Renovated school, seeking teachers…

Two things said by President Nicușor Dan about school in recent weeks caught my attention. The first was on September 19, in the context following the start of the school year for pre-university education, at a debate that was not strictly about education; I will not dwell on the details. In short, the president’s intervention concerned differences between rural and urban areas, especially differences in educational opportunities. He had made a similar intervention on September 7, at the opening of the school year, attending an event at a school in a rural area, in Călărași County. He spoke about the status of teachers, salaries and the attractiveness of the teaching profession, and the (in)equality of opportunity between the two residential environments. You may say these are the kinds of things said whenever a high-ranking official appears at the opening of the school year. Others have done it too, well, until their credibility eroded, so to speak, and they no longer felt like showing their honest faces. I am not saying that is the case with the current president; he has a certain authenticity in relation to education. Although, if I think about it, Iohannis was also a pre-university teacher and school inspector. And two other presidents, unlike Băsescu, were (also) university professors, I think. As for Educated Romania, I will not even get into that.

It is not a bad thing for such matters to be voiced. And the more legitimate the president is in this discourse (closer to education, more authentic in relation to it, earlier in his term), the better, so that his words draw attention to the subject rather than becoming a reason for hatereală, as schoolchildren say today, directed at the dignitary.

All in all, so far the president’s statements have been well received and discussed mainly in professional circles close to the field. Of course, there have also been naysayers, some with legitimate complaints. In this regard, I would add a nuance of my own. The discussion about the underfunding of rural education is legitimate, of course, and longstanding. But it does not exhaust the problem; somehow, it does not even represent the greater part of it. A great deal has been invested in rural schools, in some more than others, of course. Local councils, such as they are, have done things. European programs as well. The educational infrastructure in rural areas is far better than it was 10 years ago, let alone 20 years ago. Of course, these things need to be maintained, replaced at some point, and brought up to date. Modernization is a daily effort. The paradox is that many rural schools, fairly well equipped, resemble those towns in ghost-town films. I am not referring to the annual variation in the number of students. That is demographics, and if a commune has no primary teachers, teachers, doctor, nurse, and police station, it cannot function, nor can it develop in the future. This is where money actually comes in. Not only for subcontracting infrastructure work. It is needed to ensure that these infrastructures, essential to a community, are staffed and that, if possible, a different primary teacher does not arrive every year. These people who teach in rural areas often come from other communes or nearby towns, using their own cars and their own fuel. In pre-university education, being late for classes is not an option. The day starts early, the pressure is high, the roads are what they are, especially in winter.

Then again, many of these positions are defined as having short-term viability. This is not very attractive to a young female primary teacher/teacher or a young male primary teacher/teacher. I will not even get into the lottery of the tenure examination. The system is very poorly designed and no longer guarantees anything even to those who pass the threshold.

Recognizing that money is needed in a particular sector of society, from the heights of political office, is a good thing. But there is also a reverse side—the risk that people will conclude that, since there is in fact no money, nothing can be solved.

And there was another statement, more recently, connected with the beginning of the academic year. It concerned the need for teaching staff to be present on social media, because that is where pupils and students are. A simple content analysis shows that most comments on social media literally end up being completely off-topic, if not inappropriate. Well, everyone has their grievances, legitimate or not, projected onto state employees. But here we are talking about public exposure, and more than an individual person is at stake. This cannot be solved through words, directives, and enthusiasm. Teachers, doctors, police officers, and civil servants are neither politicians nor influencers. Ah... whoever wants to be one and develops within clear regulations, let them. They may even have talent. But without clear rules and a mechanism for controlling and managing these people’s public image, it is, for the time being, a debatable idea.