c e p s Journal | Vol.

2 | No2| Year 2012 31

Education System Reforms in an Unstable Political

Situation: The Case of Serbia in the First Decade
of the 21st Century

Ivan Ivić1 and Ana Pešikan*2

• In the present paper, education reform in the Republic of Serbia since

2000 is presented. The focus is on two major reform waves: 2000–2003
and 2004–2005. We analyse why these broad educational interventions
failed. After 2005, there was a lull in the reform process, a period with no
major changes (2005–2010). A new phase of improving education policy
in Serbia commenced with the adoption of Trends in the Development
and Upgrading of the Quality of Education and Upbringing 2010–2020
(2010) and the conception and proposal of the Strategy of Education De-
velopment in Serbia to 2020+ (2012). The basic innovations in approach
and conception in the new “epoch” is outlined.

Keywords: Education policy, Education reform, Serbia, Strategy of edu-

cation development

1 Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Psychology, University of Belgrade, Serbia

2 *Corresponding author. Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Psychology, University of
Belgrade, Serbia
[email protected]
32 education system reforms in an unstable political situation

Sistemske reforme na področju vzgoje in izobraževanja

v politično nestabilnem času: Primer Srbije v prvem
desetletju 21. stoletja

Ivan Ivić in Ana Pešikan*

• V prispevku so predstavljene reforme na področju vzgoje in

izobraževanja v Republiki Srbiji od leta 2000 naprej. V ospredju sta dva
večja reformna vala: 2000–2003 in 2004–2005. Analizirani so razlogi,
zakaj ta posega v izobraževanje nista bila uspešna. Po tem je sledilo
obdobje, v katerem ni bilo večjih sprememb (2005–2010). Leta 2010 je
sledilo novo obdobje v prizadevanjih za izboljšanje edukacijskih politik
v Srbiji – sprejeti so bili Trendi za razvoj in izboljšanje kakovosti v vzgoji
in izobraževanju 2010–2020 (2010) ter koncept in predlog Strategije
razvoja izobraževanja v Srbiji do 2020+ (2012). Poudarjene so temeljne
novosti pristopa in koncepta novega obdobja.

Ključne besede: edukacijske politike, reforme na področju izobraževanja,

Srbija, strategija razvoja izobraževanja
 c e p s Journal | Vol.2 | No2| Year 2012 33

Introduction

In October 2000, huge political changes took place in the Republic of

Serbia. Essentially, these changes initiated processes that were very similar to
the processes in other ex-socialist countries in regard to transition processes in
economic, social and political life. In the period between 2000 and 2005, many
changes occurred in the field of education. Due to political instability and the
change of government, many radical changes, declarations of intended changes
and actual implementation of changes with various political connotations oc-
curred during this period.
In the following text, an analysis of education reform endeavours at the
beginning of 21st century in Serbia is presented. In the last decade, two relevant
reform waves can be recognised: the first, the changes in the period just after the
country’s major political changes, was in 2000, while the second wave is repre-
sented by the changes in the period 2004–05. In the present text, the main char-
acteristics of these two waves will be outlined along with the reasons for their
success or failure in practice. The third, qualitatively new “wave” is the conception
and realisation of the proposal of the Strategy of Education Development in Ser-
bia to 2020+ (2012) and the activities that preceded it.

Education reform steps: Major characteristics of the

changes introduced in 2001–2003

As noted above, the transition (“reform”) of the education system in Ser-

bia began after the political changes that took place in October 2000 – the “Oc-
tober Democratic Revolution”. This “revolution” initiated a transition process
(economic, social, political) very similar to the transition processes in other ex-
socialist countries. The climate for introducing changes in the education system
was therefore favourable. The political changes came about as a result of joint
actions of a galvanised citizenry, the atmosphere in the country was positive, and
the reforms were much awaited. The new democratic government created at the
beginning of 2001 declared itself to be “radically reformist” (Ivić, 2005).
The field of education was already distinguished by great strengths and
potential for positive changes.
• Since the mid 1990s, significant numbers of teachers and other educa-
tion staff had been participating in numerous in-service training pro-
grammes. Almost all of these training programmes were realised with
the help of international donors.
• Most of these programmes were oriented towards the democratisation
34 education system reforms in an unstable political situation

of the education system and schools. Some programmes attempted to

achieve this goal through the content of the training (civic education,
child rights programmes), but all of them did so through the introduc-
tion of the methods used during the training (interactive/active me-
thods), resulting in the mobilisation of teachers and creating a readiness
for the expected changes.

There were, however, a certain number of drawbacks:

• The political parties that took power lacked guiding principles for the
education reform. As a result, the Ministry of Education and Sport
(MES) had a dual responsibility: firstly, to define its strategy and, secon-
dly, to implement the reforms. This gives a clear picture of the overall
context in which the theoretical framework for reforms was contextuali-
sed, and of the practical changes that were implemented.
• Consequent analysis of MES documents from that period (e.g. 2002,
2004) did not allow for easy identification of the general concept on
which the reforms were based.

The concept was declaratively and broadly based on “quality education

for all”, “reconstruction of the education system”, “modernisation”, “Europe-
anisation”, etc. Knezevic, the Minister of Education at the time, exhorted that
“those who partook in the creation of the new education policies” are certain
that their efforts will be sustainable because “…their idea of modern European
education has already survived all of the turbulence in this region” (MES, 2004,
p. 9). Apparently, the reforms were based on the introduction of “modern Euro-
pean education” into one specific region of Europe (Serbia). The idea of “mod-
ern European education” is not very clear and requires further explanation.
Although there are education systems of individual EU member states, there is
no single model of “European education”. Post factum analysis of what the MES
actually did leaves us with the impression that there really was not a single,
clear and coherent idea of what “modern European education” meant. Clearly,
the reform appeared to be an ad hoc compilation of separate measures bor-
rowed from the education systems of other European countries. For example,
why would it be more “European” to divide elementary school into 3 three-year
cycles, instead of 2 four-year cycles, with a “zero” (Kindergarten) grade, or to
change the duration of high school education to three instead of four years?
The declared “European” orientation meant two things. Firstly, it was
clearly a “top-down” reform, which, first and foremost, meant that the reform-
ists had an idea about what kind of education system they wanted and they
 c e p s Journal | Vol.2 | No2| Year 2012 35

built the reform around this idea. Secondly, just like the education reforms in
many other countries in transition in this region (except Slovenia, perhaps),
the reform was obviously conceptualised in the spirit of an “Etic” rather than
an “Emic” approach. Any system in a given culture can be changed only by
following the inner logic of the system itself, its characteristics and potentials,
focusing on the spontaneous growth of change, using the strengths within sys-
tem (Emic approach). The second approach is to try to introduce the changes
that fit some theoretical model or to take an outside example as a starting point
and to impose changes on the system (Etic approach). To borrow these terms
from cultural anthropology is quite appropriate in the present context, since
the education system of every country greatly depends upon the cultural char-
acteristics of that country. What happened in Serbia during the initial reforms
clearly indicates that the reforms were conducted following the second, Etic
approach (Ivić, 2001). This claim can be supported by the fact that within the
policy documents of the previous Ministry we could not find any serious as-
sessment of the existing problems of the time (problems that still exist) in Ser-
bian education. Such an assessment could serve as a basis for finding solutions
and resources in the existing system. Instead, the solutions were conceptualised
theoretically and then tried out within the system.
The attempt to reform education during 2001–2003 was quite compre-
hensive. All previously attempted reforms of the education system in Serbia
focused almost exclusively on changing school programmes (i.e., the content
of what is being taught), but the concept of the 2001–2003 reforms was very
different. The reform concept (not the results, however) addressed all relevant
aspects of education, almost at the same time: the structure of the education
system, the system of financing, the management of the entire system, the in-
formation system, school programmes, textbooks, the professional develop-
ment of education staff, the mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating student
achievement, the development of educational institutions, the system of life-
long learning, etc. Changes in this period included:
• Legislature (the adoption of a general law on education, i.e., the “Um-
brella 1 Law”);
• Building new independent professional institutions (The National Co-
uncil for Education, The Centre for Curricula and Textbooks, The Cen-
tre for Professional Teacher Development, The Centre for Evaluation);
• The structure of the education system (primary education length – nine
instead of eight years divided into three cycles; secondary school – three
instead of four years);
• Curricula that are more flexible (individual schools could create part of
36 education system reforms in an unstable political situation

the curriculum by themselves);

• VET (adaptation of the structure of the VET to changes in the economic
structure).

These changes took place in the spirit of an “etic approach”, and were
close to the concept of top-down reforms. However, most of the changes were
implemented near the end of the three-year mandate of the MES, and were
therefore unlikely to be sustainable.
The concept of the reforms developed by the MES (in power 2001–2003)
was operationalised in the Law on the Foundations of Education (referred to
here as the “Umbrella 1 Law”), adopted by Parliament in June 2003. The content
of this “Umbrella 1 Law” is evident from particular solutions presented in fol-
lowing section.

Main components of the 2001–2003 education reforms

The main characteristics of the 2001–03 education reforms and the im-
pacts of these reforms can be best seen if we summarise the theoretical ideas
and planned activities behind them and then look at the concrete achievements,
which will, inevitably, once again confirm that the reform was comprised of
many individual measures without a clearly defined and coherent conceptual
framework.

a. Legislature. During the 2001–03 reforms, there were very few changes in
the legal regulative related to education. In 2002, some necessary amendments
to the existing Law on Primary and Secondary Education were adopted: the ap-
pointment process for school principals was modified, school board membership
was changed so as to increase the number of parents and representatives of the
local community, the control function of school inspections was reduced, and a
professional advancement system for teachers was introduced (upon which sal-
ary increases and bonuses were to be contingent – an important motivating factor
to instigate changes in behaviour). The most important achievement, however,
was the adoption by Parliament of the Law on the Foundations of the Education
System (an “umbrella” school act) in June 2003. This law incorporated many of
the reform ideas that will be discussed later. Unfortunately, due to political rea-
sons, it was passed hastily, without serious discussion and debate.
The implementation of this “Umbrella Law” began rapidly, on 1 Septem-
ber, without allowing enough time for schools to prepare. The existing Laws
on Primary and Secondary Education and the Law on Textbooks were still in
 c e p s Journal | Vol.2 | No2| Year 2012 37

effect, containing clauses that were at least partially in contradiction with the
new “Umbrella Law”, while new Laws on Preschool Education and Adult Edu-
cation were not passed, and the same textbooks remained in use – all contribut-
ing to great difficulties in the implementation of the new “Umbrella Law”.

b. Independent Institutions. In order to effectively implement the reforms,

it was necessary to create certain independent expert institutions that had not
previously existed in Serbia. The “Umbrella Law” provided the possibility of
creating several such institutions: The Centre for School Programmes and Text-
books, The Centre for the Professional Development of Teachers, The Centre
for Vocational Educational Training (VET), The Centre for Evaluation, The Na-
tional Council for Education, The National Council for VET, etc.
The National Council for Education, as the highest independent body
on the national level with a responsibility to direct and define long-term educa-
tion policy, was instituted at the very end of the 2001–03 Ministry’s mandate. Its
members were appointed by the same Ministry and all of the policy documents
were already adopted by the Ministry.
The Centre for Evaluation, funded by a World Bank loan, began its work
at the end of 2003. Its personnel were well trained, and they developed the nec-
essary organisational and management procedures, conducted a national as-
sessment of student achievement at the end of the 3rd grade, and analysed the
results (some of these activities took place after the political power change, i.e.,
after the fall of the 2001–03 Ministry from power). The Centre, now called the
Institute for Evaluation of Quality in Education, continues its work.
The Centre for School Programmes and Textbooks and the Centre for
the Professional Development of Teachers also continued their work under the
new Ministry, with changed work organisation and somewhat different respon-
sibilities and competencies.

c. System of Financing. Many changes were planned (decentralisation of fi-

nancing and a new formula for financing individual schools based on payment
per student with some correction mechanisms), but none of these changes were
ever realised. The salaries of teachers increased. If the index (100%) represents
the average salary in January 2002, then salaries in December 2002 did, indeed,
increase to around 175%; however, this was not part of the education reform,
but rather reflected an overall state-wide real increase in salaries in the public
sector.
In the state budget, there were no supplementary financial sources to
support the education reform, as there was no interest in doing so, not in the
38 education system reforms in an unstable political situation

government or the Parliament, nor amongst the general public. The percentage
of GDP allocated to education during the 2001–03 reforms was even lower than
previously: in 1997 – 4.5%, in 1998 – 3.79%, and in 2002 – 3.2%, and 2003 – 3.4%
(Ivić, 2005). The only sources of financing the costs of the reform were a modest
loan from the World Bank and individual donations received from the govern-
ments of other countries and international organisations.

d. Decentralisation of the Management System. This was one part of the

loudly propagated 3D formula: depoliticisation, decentralisation and democra-
tisation of the system. According to the new law, instead of having the exclusive
power to appoint school principals, the Ministry now only had the jurisdiction
to approve the choice made by school boards, which were now comprised of
three school representatives, three parents and three local community repre-
sentatives. Part of the WB loan was used for decentralisation. Even under the
new “Umbrella Law”, the Ministry retained key decision-making power – po-
litical parties running the local municipalities appointed the majority of school
board members from their echelons (local community representatives as well
as school representatives) therefore, it can hardly be assumed that any real de-
politicisation and democratisation occurred. The audit results of how the por-
tion of the WB credit was used for decentralisation are still awaited.

e. Education System. The structure of the education system was changed

significantly: one more grade was added to compulsory primary education, and
this new 9-year primary education system (ISCED 1 and 2) was then sectioned
into three 3-year cycles. Furthermore, it was suggested that the duration of all
secondary schools be reduced to three years (including lyceums or college prep
schools). These major structural changes were never the subject of public dis-
cussion, and the reformers themselves were never able to present any meaning-
ful arguments related to the benefits and effects of such major perturbations in
the education system.
The possible consequences (financial, organisational, and personnel-
related) of such major changes were never considered: what to do with the sur-
plus of teachers in high schools when three-year schools came into existence
(before they had been four-year schools); how to handle the deficit of teachers
in primary education when it was extended by another year; the surplus or
shortage of physical space in schools; the possible increase in drop-out rates
in primary education caused by the extension of compulsory education and
the introduction of more demanding general programmes; the problems that
would befall rural elementary schools; and similar headache issues.
 c e p s Journal | Vol.2 | No2| Year 2012 39

None of these enforced changes proved sustainable. The new Ministry

that assumed power in 2004 immediately annulled all of these initiatives be-
cause they were unachievable within the planned time frame, and their conse-
quences were unpredictable.

f. Curricular Reform. In this domain, too, some major changes were

planned. New courses were introduced, exclusively for political reasons (one of
the two – either Civic Education or Religious Education – became a compul-
sory course). The second foreign language was introduced as early as in the 1st
grade – again, without any serious assessment of the capacities and abilities of
schools to respond to such a demand (e.g., the availability of properly trained
teachers). Furthermore, a number of elective courses were introduced – hast-
ily and without enough time for schools to prepare, and without assessment of
schools’ capacities to realise them. Instead of separate courses for various science
disciplines (Physics, Biology and Chemistry courses) a new Science course was
introduced at the beginning of the second primary school cycle, with total disre-
gard for the need of teachers to suddenly prepare to switch to teaching this new
subject (for which they had not been trained at their faculties). The number of
instructional hours for maths, chemistry and physical sciences was reduced.
Furthermore, a major change was planned in relation to the structure
of curricula. Instead of prescribed and mandatory curricular content for each
subject, only a framework was to be defined, allowing each individual school,
directed just by these general guidelines, to design their own Operational Pro-
grammes. School programmes were not defined by the mandatory curricular
content, but rather by learning outcomes defined through benchmark goals and
objectives. Only some required courses were mandatory – schools were given
the freedom to independently design and implement about 10–30% of the pro-
grammes during the second and third primary education cycle. The curricu-
lar documents aimed at the first generation of students under the “reformed”
education system (1st and 7th grades) were presented for public discussion in
April, and were to be implemented by September (it was assumed that the new
textbooks could be printed and teachers trained within a four month period).
A portion of the WB loan was used for the so-called School Develop-
ment Project (SDP), through which individual schools were funded for pro-
jects relevant to the issues prioritised by the schools themselves and related to
local community needs. Schools had problems defining their SDP even after
completing preparatory SDP training for several reasons: initiative behaviour
had not been practiced for 50 years in Serbia (due to the one-party system and
a highly centralised decision- making processes in the country), the overall
40 education system reforms in an unstable political situation

climate was not supportive, and there was a mismatch between schools taking
responsibility for their own development and the quality of work and real sup-
port for doing so in the MES and the local community.
The Ministry of Education that assumed power in 2004 annulled the
majority of these initiatives, especially those aimed at changing the structure of
school programmes. School programmes are again defined through curricular
content and are compulsory – they must be implemented by all schools in Serbia.
Our opinion is that the originally envisioned changes were neither well conceptu-
alised nor properly implemented. Moreover, they were implemented hastily, and
it was impossible to predict the results they would achieve once implemented.
The idea of defining the standards of knowledge for certain academic
areas (benchmark educational outcomes) has not been entirely rejected, and
the process of defining the learning standards to be achieved at the end of pri-
mary education in various academic areas is currently underway. The majority
of financial resources allocated to the Evaluation Project by the WB loan has
been rerouted towards achieving this goal.
The Science course was eliminated, and the study of Physics, Chemistry,
and Biology as separate courses was reinstated. Some elective courses were re-
tained, but their number and instructional time were decreased. Instructional
time for mathematics and sciences was returned to the level prior to the reform
(because it was not possible both to reach the intended outcomes and to match
the programmes and outcomes).
SDP continued because it was considered to be important for the devel-
opment of school autonomy and the professional growth of educators. Howev-
er, the amount of financial assistance to each individual school for this project
was very modest from the very beginning.

g. School Textbooks. The new Law on School Textbooks was not passed
(the old law gave exclusive rights and a complete monopoly to just one public
publisher). The 2001–03 Ministry requested that quality standards for school
textbooks be developed, but even before this task was completed the Ministry
liberalised and opened up the textbook market, allowing schools/teachers to
independently select textbooks for various subjects. However, this was done
without any accompanying legal regulative, and could have resulted in corrup-
tion and in a decrease in the quality of school textbooks.
Quality standards for textbooks were completed in November 2004, but
they were not “officially” adopted – they had to be adopted by The National
Council for Education that was not yet operational. The new Ministry that
was instituted in 2004 prepared a draft of the Law on Textbooks. However,
 c e p s Journal | Vol.2 | No2| Year 2012 41

since new school programmes are still prepared in a rush, textbooks are being
published in the same manner – hastily. The accreditation of school textbooks
remains a weak point due to inappropriate standards that the Institute for Im-
provement in Education implemented as a criterion (adopted by the National
Council for Education in 2010).

h. Professional Development of Teachers. The 2001–03 education reform prof-

ited greatly from the knowledge and skills of teachers and other school personnel
who had been acquiring new skills since the mid 1990s, long before the “reform”
began, through attending various training seminars and workshops. During the
2001–03 reform, in-service teacher training continued even more intensely and
frequently. This was possible due to generous donations from foreign donors
(UNICEF, WB, the governments of Switzerland, Austria, Norway and Greece,
the Soros Fund, and others).
After the “Umbrella Law” was passed, the Centre for the Professional
Development of Teachers was instituted (with Swiss support). Similar regional
centres were envisioned (but not defined their mutual relationship) and a num-
ber of in-service programmes for additional teacher training received accredi-
tation from the Ministry. Two catalogues listing these accredited programmes
were printed, the second of which contained 335 in-service programmes (MES,
2003a), so that schools could select those they were interested in. However, only
about 20 of the programmes were put into practice; most of them were pure
improvisation (prepared just for the Catalog). The new catalogues (2010/11,
2011/12) have the same structural problems as the old ones; the number of pro-
grammes has increased to 840, of which only 0.5% are evaluated in some way,
with only one programme being subjected to international evaluation (Pešikan,
Antić, & Marinković, 2010a, 2010b).
The question of who should finance in-service teacher training was nev-
er resolved; the Ministry assumed that municipalities should provide funding,
but they simply had no means to do so. Work commenced on by-law regula-
tions defining the details of the professional advancement process and upgrad-
ing criteria for teachers (the teacher career ladder) based on the attendance of
training seminars mentioned in the “Umbrella Law”, but this work was never
completed and the system of teacher professional advancement never took root.
The Centre for the Professional Development of Teachers continues its
work as part of the Institute for Improvement in Education. The Rulebook for
Accreditation of Programmes for Professional Development was being com-
piled. It emphasized professional development directed at specific subject
content areas, rather than teaching methods. The problem of financing these
42 education system reforms in an unstable political situation

programmes remains; neither the Ministry nor local municipalities have in-
service teacher training on their budget line. The professional advancement
system for teachers has not been implemented because the problem of financ-
ing the increase of salaries for teachers who fulfil the professional advancement
requirements has not been solved yet.

i. The Information System in Education. With WB financial support, ac-

tivities aimed at the creation of a single unified information education network
was initiated (enabling the Ministry, creating regional centres, electronically
linking every individual school with the regional and central level, delivery of
hardware). Creation of a unified information network has never been complet-
ed. The main problems, especially data gathering and assuring the quality of
data, have remained up to the present day (Pešikan, 2012). The precise results
produced in this area with the moneys from the WB loan have never been pub-
licly announced. There are still great overlaps and disparities in data gathering
methods and analysis schemes between the Statistical Office of the Republic
of Serbia and the MES. Information is not accessible to the general public and
reporting on the collected data is irregular.

j. Vocational Education and Training (VET). The Strategy for Vocational

Training Development was created during the 2001–03 reforms. Only in this
area was some inter-sector cooperation and collaboration noticeable (the Min-
istry of Social Affairs, the Chamber of Commerce, the Ministry of the Econo-
my, National Employment Agencies, Labour Unions, etc.). A detailed assess-
ment of the VET schools network was made and an analysis of the effects of the
predicted changes on the country’s economy was conducted jointly by all of the
above-mentioned stakeholders. Consequently, some new vocational training
programmes were introduced and teachers were trained to teach them. Support
and collaboration was realised with the GTZ, ETF, EU CARDS programme, etc.
The Strategy for Vocational Training Development was adopted at the high-
est level – the government of the Republic of Serbia. The Ministry of Educa-
tion that took power in 2004 continued all activities on the reconstruction and
modernisation of VET programs.

k. Early Childhood Care and Education. In this area, only a couple of strate-
gic policy papers were created. The Law on Preschool Education, complemen-
tary to the new “Umbrella Law”, was created in 2010. Accreditation criteria and
procedures have not been adopted yet and the quality of preschool education
control mechanisms has never been defined. Since 1992, it has been possible
 c e p s Journal | Vol.2 | No2| Year 2012 43

to open a private preschool institution legally, but there are no accreditation

and quality control mechanisms. No concrete measures related to changing the
current state of affairs in early preschool education have ever been adopted.
Moreover, a decrease in preschool enrolment has been noted lately.

l. Adult Education/Lifelong Education. In this domain, a number of strategic

and policy papers were created and a survey of the current situation was conducted.
However, no new legal regulative was passed until 2012. Since January 2012, the Draft
Law on Adult Education has been in parliamentary procedure. Adult schools are
rare, and no concrete measures related to changing the current state of affairs in adult
education have ever been adopted.

m. Education of Children with Disabilities. Some strategic and policy papers

were created but no necessary legal regulative was passed. The system of segre-
gated, dilapidating special schools with a watered-down school curriculum and
ill-prepared staff still exists in Serbia, parallel to the general education system.
A small number of children attend these schools. UNICEF and Save the Chil-
dren have piloted some inclusive projects, but with limited success. The Guide
for Work with Children with Disabilities was created. The Ministry of Social
Affairs created a Protocol for the Assessment of the Special Needs of Children
with Disabilities (replacing the so-called Categorisation Guidelines). In 2009,
new inclusive education commenced in practice, but without sufficient prepa-
ration of all participants in the process and with numerous obstacles that had
not been solved in advance (Rado, 2009; Rado & Lazetic, 2010).

Education reform steps: Changes introduced in

2004-2005

After the parliamentary elections, a new government was created from

the opposing political option (spring 2004). This government supported cer-
tain changes in the area of education, but these were not nearly as radical as the
previous changes. The new Ministry of Education and Sports did not explicitly
conceptualise their own vision of the education system; instead, it seemed to
be focused on certain concrete, direct, practical measures, and it only sporadi-
cally issued statements by high-ranking Ministry officials. One of the measures
the new Ministry undertook was to annul and abolish some of the innovations
introduced by the previous Ministry.
One of the most significant changes introduced by the new Ministry
was the Amendments and Additions to the Law on the Foundations of the
44 education system reforms in an unstable political situation

Education System in Serbia (the new “Umbrella Law” is referred to here as

the “Umbrella 2 Law”). The narrative of the new “Umbrella 2 Law” indicates
some of the general ideas guiding the new Ministry. The Ministry stood for
“…systematic, rational and incremental changes to the educational system…”,
“…constant assessment, analysis and modification of the implemented school
programmes and curricula” (MES, 2005, p. 25). The Ministry clearly articulated
that “…one of the main goals of the child’s education and socialisation should
be to develop an awareness about one’s own national being and statehood, to
cherish and appreciate Serbian culture and traditions, as well as traditions and
cultures of other ethnic and national minorities, and to develop an interest in
and openness towards the cultures of various other traditional religions” (MES,
2005, p. 26). It is clear that the new Ministry held a significantly less radical and
more conservative orientation in reforming education.
The “Umbrella 2 Law” annulled all of the structural changes in the edu-
cation system introduced previously, since they caused too much turbulence
within the system. Structural changes in curricula (curricula conceived as gen-
eral and specific outcomes and objectives, more flexible curricula, some free-
dom for schools to partially build their own curricula) were annulled. Tradi-
tional school programmes were reinstated – serious and academically exigent
curricular content was returned, complemented by learning standards defined
for each course at the end of the learning process.
The new Ministry instituted a greater quantity of general curricular con-
tent as required and mandatory for all students. Another important change in-
troduced was the National Council for Education as autonomous professional
body in charge of making all education policy decisions (members were se-
lected by the Parliament). It should be pointed out, however, that some political
criteria did affect, albeit slightly, the selection of members of this important
body. The new Ministry also introduced some changes in the organisation,
responsibilities and jurisdiction of the independent professional institutions
formed by the previous Ministry (there are now two professional institutions –
the Institute for the Improvement of Education and the Institute for the Evalu-
ation of Quality in Education).
In May/June 2005, the Ministry of Education posted two important pol-
icy documents on its website (there was no public discussion about these docu-
ments), the first entitled “The National Strategy for Education from 2005 to
2010” and the second “Strategy of the Ministry of Education and Sport for the
Period from 2005 to 2010”. It is difficult to comment on these documents. The
first document is too brief, and issues for discussion remain scant as there is a
lack of information. The second document (124 pages) is difficult to comment
 c e p s Journal | Vol.2 | No2| Year 2012 45

on because the issues discussed lack clarity and the development of education
in Serbia is neither well discussed nor sufficiently elaborated. With the excep-
tion of VET, very little is clarified.
If this document is viewed as a strategy for the development/improve-
ment of education in Serbia, then several things seem self-evident: a) it is not
possible to reconstruct the overall framework of the document (the sections
pertaining to various sectors in education are disconnected); b) the defined
scope of work attributed to various Ministry departments is even broader and
more ambitious than that defined by the previous Ministry; c) not one of the
listed activities/jobs defines any responsible implementing agency other than
the Ministry itself, and the resources are not planned; d) all projects, initiatives
and actions related to education with a source other than the Ministry are com-
pletely overlooked (there is no mention of the Institute for the Improvement of
Education and the Institute for the Evaluation of Quality in Education, which,
according to the “Umbrella 2 Law”, should closely cooperate with the Minis-
try); e) if this is the strategy for the development/improvement of education,
it is surprising that The National Council for Education – whose basic duty,
according to “Umbrella 2 Law”, is to develop policies in education – is barely
mentioned in the document.

Conclusions on the changes in 2001–05

The first category of conclusions pertains to education policy itself in an

unstable political environment. The reformists from the 2001-2003 period un-
derstood the importance of the political context very well: “The major precon-
dition for the adequate functioning of the education system, and for the success
of the changes aimed to improve education, is the very existence of a stable legal
and political environment.” (MES, 2004, p. 9). They also knew that there was no
such stability at the time in Serbia; yet, for some strange reason, they decided
to completely ignore this fact. They spent two and a half years of their three-
year mandate on “theorising” and construing their perfect education model,
producing loads of “conceptions”, “strategies”, and “foundations”. During these
long two and a half years there were few concrete, practical actions and meas-
ures that were implemented and eventually became sustainable. Only during
the last six months of their mandate did they start actually transferring some
of their broad, general ideas into tangible results (passing the “Umbrella 1 Law”,
constituting certain independent professional institutions, creating school pro-
grammes/curricula). All of this, however, even if it could have been proven
useful (which is highly doubtful), never had the time to take root, and was very
46 education system reforms in an unstable political situation

easy to simply eradicate.

Besides the striking imbalance between long-term targets and practical
actions, there were a number of other factors that caused the 2001–2003 reform
to produce modest results:
• It was a top-down reform based on the Etic approach rather than Emic
approach;
• Serious reforms require significant financial investments;
• The reform was not based on a solid analysis and assessment of the si-
tuation at the time in Serbian education (this analysis did exist, but the
top-down approach simply ignored it, using it only sporadically);
• The problems and dilemmas faced in reality were never discussed in the
policy and reform documents of the 2001–03 Ministry. Instead, these
documents just presented general concepts, flaunting them during large
convention-type gatherings, and simply assuming and demanding that
they be accepted;
• Outlining the concept of the reform and its consequent implementation
did not involve the existing national institutions, who wanted to partici-
pate autonomously in policy creation and decision making. Instead, the
reformers arbitrarily and subjectively selected the experts and professio-
nals who would implement the reforms;
• Over a three-year period, no independent national institution was cre-
ated to participate in conceptualising and implementing the reforms;
• The reformers refused to accept initiatives from other stakeholders (the
Serbian Lyceum/Gymnasium Association, for example, developed in
detail its own concept of how to reform all college prep high schools,
but the Ministry simply ignored its suggestions), and were very touchy
about any kind of criticism and unable to develop any kind of commu-
nication with their critics;
• The reformers simply failed to implement many concrete measures un-
der the conditions and within the given timeframe that was originally
planned;
• In the period 2004–05, the new “Umbrella Law” annulled all of the
structural changes in the education system introduced previously that
had caused too much turbulence and confusion within the system;
• In May/June 2005, the Ministry of Education presented two important
policy documents/strategies, but both texts have serious drawbacks.

In the Republic of Serbia, during the entire period between 2001 and
2005, regardless of the reforms introduced by the Ministry of Education, some
 c e p s Journal | Vol.2 | No2| Year 2012 47

initiatives, projects and actions important for improving the quality of education
in Serbia began to be realised (The National Plan of Action for Children, The
Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, The Strategy for the Improvement of Educa-
tion of the Roma Population, etc). Based on these changes, which took place in
a politically unstable country during the period 2001–2005, two types of conclu-
sions can be made:
• Regarding the relationship between education policy and politics: when
education reforms are taking place within the context of political insta-
bility, the sustainability of these changes can only be ensured by creating
reforms that rely not only on changes directly dependent on the educa-
tion authorities but also on independent factors (e.g. independent pro-
fessional institutions; individual schools that have commenced reforms;
associations of teachers; university and research institutions that have
started implementing reforms, etc;
• Besides the political instability during this period, some changes that en-
hance quality and equity in education did occur (the creation of a system
for the professional development of teachers, the creation of institutions
that conduct the assessment of student achievement, the beginnings of
the creation of VET that is adapted to the economic situation).

In spite of all of the turbulence and inconsistencies, some sustainable

changes that occurred in Serbia could serve as a basis for the improvement of
the entire nation with regard to tackling and resolving some problems related
to ensuring the quality of education. Below we summarise and present the pos-
sible contributions of the reform initiatives and changes implemented hitherto:
• Improving access and equity. An important contribution to this goal could
be the creation of the NPA and the LPA, the Poverty Reduction Strategy,
the Strategy for the Improvement of Roma Education, etc.
• Improving the quality of education. Achieving this goal could be greatly
assisted by the creation of the Centre for the Evaluation of Quality in Edu-
cation (now the Institute for the Evaluation of Quality in Education) and
the continuation of its work, such as the national assessment of student
achievement and participation in international programmes for the as-
sessment of student achievement. Furthermore, the work of the Centre
for the Professional Development of Teachers and its in-service teacher
training could contribute to the achievement of this goal; and also, the
establishment of the “teacher career ladder” mechanisms already defined
in legal documents. The quality of education could also be strongly su-
pported by the preservation of highly serious and challenging academic
48 education system reforms in an unstable political situation

programmes, and by the liberalisation of the school textbook market, on

the condition that the already established standards for textbook quality
are genuinely implemented.
• Improving enrolment in and quality of preschool education programmes.
This will surely be improved by the introduction of the “zero” grade, if
developmentally appropriate programmes for this grade are developed.
Introducing the obligatory Preparatory Preschool Programme in 2007 for
children aged 5.5–6 years is an important measure in achieving this goal.
• Young people and adult education and training. This goal will be greatly
affected by the reconstruction and revitalisation of the entire VET edu-
cation system.

Looking forward: The Strategy of Education Develop-

ment in Serbia to 2020+

The aim of the analyses in the present text is to show what the basic, con-
ceptual problems and weaknesses were in education changes in Serbia in the pe-
riod 2001–05. Some observers have thought that the main problem was the inter-
ruption in the changes with the arrival of the new political garniture after 2005,
but we hope that it is obvious from our analyses that the main problems were
actually: conceptual (the approach to changes) and procedural (how the innova-
tions were introduced in the system). Primarily, it is the lack of following: a com-
prehensive theoretical approach; a reliance on the strengths of the system itself; a
reliance on positive experiences in practice; a holistic approach to reforming the
education system, resulting in the introduction of certain solutions with no con-
sideration of their relationship to other measures and to other parts of the system;
viewing education as part of wider social context, with links to other sectors in
society; critical analyses of borrowed solutions and their appropriateness for our
sociocultural context; a broad, transparent and consultative approach, with nu-
merous different and relevant aspects, from professional circles to citizens’ circles;
taking into account reality, the real conditions for implementing noble ideas,etc.
One could say that the period 2005–2009 was a kind of “lull”. The “third”
wave of education changes in Serbia is characterised by the development of the
Strategy of Education Development in Serbia to 2020+ (Ministry of Education and
Science of Serbia, 2012). In August 2009, a new “Umbrella Law” was adopted,
and in July 2011 the Parliament adopted certain changes to this law: Amendments
and Additions to the Law on the Foundations of the Education System in Serbia.
However, the main precursor to the Strategy was the document Education in
Serbia: How to achieve better results. Trends in the development and upgrading
 c e p s Journal | Vol.2 | No2| Year 2012 49

of the quality of preschool, primary, general secondary and art education and up-
bringing 2010-2020 (2011, hereinafter Trends). The document Trends is a strategic
document focused on pre-university education, and it is complementary to the
Strategy of Education Development in Serbia (SDES). The SDES is a proposal by
an expert group that has passed through broad professional and public consulta-
tive processes and entered in official procedure for acceptance. In addition, this
wave of reform tries to answer serious questions regarding quality and equity in
education. In Trends and the SDES there are four main parameters: access, qual-
ity, relevance and efficacy of the system, but the key criterion is quality, and no
measure can be accepted if it jeopardises quality.
In comparison with the changes in the period 2001–05, the SDES is differ-
ent both in terms of conception and procedure of preparation, as well as in some
concrete solutions. Below are some key specificities of the SDES:
• It incorporates a comprehensive and detailed analysis of all levels of the
education system. In the public hearings on the proposal of the SDES,
particular emphasis was placed on its representing a very good and preci-
se picture of the state of the system. Unlike the reforms of 2001–05, in the
SDES a serious assessment of current issues in Serbian education has been
created as a basis for finding solutions and for finding resources within the
system for its improvement (SED, 2012);
• In the preparation of the SDES, three approaches were combined: research
findings, relevant national and international documents (analyses, trends,
assessments, reports, etc) and the rich practical experience with schools
and teachers in Serbia;
• The SDES recognises the strong sides of education in Serbia, and the chan-
ges are based on these sides (Emic approach) as well as on all possible
supports outside the system;
• The SDES is a holistic approach in two senses: firstly, it treats education in
close connection with other sectors (it is not a reform dealing with itself
rather than with the relationship of education to other important sectors
of the society); and, secondly, the changes cover all education levels from
preschool to lifelong learning. This further means that all of the proposed
solutions must be compliant and compatible with one another, forming a
logically consistent system;
• Particular solutions in the SDES are developed from the mission of each
education level (preschool, primary, secondary, tertiary, doctorial studies
and LLL). The solutions were analysed in relation to one another, so toge-
ther they constitute a logical whole;
• At each level in the SDES, the strategic measures for fulfilling expected
50 education system reforms in an unstable political situation

outcomes have been developed in such way that it is easy to transfer them
to an Action Plan for their realisation. Each possible partner (institutions,
organisations, particular individuals, etc.) related to Serbian education
and to the planned solutions was taken into account and is expected to
take responsibility for and contribute to improvement of the system;
• The SDES is a realistic approach, i.e., the whole construction is based on
preconditions that can be fulfilled in the Serbian reality by 2020. Further-
more, there is a financial dimension, which is a necessary support for edu-
cation changes;
• The proposal of the SDES has been discussed within rich consultative pro-
cesses involving numerous different stakeholders (the draft of each group
was discussed by the members of consultative groups, by opponents and
by international experts), and when it was revised on the basis of suggesti-
ons and comments received it was presented to the public all over Serbia
in several ways: formal public presentations in different towns in Serbia;
on the website of the MES; in panels, round tables, discussion groups in
various institutions and organisations; and at conferences and meetings
related to education;
• The SDES represents an endeavour to move education in Serbia in the
right direction and enable it to go forward. In this sense, the long-term
targets (the mission of the system) are translated into practical actions in
future years or phases are created.

Looking back, we see that in the last decade there have been constant at-
tempts to introduce the necessary innovation in education in Serbia (e.g., stand-
ards of student achievement, standards for the evaluation of teachers, standards
of textbook quality, the professional promotion of teachers, etc.). This process is
very difficult for many reasons, including: the lack of political support; the in-
ertia of the education system; the negative influence of sociocultural and eco-
nomic variables; some of the measures are not well executed professionally (e.g.,
standards of textbook quality); sometimes mechanisms for the implementation
of measures are not ensured (e.g., the professional promotion of teachers), etc.
The SDES has provided a comprehensive and realistic way to improve
education. Now the SDES is in the procedure for acceptance by the government.
However, the problem of SDES implementation is, of course, open and uncer-
tain, and depends on the political will of the future Serbian government to accept
education as a one of the developmental potentials of Serbia and to turn it into
concrete measures in state policy.
 c e p s Journal | Vol.2 | No2| Year 2012 51

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank UNESCO, Division of Educational Policy Analy-
sis and Educational Evaluation and Prof. Vinayagum Chinapah for the initiative
for this analysis, which is part of broader research on monitoring and evaluating
progress in the implementation of the goals of Education for All in Serbia. Also,
we are grateful to the Ministry of Education and Science of Serbia, as the analyses
have been realised within the framework of the project Identification, measure-
ment and development of cognitive and emotional competencies that are important
for a society oriented toward European integration (No. 179018).

References

Education in Serbia: How to reach better results. Trends in development and upgrading of the quality
of preschool, primary, general secondary and art education and upbringing 2010-2020 (2011). Belgrade:
The National Council for Education, Belgrade.
Ivić, I. (2001). L’éducation dans les pays de l’est et du sud –est de l’Europe : destruction,
reconstruction, réforme? Pensée, 326(Avril/juin), 87-94.
Ivić, I. (2005). Monitoring & Evaluation of EFA Implementation. Elaborate for Division of Educational
Policy Analysis and Educational Evaluation, UNESCO.
MES (2002a). Kvalitativno obrazovanje za sve - put ka razvijenom drustvu (Quality Education for All
– A Path to a Developed Society). Belgrade: Ministry of Education and Sport.
MES (2002b). Reforma srednjeg strucnog obrazovanja: od razgovora do realizacije (Reform of the
VET: From Conversation to Implementation). Belgrade: Ministry of Education and Sport.
MES (2003a). Katalog programa strucnog usavrsavanja zaposlenih u obrazovanju (Catalogue of In-
Service Training for Employees in Education). Belgrade: Ministry of Education and Sport.
MES (2003b). Zakon o osnovama sistema obrazovanja i vaspitanja (The Law on the Foundations of
the Education System). Belgrade: Ministry of Education and Sport.
MES (2004). Kvalitetno obrazovanje za sve: Izazovi reforme obrazovanja u Srbiji (Quality Education
for All: The Challenges of Education Reform in Serbia). Belgrade: Ministry of Education and Sport.
MES (2004a). Zakon o izmenama i dopunama Zakona o osnovama vaspitanja iobrazovanja
(Amendments and Additions to the Law on the Foundations of the Education System). Belgrade:
Ministry of Education and Sport.
MES (2005). Strategija Ministarstva prosvete i sporta za period 2005-2010 godine (The Strategy of the
Ministry of Education and Sport for the 2005-2010 Period).
Ministry of Finance (2005). Memorandum o budzetu, o ekonomskoj i fiskalnoj politici za 2006.godinu
sa projekcijama za 2007. i 2008.godinu (Memorandum on Budget and Economic and Fiscal Policy for
2006, with Projections for 2007 and 2008).
National Action Plan (2004). Republic of Serbia: Plan of Action for Children. Belgrade: Government
of Serbia.
52 education system reforms in an unstable political situation

Pešikan, A. (Ed.) (2012, in press). Analiza osnovnih resursa u preduniverzitetskom obrazovanju u

Srbiji. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet.
Pešikan, A., Antić, S., & Marinković, S. (2010a). Koncepcija stručnog usavršavanja nastavnika u
Srbiji: između proklamovanog i skrivenog modela. Nastava i vaspitanje, (2), 278-297
Pešikan, A., Antić, S., & Marinković, S. (2010b). Koncepciija stručnog usavršavanja nastavnika u
Srbiji: koliko smo daleko od efikasnog modela. Nastava i vaspitanje, (3), 471-483
Pešikan, A., & Ivić, I. (2009). Obrazovanjem protiv siromaštva: Analiza uticaja uvođenja pripremnog
predškolskog programa u Srbiji. Vlada Republike Srbije, Tim potpredsednika Vlade za implementaciju
SSS i Ministrastvo prosvete RS.
Poverty Reduction Strategy in Serbia (2003). Belgrade: Government of the Republic of Serbia.
Radó, P., & Lazetić, P. (2010). Rapid assessment of the implementation of inclusive education in Serbia.
Belgrade: UNICEF
Radó, P. (2009). Improving the inclusive capacity of schools in Serbia, Expert study for the DILS
Program Serbia. Belgrade.
Strategy of Education Development in Serbia to 2020+ (2012). Belgrade: Ministry of Education and
Science of Serbia.
Strategy of the Ministry of Education and Sport for the Period from 2005 to 2010 (2005). Belgrade:
Ministry of Education and Sport.
The National Strategy for Education from 2005 to 2010 (2005). Belgrade: Ministry of Education and
Sport.
UNICEF (2001). Comprehensive Analysis of Primary Education in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Belgrade: UNICEF.
UNICEF (2004). Evaluative Review of Active Learning in Serbia and Montenegro. Belgrade: UNICEF.
Zakon o osnovama sistema obrazovanja i vspitanja u Republici Srbiji. Vlada Republike Srbije,
Službeni glasnik RS, br. 72/09.
Zakon o izmenama i dopunama Zakona o osnovama sistema obrazovanja i vaspitanja. Službeni
glasnik RS, br. 52/2011.
 c e p s Journal | Vol.2 | No2| Year 2012 53

Biographical note

Ivan Ivić, Professor, is leading developmental psychologist and educa-

tional expert in Serbia and ex-Yugoslavia but also in the international organiza-
tions (OECD expert for education; high level expert in CERI/OECD; OMEP;
UNICEF). He was the coordinator of the major project on the evaluation of
the education system in FR Yugoslavia, UNICEF, Belgrade); consultant of the
Georgian Ministry of Education (1998); and member of UNESCO Internation-
al Peer Group Review in Educational Evaluation. He was the minister of educa-
tion in ex Yugoslavia (1991). Now professor Ivić is the coordinator and main
author of the Strategy of education development in Serbia 2020+.

Ana Pešikan is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Philosophy, De-

partment of Psychology at the University of Belgrade, Serbia. Her professional
interests are educational and developmental psychology. The focus of her work
is on the active learning methodology, the construction and analysis of the
textbook and teaching/learning history in school. She is national and UNICEF
expert for education. She was the minister of science in Serbian Government
(2007-2008). She is one of the founder and member of Education Forum,
think-tank organization for educational issues and one of the authors of the
Strategy of education development in Serbia 2020+.