is 
no a single institution of a kind in the Federation which could meet 
the criteria in other parts of the world we would like to compare 
ourselves with. In 1992, there were no secondary teacher training 
schools in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but Pedagogical Academies in 
Mostar, Sarajevo, Tuzla and Banja Luka. Future teachers had been 
trained at the Faculties of Philosophy, Natural Sciences, Physical 
Education, Political Sciences and the Academies of Fine Arts and 
Music Academy (all in Sarajevo). It is true that there is a Pedagogical 
Faculty opened in the course of the war in Mostar West, and that the 
Faculty of Philosophy and the Faculty of Defectology also opened at 
Tuzla University, along with the Pedagogical academies in Zenica and 
Bihac, and two Islamic Pedagogic academies in the same places, but 
the issue remains - what happens to all these institutions? Do we 
need them all, and to what extent? Could a country as economically 
weak as ours afford such a fragmented and diversified network of 
teacher training establishments? It is very likely that the number of 
teachers necessary to fill in the missing posts would be accomplished 
in a few years time, and then what? Are we going to close certain 
departments, as it had almost happened in the past, and what are we 
going to do with a number of graduates and/or students who want to 
enter the teaching profession? 

	It is our task to try to find answers to such issues within this 
group and with the assistance of our colleagues from the university 
of Pittsburgh. We need to address the wider context of education in 
order to understand the more focused set of issues related to the 
teacher training reconstruction and reform. As a matter of fact, what 
we ought to attain is both the revival and re-shaping of our teacher 
training system. We should not aim at cosmetic modifications, or 
even to some minor plastic surgeries, but to comprehensive and far 
ranging changes. They would take place within the terms of 
immediate reconstruction and strengthening of the parts of the 
system, and finally, within the overall transition efforts, as the stable 
and well developed system of a small but highly complex country 
seeking to return again to its peaceful and prosperous future.



1