Education policymaking in Serbia through the eyes of teachers, counselors, and principals.

1 23

Educational Assessment, Evaluationand Accountability ISSN 1874-8597Volume 28Number 4 Educ Asse Eval Acc (2016) 28:347-375DOI 10.1007/s11092-015-9221-x

Education policymaking in Serbia throughthe eyes of teachers, counselors, andprincipals

Jelena Teodorović, Dejan Stanković,Bojana Bodroža, Vladeta Milin & IvanaĐerić

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science

+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is

for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you wish

to self-archive your article, please use the

accepted manuscript version for posting on

your own website. You may further deposit

the accepted manuscript version in any

repository, provided it is only made publicly

available 12 months after official publication

or later and provided acknowledgement is

given to the original source of publication

and a link is inserted to the published article

on Springer's website. The link must be

accompanied by the following text: "The final

publication is available at link.springer.com”.

Education policymaking in Serbia through the eyesof teachers, counselors, and principals

Jelena Teodorović1 & Dejan Stanković2 &

Bojana Bodroža2 & Vladeta Milin2& Ivana Đerić2

Received: 25 August 2014 /Accepted: 19 May 2015 /Published online: 14 June 2015# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract Numerous educational reforms have been initiated in Serbia since 2000. Theaim of this study was to examine education policymaking in Serbia in order to providepolicymakers and stakeholders with recommendations on how to minimize pitfalls andincrease success of future educational endeavors. In the study, we utilized the educationpolicy cycle heuristic to analyze formation, implementation, and evaluation of threemajor education policies in Serbia: in-service training of teachers (INSET), schooldevelopment planning (SDP), and inclusive education (IE). Examining three reformssimultaneously enabled us to identify major characteristics of Serbian policymaking,regardless of the reform content. We also relied on educational change literature, so thatwe could assess complex contexts of reforms. Finally, considering the importance ofschool staff during implementation, we examined education policymaking in Serbiathrough the eyes of over 1,800 teachers, counselors, and principals. The results pointout to dissatisfaction of school staff with all aspects of the policymaking in Serbia andwith the social and education context. Reforms appear to be undertaken in a similarpattern across different reforms. The findings imply that a thorough examination ofboth the policymaking in Serbia and communication, organization, and administrationwithin the education system itself is in order.

Keywords Policymaking . Policy evaluation . Education policy cycle . Educationalchange . Serbia

Educ Asse Eval Acc (2016) 28:347–375DOI 10.1007/s11092-015-9221-x

* Jelena Teodorović[email protected]

1 Faculty of Education in Jagodina, University of Kragujevac, Milana Mijalkovića 14,35000 Jagodina, Serbia

2 Institute for Educational Research, Dobrinjska 11/III, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia

Author's personal copy

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Immediately after themajor political changes in Serbia in 2000, education authorities beganto design and implement reforms that were meant to contribute to the economic revival,democratic development, and the future European integration of the country (Ministry ofEducation of the Republic of Serbia 2002a). However, the transition period in Serbia (from2000 onwards) has been marked with discontinuities in education initiatives both in termsof their development and implementation and educational leadership (Stanković 2011).

In spite of the multitude of new educational policies, there have not been many attemptsto evaluate them. In a recent qualitative study (Vujačić et al. 2011), the stakeholdersgenerally harbored negative feelings and opinions on the ways these reforms were under-taken. They felt that their expectations were not met, that their voices were not heard, andthat they were inadequately prepared and supported for the implementation of the intensivechanges that they thought were imposed on them. They thought that the changeswere rathercosmetic and that they did not bring about enhancement of education quality in terms ofbuilding teacher capacities, increasing school funding, and focusing onmeeting the needs ofstudents andmodern society. Stakeholders attributed their disappointment to several causes:lack of clear education strategy, overly ambitious goals, inadequate control of the reformprocesses, insufficient adaptability of reforms to the Serbian context, inefficient lines ofcommunications, politicization of education, and also to the chaotic and unstable societaland political contexts in which the reforms played out (Vujačić et al. 2011).

Being inspired by these findings, we wanted to accomplish several goals in thisstudy.

First, we wanted to see whether we could dissect the feelings of dissatisfaction witheducational reforms into the more concrete and articulated perceptions of thepolicymaking process in Serbia. In other words, we wanted to examine in moredetails—and do so on a large, nationally representative sample—which specific activ-ities and characteristics of formation, implementation, and evaluation of the policies, ifany, are deemed problematic and worthy of change. To meet that goal, we utilized thepublic policy cycle heuristic (Anderson 2003; Jones 1970; Porter 1995; Smith andLarimer 2009), to which we will refer in this paper as education policy cycle.

Education policy cycle heuristic is a conceptual model which attempts to describetypical phases of policymaking process. It consists of several phases which aredifferently grouped by different authors (Smith and Larimer 2009). For our purposes,the model has been divided in four phases: (1) policy formation, which consists of (1a)problem identification, where a problem in education is recognized as important by asufficient number of people and amenable to government action, (1b) agenda setting,where a problem has gotten the attention of policymakers, and (1c) policy formulation,where policy options aiming to solve the problem are assessed and where one policy ischosen and articulated; (2) policy adoption and budgeting, where policy is formallyenacted and assigned certain budget; (3) policy implementation, where policy is putinto practice; and (4) policy evaluation, where implementation and effects of the policyare assessed, so that the policy can be terminated or modified. Although frequentlycriticized for being linear and simplistic, as well as atheoretical in that it has no predictivevalue (as cited in Smith and Larimer 2009), this model is clear and rather practical as an

348 Educ Asse Eval Acc (2016) 28:347–375


analytical tool (Smith and Larimer 2009) and has been used for critical examination ofeducational policymaking process (Haddad 1994). Therefore, it can provide a valuableframe of analysis in the case of three important educational reforms in Serbia.

Second, we wanted to thoroughly investigate the notion that there exist systematicproblems with education policymaking in Serbia that may considerably be deterringreforms from succeeding, regardless of their content. To be able to do that, we decidedto compare the policymaking process across three different education policies, as thiswould somewhat control for the specificities of any particular reform. Similarities in theway these policies are conceived, formed, implemented, and evaluated would imply thatthere really exist common patterns in Serbian policymaking that may overshadow andlessen the impact of any particular individual initiative, regardless of its content and intent.

We selected three education policies to comprise the sample on which we examined thepolicymaking process in Serbia: inclusive education (IE), in-service training of teachers(INSET), and school development planning (SDP). We chose them as they represent bothimportant themes from the previous decade of changes in Serbia (they encompass botheffectiveness and equity) and the level at which they mostly played out (from the classroomto the system). The short descriptions of these three policies are given in Boxes 1, 2, and 3.

Box 1 Inclusive education

Box 2 In-service training of teachers

It may rightly be argued that the Serbian education system has not been inclusivewhen it comes to marginalized social groups (especially Roma) and students withlearning and behavioral difficulties. However, the 2009 Law on the Foundations ofthe Education System and several 2010 bylaws set out to remedy this situation andestablish a new policy on inclusion. The law guarantees equal rights and access toeducation to students from marginalized social groups and those with learning andbehavioral difficulties. Its main provisions include new school enrolment procedures,introduction and implementation of the individual education plans (IEP), eliminationof physical and communication obstacles, and involvement of pedagogical andpersonal assistants. The new inclusion policy has also been supported by severalawareness and capacity building projects (Radó and Lazetić 2010).

More than 10 years ago, a comprehensive study reviewing the Serbian primaryeducation was carried out (UNICEF 2001). The authors concluded that the preser-vice teacher training was inadequate and that there was no meaningful system of in-service teacher training. This, together with low teacher status and salaries, wasblocking “those basic factors of quality of the learning process, of the performance ofschools, and of the achievements of their students” (UNICEF 2001, p. 127). As aresponse to the analysis, education authorities designed a new system of in-servicetraining of teachers in 2001. Teachers are obliged to attend at least 100 h of in-servicetraining within a 5-year period. Upon annual accreditation by a steering body,numerous in-service training within a 5-year period. Upon annual accreditation bya steering body, numerous in-service training programs are offered to teachers bydifferent organizations (universities, institutes, professional societies, NGOs, etc.).Teachers and schools freely select the desired programs from the catalog, contact thetraining providers, and ask for their services. After the completion of training, each

Educ Asse Eval Acc (2016) 28:347–375 349


Box 3 School development planning

Third, we intended to gain our insight into the reforms from their most directimplementers or Bstreet-level bureaucrats^ (Lipsky 1971)—teachers, counselors, andprincipals. Since they are the ones that convey and adapt policies, grapple with theirdeficiencies and witness their successes or failures first hand, they can paint a vividdescription of policies not as they are intended, but as they are delivered. In other words,this would offer us a glimpse into the often neglected implementation side of the reformsand also remind us that a large part of education policymaking is actually a co-constructed process between reformers and local implementers (Datnow et al. 1998).Their judgment of the positive and negative aspects of education policymaking wouldoffer invaluable feedback to the education system on what processes need to be changedto ultimately improve the effectiveness and sustainability of education reforms.

Finally, we also wanted to examine the context in which education policies play out.New education policies do not get born into or live in the social vacuum, and context oftenmakes them into a nonlinear, sometimes even paradoxical, process, which resists anyrational algorithmic consideration (Evans 1996; Fullan 1999). In other words, we wantedto pay attention to the educational change literature (Elmore 1996; Evans 1996; Fullan2006, 2007; Hargreaves 2004; Маzmanian and Sabatier 1983), which complements thetechnical education policy cycle heuristic. This would allow us to interpret our findingsthrough the complex and nuanced contexts in which educational reforms play out.

To summarize, in this paper, we aimed to obtain insight into the characteristics andpotential common patterns of education policymaking in Serbia by analyzing threeimportant educational reforms through the lens of education policy cycle on a large sampleof participants—implementers of the reforms. This would provide policymakers and

participant is issued a certificate of attendance, designating the number of obtainedtraining hours. Cost of the training is covered by the local self-governments, butoften, there are other arrangements as well (e.g., programs are supplied directly bythe Ministry of Education, or teachers pay for the trainings themselves).

By the end of the 1990s, schools in Serbia were institutions that merely transmitted thedecisionsmade by theMinistry of Education. This Bslowed down pedagogical initiativeas well as the creativity of individual teachers and schools^ (UNICEF 2001, p. 124).Despite the fact that school autonomy was not at the forefront of the reform rhetoricfrom 2000 onwards, restructuring of the education system nonetheless bestowedschools with new responsibilities. Certain aspects of school autonomy—organizationaland pedagogical, rather than financial—were strengthened, to some extent, by intro-ducing school development planning—a paradigmatic instrument of internally ledschool improvement (Hopkins 2001; Ministarstvo prosvete 2002b; Stanković 2009).Through legislative changes in 2003, all schools in Serbia became obliged to create andimplement a plan for school development for the period of 3 to 5 years. At the sametime, theMinistry of Education initiated a nationwide campaign of capacity building ofschool staff for development planning while supporting school development initiativesthrough a grant program. The model of development planning that was nationallypromoted in Serbia strongly emphasized wide participation of stakeholders and schoolstaff, especially teachers (Stanković 2009).



stakeholders in education with recommendations on how to minimize pitfalls and increasechances for success of future educational endeavors. Our specific research questions are thefollowing:

(1) What specific aspects of education policymaking, i.e., of education policy formation,implementation, and evaluation, are perceived as problematic or beneficial by teachers,counselors, and principals in each of the three major educational reforms in Serbia?

(2) What are, if any, the main features, patterns, and trends in Serbian educationpolicymaking that emerge across all three reforms, regardless of reform content?

(3) How do teachers, counselors, and principals perceive the context in which thereforms play out?

By obtaining the answers to these questions, we are also hopeful that we will be ableto compile the most relevant suggestions for improvement of the process of educationpolicymaking in Serbia.

2 Material and methods1

2.1 Sample

Nationally representative sample of schools in Serbia (without Kosovo and Metohija)consisted of 150 schools or 1,824 participants—150 principals, 267 counselors,2 and1,407 teachers. The teacher subsample consisted of all 1st-grade and 5th-grade home-room teachers from every school,3 as well as the teachers who were members of theschool development planning team.4

Our teacher subsample was mostly female (80.5 %), with the average age of 44 and17.5 years of experience. Counselors in our study were also mostly female (90 %),45 years old on average, and had 17 years of experience. There are considerably fewerwomen principals (39 %); principals are slightly older (50 years old) and have slightlymore experience (23 years).

2.2 Instruments

The questionnaires for the research contained around 100 items that were constructedbased on the indicators derived from the literature on the education policy cycle and

1 No animal or human rights were harmed in this research.2 In Serbia, counsellors are psychologists and pedagogues with full-time positions in school. The number ofcounsellors in school depends on the school size.3 First- and fifth-grade homeroom teachers were chosen as representatives of the two main cycles inelementary schools in Serbia—primary grades (1st to 4th grades), or ISCED 1, and lower secondary grades(5th to 8th grades), or ISCED 2. They were equally represented in the sample (49.4 % of the 1st-grade teachersand 50.6 % of the 5th-grade homeroom teachers).4 In addition to teachers, counsellors, and principals, a very small number of other members of the schooldevelopment planning team (principal assistants and librarians) participated in our research pertaining toschool development planning.



attainment of educational change.5 The items were slightly modified for each reform, soas to address some reform specificities and take into account different job positions ofthe participants in the research (teachers, counselors, and principals). Therefore, a totalof nine questionnaires were developed (three reforms times three subsamples). Thecontent and form of the items were kept as similar as possible to enable validcomparison of subsamples and the reforms. The item response format was a five-degree Likert scale with 1 being designated as Bcompletely disagree^ and 5 asBcompletely agree.^ In the INSET and SDP questionnaires, we provided participantswith an additional response option of BI do not remember^ for a small number of items,because these questions referred to events from the relatively distant past.

The preliminary version of the questionnaire was piloted on 20 participants in orderto test item comprehension, the suitability of terminology and response format, andtopic coverage. The purpose of the pilot research was not to test the instrument’s metriccharacteristics. Final versions of the questionnaires were then sent to schools.

Each participant filled out the questionnaire with questions on only one reform: IEreform, INSET reform, or SDP reform. Figure 1 shows distribution of participantsaccording to the questionnaire they filled out.

The questionnaires were distributed in the following manner: teachers who were mem-bers of the school development planning team responded to the SDP questionnaire, teacherswith a student with the IEP or with a student with learning and behavior difficulties butwithout official IEP responded to the IE questionnaire,6 and all the other teachers respondedto the INSET questionnaire. Counselors and principals were assigned the questionnaires ona random basis, as their positions dictated their involvement in all three reforms.

2.3 Data collection and analysis

Data were collected from schools inMarch 2012. The invitation letter to participate in thestudy was sent to each school, and the principal’s approval of the study was obtainedbefore data collection began. The authors relied on school coordinators—designatedschool staff (teachers, counselors, assistant principals, or principals)—to help withgathering of data necessary for sampling of teachers, questionnaire distribution andcollection, and dispatch of materials. In each school, the school coordinator first gatheredand sent to the research team the names of the 1st-grade and 5th-grade homeroomteachers and teachers who participated in school development planning (noting whetherthey also taught students with IEP), as well as the names of school counselors andprincipals. When the research team sent the questionnaires to the school and notified theschool coordinator which questionnaire is to be given to which participant, the coordi-nator distributed the questionnaires accordingly, asking the participants to return thecompleted questionnaires to the coordinator within 3 days. Although the questionnaires

5 The phase of policy adoption and budgeting was not included in questionnaires, because teachers, counsel-lors, and school principals usually have no insight into the activities related to this phase.6 In situations when no teacher out of the school’s teacher sample had a student with IEP or a student withlearning and behavioral difficulties without official IEP, the questionnaire was randomly given to the teachersin the school’s teacher sample with no practical experience with inclusive education. Our final IE sampleconsisted of 209 teachers who had a student with learning and behavioral difficulties (with or without formalIEP) in last 3 years and of 225 teachers with no such experience in 3 years. In general, teachers with noexperience with IE were milder in assessment of IE than teachers with such experience (data not shown).



were coded so that the data could be linked between schools, principals, counselors, andteachers, the anonymity of teacher responses was nonetheless secured by providingparticipants with sealable envelopes in which they returned their completed question-naires. Identifier codes are known only to the research team and are safely stored. Thedatabase contains no personal identifiers.

Our response rate was extraordinary: 97.80 % for teachers, 98.58 % for counselors,and 98.57 % for principals. High response rates could partly be contributed to the factthat this particular sample of schools and school coordinators had previously partici-pated in another study that was coordinated by the same research institution andcharacterized by good communication and cooperation. Also, the authors preparedthe manual for the school coordinators and provided the envelopes and were alwaysavailable by phone to explain the study and respond to any questions. Authors suspectthat the response rates may also be high because Serbian education system is admin-istration heavy, and teachers are used to routinely field a myriad of requests. Finally, theparticipants may have found questions in the questionnaire interesting and important forfurther development of the education policies, so they were additionally motivated torespond to them.

For the majority of items, participant responses to the five-point Likert-typeitems were collapsed into three categories: B1—disagree completely^ and B2—mostly disagree^ responses were merged into B1—disagree,^ while B5—agreecompletely^ and B4—mostly agree^ were merged into B3—agree.^ The originalmiddle category, Bneither agree nor disagree^ remained a separate response.This was done in order to ease the interpretation of the data. We then useddescriptive statistics to compare participants’ responses to the items across threeeducation reforms—inclusive education (IE), in-service training of teachers(INSET), and school development planning (SDP). For these comparisons,responses given by teachers, counselors, and principals were combined. Eventhough the differences in item responses across teachers, counselors, and principalsshowed that principals were consistently somewhat better disposed toward the reformsand the social context than the teachers (data not shown), the distributions of theresponses were nonetheless similar across these three groups (data not shown), so wedecided to show them together, for ease of presentation, and also because they jointlyrepresent the voices of schools.

32%(N=578)

36%(N=666)

32%(N=580)

IE

INSET

SDP

Fig. 1 Distribution of participants across the reform questionnaire



3 Results

We will present our results in four sections: (1) policy formation, (2) policy implemen-tation, (3) policy evaluation, and (4) context of the reforms. In each section, we willshow the results for items we selected as the most salient and representative items forthat particular section.

3.1 Policy formation

According to the education policy cycle concept, in this phase of the policymakingprocess, the policymakers recognize a particular problem, decide on acting upon it,analyze possible solution, and make a decision on the specific steps that will be taken toremedy the problem.

3.1.1 Problem identification

The first step in the education policy formation process is the recognition of a certainproblem in education. This problem, presumably, should be of outstanding importanceto a large portion of stakeholders and should be selected with a full knowledge of thecurrent state of the matters. However, a large percentage of our participants did notthink that the Ministry of Education had good insight into the state of education beforeembarking on a policy in question (Fig. 2, about 40 % of INSET and SDP respondentsand half of the IE respondents). Similarly, the considerable majority of the respon-dents—about two thirds in each reform—did not feel that they were consulted aboutwhat they thought the most important problems in Serbian education were (Fig. 2).

We also asked the participants whether they thought that the problem selected to besolved by the policy in question was one of the most important problems plaguing Serbianeducation. If the implementers of the reform do not find the problem to be quite pertinent,

52

21

27

41

22

37

42

23

35

15

17

68

16

14

70

19

16

66

0%

100%

IE INSET SDP IE INSET SDP

MoE had a good insight intoeducation before initiating reforms.

Higher authorities did not ask uswhat the biggest problems in

education were.

Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree

Fig. 2 Ministry’s insight and consultation with stakeholders on the priority problems in education



their dedication and motivation to help solve it may be diminished (Datnow et al. 2002). Aspreviously mentioned, the Ministry identified these problems as important: inadequateparticipation and quality of education of students with learning and behavioral difficulties(Ministry of Education of the Republic of Serbia 2008), inadequate preparation of teachers(Kovač-Cerović et al. 2004; Ministry of Education of the Republic of Serbia 2002a), andinsufficient engagement of schools in improving the quality of their work (Kovač-Cerovićet al. 2004; Ministry of Education of the Republic of Serbia 2002b). However, slightly lessthan half of our respondents did not think that these problems were some of the mostpressing problems in Serbian education (Fig. 3). About one third of the participants thoughtthat these problems are some of the most pertinent ones (Fig. 3).

It appears that little attempt has been made by the Ministry to thoroughly seek out,examine, and, recognize problems plaguing Serbian education, especially those both-ering major implementers of reforms. As a consequence, the Ministry’s understandingof what the state of education was and what problems were important to tackle did notcoincide with that of teachers. This lack of common understanding of the problemsbetween the policymakers and implementers usually does not bode well for the reform,as the reform will seem imposed or irrelevant to the implementers, so they will notlikely work hard for it (Haddad 1994; Teodorović 2008).

3.1.2 Agenda setting

With the next question, we wanted to explore teachers’, counselors’, and principals’perceptions on why three particular education reforms appeared on the policymakers’agenda—whether it was for professional reasons, domestic political reasons, foreignpolitical influences, the pressure of parents and public, and the needs and desires ofteachers. Foreign political influences appear to be the most salient reason in all threereforms, followed by domestic political reasons and professional reasons (Fig. 4). Onthe average, only one third of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that parentaland public pressure and teachers’ needs and desires influenced initiation of the reforms(data not shown).

45 46 47

22 18 19

33 36 34

0%

100%

Inadequate participationand quality of education of

students with specialneeds

Inadequate preparation ofteachers

Insufficient schoolengagement for

improvement

This problems is one of the most important problems in our education


Fig. 3 Opinions of the teachers, counselors, and principals on the importance of the problems selected to besolved by the Ministry



Responses on the IE reform showed somewhat different patterns from the responseson the other two reforms. Even two thirds of the IE respondents found foreign politicalinfluences to play a large role in agenda setting, as opposed to about one half of theINSET and SDP respondents [significant difference χ2(4)=28.69, p<0.001]. Also,professional reasons and needs and desires of teachers also fared as less importantfor inititation of the IE reform than for initiation of the INSET and SDP respondents.

The prevalent perception of Serbian teachers—that the Ministry desired or waspressured to act in accordance to foreign ideas—is not surprising having in mindaspirations of several governments since 2000 to move Serbia toward the EuropeanUnion. However, there is a sense that foreign political pressures were seen as ratherunwelcome by the teachers, as they were always at odds with professional reasons andneeds and desires of teachers. The reforms—especially IE—appear to have beenimposed, rather than having emerged from the inside or at least having been internal-ized after certain period of time. While it could be said that the opinions on IE—theyoungest reform of the three—are, to a degree, an artefact of the reform’s novelty, thepredominance of foreign political pressures in all three reforms still implies thatpolicymakers did not take extraordinary measures for the reforms—even if they wereinitiated from outside—to be understood as teachers’ own and taken up wholeheartedlyby them. Without ownership, the reforms are implemented only superficially, and theyare not sustainable (Datnow et al. 2002; Haddad 1994). The fact that the teachersbelieve that professional reasons and their needs and desires are not deemed assufficiently important by the policymakers to initiate reforms further adds to theimpression that teachers feel neglected and sidelined in the policymaking process.

3.1.3 Policy formulation

When relevant institutions recognize that a certain problem needs to be solved, the nextstep is the formulation of a policy proposal that will achieve that. According to theteachers, counselors, and principals, the most involved actors in the policy formulationin Serbia are, foremost, the Ministry of Education and other relevant state institutions,followed by foreign consultants, domestic experts, and professional societies (Fig. 5).The teachers and unions were deemed as the least influential in policy formulation

1

2

3

4

5

Professionalreasons

Interior politicalreasons

Foreign politicalinfluences

Parental /stakeholder

pressure

Teachers' needsand desires

IE INSET SDP

Fig. 4 Participants’ perceptions on the reasons behind initiations of the reforms



(Fig. 5). The findings were remarkably similar in all three reforms. Even 60 % ofparticipants thought that teachers were not at all involved in the creation of the policies,while around 80 % of respondents gave a similar answer regarding the unions (data notshown).

It should be noted that more participants saw the role of foreign consultants in thecreation of the IE reform (55 %) than in the other two reforms (46 %) [significantdifference χ2(4)=19.25, p=0.001]. These responses reinforce the impression thatthe reform of inclusive education has been initiated because of the foreignpressure to a greater degree than the other two reforms. School staff also sawthe smaller impact of professional societies in the creation of the IE reform(23 %) than in the creation of the INSET reform (46 %) [significant differenceχ2(4)=97.94, p<0.001].

The policy that gets formulated in the end is never the only possible solution for theproblem in question. We asked school staff if IE, INSET, and SDP reforms were theoptimal solutions for their respective problems. The responses to this question differedacross the reforms (Fig. 6). Over half of the IE respondents identified the initiatedmodel of inclusive education as the suboptimal solution to the problem of inadequateenrolment and quality of education for students with learning and behavioral difficul-ties, as compared to one quarter who thought that the solution was rather good. Theopinions on the problem–solution fit get more equalized with the INSET reform (40 vs.30 %, respectively), while tables get turned with the SDP reform: half of the partici-pants think that school development planning is a good way to increase schools’engagement in the improvement of their own practice, while only 20 % disagree.

We wanted to test the possibility that the selected solutions to the problems wereunrealistic and overly ambitious. A considerable majority of the IE respondents (70 %)held such opinion, while the respondents to the other two reforms were somewhatmilder in their assessment (around 50 % thought that the reforms were unrealistic andoverly ambitious, Fig. 6).

1

2

3

4

5

MoE and otherauthorities

Professionalsocieties

Researchers Teachers Unions Foreignconsultants

IE INSET SDP

Fig. 5 Perceptions of teachers, counselors, and principals about the creators of education policies



Overall, it appears that the teachers, counselors, and principals did not think highlyof the efforts on part of the Ministry of Education to create good education policies,namely, to identify the right problems to be tackled and to develop the realistic,adequate solutions to them. They also thought that the choice of the problems anddesign of the policies were imported from abroad and not too inclusive of implemen-ters’ insight and ideas.

3.2 Policy implementation

In the implementation phase, the policy is put into practice. Successful implementationdepends on a myriad of things including: (1) the complexity of the problem the policy ismeant to solve—the more complex the problem, the harder the impementation; (2) thepolicy itself—its content and organizational support (e.g., the clarity of policy goals andassigned resources); and (3) factors unrelated to policy per se (e.g., implementers’ peda-gogical knowledge or public opinion;Маzmanian and Sabatier 1983). We wanted to probesome of these factors in this section and the section on the context inwhich policies play out.

We first wanted to examine the initial phases of the implementation, namely, theperiod when implementers’ opinion of the reform and decision to accept or reject it areformed (Rogers 2003) and when the necessary preparations are taking place (i.e.,adequate resources and support are being installed; Fixsen et al. 2005).

Teachers, counselors, and principals felt that the Ministry of Education did not makethe necessary preparations for the implementation in schools, slightly more so for IE(65 % of the respondents) than for INSET and SDP (59 and 56 %, respectively) (Fig. 7).When asked to assess how the reformwas received in their schools, between one third (IE)and almost one half (SDP) of the respondents think that the reforms were well accepted intheir schools. For IE, another one third of the respondents think that the reforms were notwelcome, compared to around 20% of SDP respondents (Fig. 7). Overall, the school staffthink that the Ministry did not invest sufficient effort to create and undertake the activitiesthat would support and ease the smooth implementation of the reforms.

53

22

26

41

29

30

21

29

50

13

17

70

24

25

51

28

24

48

0%

100%


This reform is the optimal solution tothe given problem.

Goals of this reform are tooambitious.


Fig. 6 Participants’ perceptions on the adequacy and ambitions of the reforms



We wanted to inquire in more details about the mechanisms which the Ministry ofEducation used to make teachers, counselors, and principals understand, accept, andintegrate the policy in their everyday work. Our respondents claimed that passing andenforcing the laws were used most to ensure the implementation of the reforms,followed by the training of teachers and counselors and the distribution of professionalmaterials such as handbooks (Fig. 8). Providing advisory support, promoting schooland teacher networking to exchange experiences, and organizing round tables were notused to a substantial degree, while providing additional financial means to schools andrewarding and sanctioning were the least used mechanisms (Fig. 8). Interestingly, thepatterns of the usage of policy implementation instruments are basically the same for allreforms. In other words, we can notice the generic pattern that is being used in Serbia tosupport and ensure implementation of education policies.

19

16

65

22

19

59

24

21

56

36

33

32

26

33

41

20

36

44

0%

100%


MoE did not undertake necessarypreparations for the implementation

of the reform.

The reform was well received in myschool.


Fig. 7 Participants’ perceptions of the preparation for the reforms and their subsequent reception in schools

1

2

3

4

5

Creation andenaction of

laws

Distribution ofinformative

andprofessional

materials

Additionalfinancial

support toschools

Teacher andcounselortraining

Rewards andsanctions

Advising School andteacher

networking toexchange

experiences

Public roundtables

IE INSET SDP

Fig. 8 Participants’ perceptions on the extent of policy mechanisms used by higher authorities to ensureimplementation of reforms



We also examined several implementation mechanisms in more details. About onethird of our respondents, regardless of the reform, thought that the laws and bylawsrefering to the reform were sufficiently clear; about the same proportion of themdisagreed (Fig. 9). When asked about their opinions on the training provided to aidimplementation of the reform, our participants were harsher: even half of the IE andSDP respondents felt that the training for these reforms was not adequate, while onequarter thought otherwise7 (Fig. 9).

When we examined our participants’ opinions on the use of the accountability mech-anisms as a means of ensuring policy implementation, almost two thirds of INSET andSDP respondents thought that the reforms would be better realized in practice had therebeen monitoring and controlling mechanisms. Even stronger support was found amongthe SDP participants (77 %) for the use of sanctioning and rewarding as a means ofsupporting policy implementation (Fig. 10). The participants are notably milder when itcomes to the IE reform, as about one half of them thought that monitoring and controlling,as well as sanctioning and rewarding, would lead to better implementation of the reforms.

In the next set of questions, we further wanted to examine opinions of teachers,counselors, and principals about how the implementation was supported by theMinistry of Education and other relevant state authorities. About half of the respon-dents, regardless of the reform, think that the reform-related activities undertaken by thehigher authorities were not coordinated properly (Fig. 11). IE reform was again judgedslightly worse than the other to reforms. On the contrary, opinions differed acrossreforms when participants considered the extent to which the requirements and expec-tations of the relevant higher authorities changed over the implementation period. Thereform that had the most inconsistent requirements and expectations was INSET(67 %), followed by SDP (61 %) and IE (48 %) (Fig. 11). Finally, when asked aboutthe capacities (professional, organizational, infrastructural, financial, operational, etc.)of relevant authorities to support implementation, about one third of INSET and SDPrespondents thought that they were inadequate, while another one third disagreed withthem (Fig. 11). IE reform was judged slightly worse, since about one half of therespondents think that needed capacities were not in place, and only every one fourthof the participants think that they are adequate (Fig. 11). Based on these findings, onecan conclude that the majority of school staff did not think that the relevant authoritieswere capable to plan and coordinate implementation-related activities well.

In general, a variety of implementation instruments is usually utilized to ensuresmooth implementation of the policy. Different situations and reforms call for differentmeasures: sometimes, more enforcement is needed, while at other times, more persua-sive tools are used (Anderson 2003; McKinsey and company 2010). It is quiteremarkable that Serbian policymakers employ several of policy instruments in a ratherpredictable pattern. This implies lack of recognition that there are no ready-made,prepackaged solutions for policy implementation, but that the policy instruments needto be rather sensitive and tailor-made to the context, specificities, and goals of eachindividual reform. It stands to reason that more support and effort would be needed forimplementation of the most demanding reform—IE—but our data suggest that is notthe case. Teachers’, counselors’, and principals’ perceptions of the inadequate prepa-ration for the implementation, as well as their poor assessment of coordination,

7 This question was, by mistake, not put forth to the INSET respondents.



organization and capacities of relevant authorities in regard to implementation activitiesimply that more attention and planning need to be put into the reform before it is rolledout, especially for the reforms that are the most challenging.

3.3 Policy evaluation

The final phase in the education policy cycle involves evaluation of the implementationprocess and effects of a particular reform. The evaluation activities include systematic datacollection, comparison of data with established quality standards, estimation of the intendedand unintended effects, provision of feedback to relevant stakeholders and making deci-sions about the future of the policy (continuing, altering or terminating policy).

18

33

49

13

25

62

13

24

64

21

25

54

14

22

64

7

16

77

0%

100%


The reform would be betterimplemented if there were mechanisms

The reform would be betterimplemented if there were mechanisms


Fig. 10 Participants’ perceptions on the need to introduce accountability mechanisms in Serbia

37

33

30

37

32

31

33

35

33

53

19

28

49

25

27

0%

100%

IE INSET SDP IE INSET

Laws and bylaws that refer to this reformsare suffieciently clear.

Training for theimplementation of this reform

is appropriate.


Fig. 9 Participants’ perceptions on the clarity of laws and adequacy of the training for implemen-tation of reforms



We asked our participants which institutions followed up on the implementationand//or the effects of the reforms, at least occasionally (Fig. 12). The most active actorswere the principal and the school board (from 79 % for IE to 86 % for SDP), followedby school districts and their educational counselors (from 65 % for IE to 72 % for

13

32

54

16

34

50

16

38

46

11

41

48

8

25

67

11

28

61

48

27

26

37

29

34

38

29

33

0%

100%

IE INSET SDP INSET SDPIE IE INSET SDP

Activities of the higherauthorities in regards tothe reform are not well

Requirements andexpectations of the MoEhave frequently changed

Higher authorities havesufficient capacities tosupport the school in


Fig. 11 Participants’ perceptions on the coordination, organization and capacities of the relevant higherauthorities in regard to implementation-related activities

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ministry of education Inst. for improvementof education and/or

Inst. for evaluation andquality of education

School board Regional schoolauthority / Regional

education counsellors

Municipality Independentinstitutions

IE INSET SDP

Fig. 12 Percentage of participants who say that certain actors followed up on implementation and/or effects ofthe reforms at least occasionally



SDP). On the other hand, independent institutions and municipalities were the leastactive in evaluation of the reforms (around 20–30 % for all reforms). Centralizedinstitutions (the Ministry and two state institutes) are in the middle of the responsedistribution, with 50–60 % of participants claiming that they followed the implemen-tation and the effects of the reform, at least occasionally. It is remarkable that theresponse distribution of three independently assessed subgroups of participants(responding to IE, INSET or SDP questionnaire) is almost identical. This implies apattern of participation in evaluation of education policies across different actors ineducation.

Efficient and productive provision of feedback and support to schools about theimplementation and attained effects of the policies are important for their success(Haddad 1994; Маzmanian and Sabatier 1983). When we asked teachers, counselors,and principals whether their school had the opportunity to point out the implementationissues to the authorities, their responses were equally distributed across the Bagree,^Bneither agree nor disagree,^ and Bdisagree^ options in all three reforms (Fig. 13).About one fourth of the respondents in all three reforms claimed that their schoolsreceived useful feedback about implementation and effects of the reform from theauthorities, as opposed to slightly more than one third who thought the opposite(Fig. 13).

Finally, we asked the school staff to estimate the effectiveness of the three reforms inquestion (Fig. 14). Between 37 % (IE) and 48 % (INSET) of respondents thought thatthe reform made them (or their schools in case of SDP) improve their work. 8

Importantly, however, about one third of the IE respondents disagreed with thisstatement. In all three reforms, only about one fifth of the respondents agreed that thereforms were successful,9 while almost one half of the IE respondents did not believethat the reform will bear good results. Also, about one half of INSET and SDPrespondents were not sure whether these reforms are successful. However, when askedwhether they thought that the reforms represent a good foundation for the developmentof education system, the participants were more optimistic: around 45 % of INSET andSDP respondents agreed with the statement, alongside one third of the IE respondents.

Teachers’, counselors’, and principals’ perceptions on the evaluation phase of thepolicy cycle reveal that Serbian policymakers pay mediocre attention to obtaining veryvaluable feedback on the implementation and effects of their reforms. Formative andsummative evaluations could offer sound bases for modification, extension, or termi-nation of education policies and thus improve their effectiveness and efficiency.

3.4 Context

No education policy lives in vacuum; it is always conditioned by the context in which itis initiated and implemented and which it, in turn, influences. Being aware of thisimportant relationship, we wanted to determine how teachers, counselors, and princi-pals see current wider social and educational context, as well as context at the schooland personal levels. Since our IE, INSET, and SDP participants did not differ in their

8 For this question for the IE reform, we showed only the responses of the teachers who had students withformal IEP in their classrooms in the last 3 years (N=139).9 In case of IE, the statement was phrased in future tense because the reform was initiated recently.



opinions on the context (only a few context items showed significant, but very small,inconsistent differences across the reforms; data not shown), we combined our partic-ipants’ responses on the context.

School staff deemed the attitude of the state and society toward education as highlyunsatisfactory (Fig. 15). Even 75 % of participants thought that education was at thefringe of state priorities and that society had a negative image of the education system.Also, 60 % of respondents did not think that education occupied an important place inthe value system of Serbian society. Finally, even 90 % of school staff believed thatteachers were not sufficiently valued in our society.

Around 75 % of participants agreed with the statement that sociopolitical instabilitywas the main barrier to the modernization of education (Fig. 16) The same percentageof respondents thought that it was customary in Serbia for reforms to be discontinuedwhen the new minister came into office. This is related to the finding that around 80 %of teachers, counselors, and principals saw the lack of a clear education strategy as oneof the main problems of education in Serbia.10

We also asked participants about their opinion on the educational context(Fig. 17). Even 90 % of teachers, counselors, and principals thought thatadministrative tasks took up too much of their time and that our educationsystem insufficiently rewarded effort and good work. More than half of theparticipants thought that salaries in the education sector were acceptabe, consideringthe overall situation in the country. However, about one quarter of the respondents feltsalaries to be at a tolerable level.

A large percentage of participants (86 %) thought that with the current educationbudget, it was not realistic to expect any significant changes in the education system.Slightly more than 60 % of respondents felt that the problems plaguing Serbianeducation are bad organization of and coordination within the system, as well assimultaneous initiation of multiple reforms. Around one third of teachers, counselors,

10 The strategy of education was being developed in Serbia concurrently with this research.

32

36

32

35

36

29

37

30

33

37

39

24

34

38

28

39

36

25

0%

100%


My school is given the opportunityto point out the problems.

My school receives usefulfeedback.


Fig. 13 Participants’ perceptions about communication with and feedback from relevant authorities



and principals thought that Serbian education system was led by education profes-sionals, while equal percentage diasgreed, and another one third was indispondenttoward that statement (Fig. 18).

Even though our participants judged the reform context as quite unsatisfactory, theywere rather positive about their immediate context—schools in which they worked.About 70 % of respondents saw their school as a well organized and efficient institutionwhich supports their teachers in their work and development. Only every one tenthparticipant thought that there was apathy and disinterest in their school, and even 80 %thought that their school actively participated in various school improvement projects,whenever the chance arose (Fig. 19).

The study also showed that around 60 % of teachers, counselors, and principals feltthat their expectations from the reforms were let down. However, 90 % of themnonetheless reported that they were still open and willing to participate in educationalchanges (Fig. 20).

36

27

37

19

33

48

18

40

42

48

33

19

38

44

18

34

48

18

34

34

32

22

32

46

19

36

45

0%

100%

IE INSET SDP IE INSET SDP IE INSET SDP

This reform influenced meto improve my practice

I believe this reform issuccessful

This reform representsgood base for the future


Fig. 14 Participats’ perceptions about the effectiveness of the reforms

14

60

11

4

16

6

74

90

15

16

75

24

0% 100%

Education is on the margins of state priorities.

Education has a high place in the value system.

Negative image of schooling predominates.

Teachers are not sufficiently respected in our society.


Fig. 15 Partcipants’ perceptions of position of education in a wider societal context



Finally, we asked teachers, counselors, and principals to tell us whether they weresatisfied with their jobs.11 Around three quarters of the respondents reported that theywere satisfied with their jobs, while only 3 % said that they were not (Fig. 21).

4 Discussion

Before discussing our results in detail, one note is in order. While the voices ofimplementers of the reforms—teachers, counselors, and principals—are extremelyimportant, there also exist voices of other major stakeholders in education policy arena,particularly those of education policymakers, experts, and other employees in bothgovernment and nongovernment sectors. We did not wish to discriminate against theseother voices or state that teachers’, counselors’, and principals’ opinions are moreimportant than theirs; rather we wanted to explicate the opinions of the implementers,the largest group on the supply side of education, in order to open a constructive dialogthat can improve the quality of education in Serbia.

The discussion will replicate the structure of the results section and be divided intosubsections on (1) education policy formation, (2) education policy implementation, (3)education policy evaluation, and (4) education policy context.

4.1 Education policy formation

From the perspective of teachers, counselors, and principals, it appears that littleattempt has been made by the Ministry to thoroughly seek out, examine, and recognizeproblems plaguing Serbian education, especially those bothering major implementersof reforms. This finding is at odds with the fact that in the beginning of the last decade,the Ministry of Education organized extensive local consultations about impendingchanges with over 20,000 school staff called BTalks about reform^ and BWe in thereform^ (Kovač-Cerović et al. 2004; Stanković 2005). We should note, however, thatthere were no such extensive consultations in the case of the reform of inclusiveeducation. The reasons for this discrepancy can be severalfold: memory of these talksfaded over the last 10 years, consultations were negatively painted by other work

11 For this item, we used a nine-point Likert scale and later collapsed responses into three categories (1–3dissatisfied, 4–6 neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and 7–9 satisfied).

8

6

5 13 82

19

16

73

78

0% 100%

Instability is the major obstacle to themodernization of education.

Minister changes = discontinuity in reforms.

Lack of education strategy is a big problem.


Fig. 16 Participants’ perceptions on the impact of sociopolitical context on education



experiences, talks did not result in desired reforms, or many new staff have beenemployed in the previous decade. The inconsistency raises an important question—what are the pathways and timeframes that should be employed in Serbia in order to hearand accept the opinions of the school staff while, at the same time, being sufficientlyeffective and efficient? The question needs to be taken seriously, as it carries importantimplications. The lack of common understanding of the problems between thepolicymakers and implementers usually does not bode well for the reform, as the reformwill seem imposed or irrelevant to the implementers, so they will likely not be motivatedto work hard for it (Datnow et al. 1998; Haddad 1994; Teodorović 2008).

The perception of Serbian teachers, counselors, and principals was that the Ministrydesired or was pressured to act in accordance to foreign ideas. This is not surprisinghaving in mind aspirations of several governments since 2000 to move Serbia towardthe European Union and introduce into Serbian education the contemporary reformsthat have been in place for years in European countries. However, it is partly worrisomethat the school staff thought that foreign influences carried more weight than the needsand desires of teachers and, in case of inclusive education, professional reasons. Eventhough education reforms around the world are less frequently initiated as a response torequests from within the education system and more often as a response to theexternally exerted demands (demographic, economic, technological, etc.; Halasz2003; Hargreaves 2010a, b), it is of great importance that the school staff do not feel

4

11

10

31

27

39

63

30

9

26

86

63

0% 100%

Educational budget is not sufficient.

Problem is a bad organization of the system.

Problem is simultaneous initiation of multiple reforms.

Educational system is led by experts.


Fig. 18 Participants’ perceptions on the educational context (2)

5

3

54 22 24

7

6

88

91

0% 100%

Administrativerequirements take up too

much time.

Effort and quality areinsufficiently rewarded.

Salaries are acceptable.


Fig. 17 Participants’ perceptions on the educational context (1)



that the reforms are imposed on them, but that they are an answer to their authenticneeds or, at least, to their subsequently internalized goals. It appears from our study thatthe policymakers did not undertake the necessary measures to sufficiently explain andbring the reforms closer to implementers so that they could accept them as their ownand, subsequently, earnestly invest efforts to implement them. Without ownership, thereforms are implemented only superficially, and they are not sustainable (Datnow et al.2002; Haddad 1994).

The perception of our participants that teachers, professional societies, and unionsparticipated in policy formulation less than relevant higher authorities, foreign consul-tants and domestic experts is also telling of their nonownership of the reforms. Theyfeel that their ideas, experiences, and practical knowledge are potentially neglected andmarginalized in the education policymaking process. Not only does this lessen theirpsychological devotion to the reforms, but it also diminishes the quality of reformsthemselves, as they become less connected to the real world, everyday practical realitiesof the schools. Another finding reinforces this conclusion: the perception of the schoolstaff that there were more adequate and realistic solutions to the selected problems thanthose created by other stakeholders. This critique of the reforms additionally implies

9

9

69

6

20

14

11

80

21

20

70

71

0% 100%

My school is organized andefficient.

My school supports itsteachers.

There is apathy in myschool.

My school activelyparticipates in projects.


Fig. 19 Participants’ perceptions on their school context

13

29

58

28

90

0%

100%

My expectations of thereforms are deflated.

I am still open and prepared toactively participate in future

reforms.


Fig. 20 Participants’ expectations from reforms and willingness to participate in them



that various policy options or their components should have been more thoughtfullyanalyzed, as suggested by the theory (Anderson 2003; Datnow et al. 2002; Haddad1994; Pressman and Wildavsky 1973; Smith and Larimer 2009).

4.2 Education policy implementation

According to our participants, none of the three reforms was adequately prepared forimplementation in practice. It is possible that this contributed to the tepid acceptance ofthe reforms. Insufficient care of the implementation process usually leads to the reformfailure (Hargreaves 2010a, b).

In general, a variety of implementation instruments is usually utilized to ensuresmooth implementation of the policy. Different situations and reforms call for differentmeasures: sometimes, more enforcement is needed, while at other times, more persuasivetools are used (Anderson 2003; McKinsey and company 2010). Opinions of threedifferent groups of school employees, given on different reforms, point out thatSerbian policymakers employ several of the same policy instruments in a rather predict-able pattern. This implies lack of recognition that there are no ready-made, prepackagedsolutions for policy implementation, but that the policy instruments need to be rathersensitive and tailor-made to the context, specificities, and goals of each individual reform.

In spite of the teacher, counselor, and principal reports, it is a fact that the Ministry ofEducation did employ certain specific mechanisms for reform implementation (e.g.,additional financing of the school development planning and inclusive education activ-ities, as well as regional support teams and mentor schools for inclusive educationreform). Therefore, we can conclude that although efforts were dispensed to specificallyaddress some aspects of reforms, the feeling that the reforms were approached in the sameway still prevailed. The reason behind this inconsistency can be that specific mechanismsintended for implementation support did not adequately and effectively take root inpractice. For example, even though a formative evaluation of the implementation pro-cess—identification of obstacles and hurdles during the early phases of policy

Satisfied75%

Somewhatsatisfied

22%

Unsatisfied3%

Fig. 21 Participants’ job satisfaction



realization—was undertaken for the IE reform (Radó and Lazetić 2010), the questionremains how seriously the recommendations of the evaluation were acted upon inpractice. It appears from our data that the inclusive education reform, being the mostchallenging policy of the three because it most directly impacts teacher routines, couldhave benefitted from more resources and varied support instruments than the other tworeforms and also from knowledge gained during the formative evaluation.

Not one of the mechanisms utilized to implement the reforms was judged asparticularly well executed. Nonetheless, laws and bylaws were deemed as less prob-lematic than training for the reform. It is quite interesting that the school staffproclaimed that the reforms would be better realized in practice if there were account-ability mechanisms in place (follow-up and control, as well as rewarding and sanction-ing). Considering variable designs, purposes, and effects of accountability mechanismsaround the world, it would be very important to thoroughly examine the types of andrelationship between rewards and sanctions should the accountability system be intro-duced in Serbia. Several of the rarely used implementation mechanisms in Serbia—networking with other colleagues or schools or round-table discussions—were identi-fied as beneficial for reform sustainability (Fullan 2006, 2007). This indicates the needfor policymakers in Serbia to analyze, create, and apply versatile, coherent, andsituation-specific combinations of the implementation instruments.

The school employees did not think highly of the coordination activities, consistency ofdemands, and competencies of the higher authorities. Having in mind that implementationof education policies is a rather complex endeavor, it is of crucial importance that relevantauthorities and schools adopt andmaintain precise division of tasks and responsibilities andpragmatic and functional way of working together (Маzmanian and Sabatier 1983).Without effective and well-coordinated institutions and departments at the top of educationsystem and their strong vertical connection with schools, it seems that all the future reformswill be partly clogged in the impassable education system, regardless of their nobleintentions or potential benefits. It stands to reason then that one of the priority reformsshould actually be the improvement of functionality and organization of education system.

4.3 Education policy evaluation

The obtained results suggest that various actors did, in some ways, evaluate theimplementation and/or the effects of reforms. However, the opinions of the schoolstaff on whether they have the possibility to inform the higher authorities of theimplementation problems or whether they receive feedback from higher authoritieson the reform implementation and effects point out that the communication regardingevaluation between schools and higher authorities does not function most adequately inSerbian education system. Clear and efficient lines of communication, efficient prob-lem solving, and fast feedback provision greatly aid the reform implementation andincrease chances of its success (Маzmanian and Sabatier 1983).

Success of all three reforms—and especially the reform of inclusive education—wasnot judged as satisfactory. However, there are some optimistic findings, namely, that asignificant number of participants declared that they did change their practice becauseof the reforms and that reforms represent a solid base for the future. Therefore, we canconclude that school employees are aware of the reform shortcomings, but that theyrecognize the potential the reforms bear.



4.4 Context

Context in which the reforms play out can make them highly successful or entirelyfruitless (Fullan 2007; Hargreaves 2010b; McKinsey and company 2010; OECD 2010;Teodorović 2008). Our results imply that the position of the state and society towardeducation is very disconcerting. Teachers, counselors, and principals are under a verystrong impression that their work is not valued by the state and society; they feel alonein their efforts to educate new generations, which can frustrate and demotivate them.Reforms undertaken in this climate have little chance for success. However, this canserve as a signal to higher authorities that respecting school staff and publiclysupporting their efforts need to be an integral component of the future reforms. Thereare examples that such mindful practices contributed to the success of the educationsystem reforms (Levin 2008).

Political instability and, accordingly, frequent changes of the reform directions, aswell as frequent abandonment of old and initiation of new initiatives, lead to theweariness and fatigue with reforms (Hargreaves 2004). Teachers become cynical andskeptical, which can undermine their effort and work. Lack of strategy for developmentof education additionally contributes to these feelings, since school employees do notsee how reforms complement each other and how they together comprise a coherentpicture of education in Serbia.

There are numerous systemic obstacles within education system itself that threatenthese and future reforms, regardless of their contents, goals, or potential benefits. Timespent doing administrative work is, according to the school staff, excessive, and, assuch, it probably averts their energy and focus away from their key obligation—qualityteaching. Inadequate education budget allocation (of which teacher’s low salaries areseen as only a part of the problem) and the system’s nondistinction between qualityteaching and poor teaching additionally pose problems for improvement of education.If superfluous administrative work and lack of resources distract teachers from focusingon quality teaching, and if, additionally, they feel that their efforts and its productsare spurned by society, then their embrace of reforms rests only on weakshoulders of intrinsic motivation (Stanković 2009). Eminent experts promoteaccountability systems which offer lots of support and ask for responsibility forstudent progress (Fullan 2007), while in Serbia, the dominant theme appears to belittle support and no responsibility.

Finally, there is a glimpse of hope for the future education in Serbia. Teachers,counselors, and principals see their schools as supportive organizations and themselvesas persons who love their jobs and are ready to participate in future reforms. Althoughit is possible that they see their immediate environment in better light than it actually is,this nonetheless represents a positive signal to the education system: school staff, inwhom reform implementation and reform success greatly depend, are still willing toshoulder a significant burden of future reforms (provided that certain changes areundertaken).

In conclusion, we owe the readers answers to the research questions put forth earlier.

(1) No specific aspect of education policymaking—neither education policy forma-tion nor implementation nor evaluation—was perceived as particularly wellexecuted in Serbia in any of the three examined reforms.



(2) According to the opinions of the school staff, education policy formation, imple-mentation, and evaluation are approached very similarly across different reforms,regardless of the reform content. Still, inclusive education was judged to be theleast well-implemented reform of the three.

(3) Teachers, counselors, and principals perceive the context in which the reformsplay out as unfavorable, with systemic problems, but they also show a certain doseof optimism.

The most relevant conclusions and suggestions for improvement of the process ofeducation policymaking in Serbia are given in the following section.

5 Conclusions and policy recommendations

More general conclusions based on the analysis of the results are given below alongsiderecommendations intended for policymakers in Serbia.

& Education policy formation needs to be as participatory as possible. The reformswould likely be more successful if policymakers invested considerable effort toestablish effective mechanisms through which an adequate number of school staffwould be included in the process of problem identification and creation of anappropriate policy option. Specifically that would mean having open discussionsabout problems in Serbian education and reaching consensus on the most pressingproblems that need to be solved. Two positive effects would be attained that way.First, teachers, counselors, and principals would more willingly accept the reformswhich they helped define and create; they would feel more motivated to work forthe changes they deem relevant and important. Second, the reforms will be morerealistic and applicable in practice if teachers, counselors, and principals wereallowed to contribute their vast practical knowledge and experience to the processof policy formation.

& Policy implementation mechanisms should be given more attention. The imple-mentation phase of policies is not adequately thought out and prepared in Serbia.On the one hand, the existing policy instruments—laws, bylaws, and trainings forthe reform—should be clearer and more relevant. On the other hand, other policymechanisms, such as peer learning, school networking, professional support, addi-tional financing, and accountability system, should be given more consideration.

& It is necessary to establish an adequate accountability mechanism in Serbia.Teachers, counselors, and principals point out that it is necessary to better overseeand follow up on the implementation and effects of the reforms and that there needsto exist a system of rewarding and sanctioning teachers’ work in order to ensure itshigh quality. Accountability principle is important for the education quality, sooptimal ways to include it into the education system in Serbia should be researchedand identified.

& Solving functional and organizational problems within the education system shouldbe a priority reform in Serbian education. Teachers, counselors, and principalsstrongly feel that the education system is insufficiently organized and coordinated,that higher authorities do not have adequate capacities to carry out their major



functions, that the system does not appropriately care about true education quality,and that it shows it through excessive bureaucracy. Educational authorities shouldwork on establishing an effective and efficient governance model, which wouldensure stable and functional system environment, which is necessary for all otherreform undertakings.

& Evaluation of the reform processes and effects, as well as feedback and communi-cation between key stakeholders should be more effective. It is necessary to developa comprehensive approach to monitoring and evaluating education policies in orderto identify problematic and well-functioning aspects of the reforms, the extent ofthe implementation problems (systemic or local, substantive or superficial, etc.), thenature of the problems (whether the problems are due to the reform content orwhether they collide with other reforms, organizational structures, or system func-tioning), and so on. This would require that school staff be enabled to efficientlyreport implementation and other problems in their work to the higher authoritiesand that they promptly receive feedback and instructions how to remedy thesituation, as well as be regularly informed on the dynamics and success of imple-mented reforms.

& It is important to more substantially support the introduction of the inclusiveeducation. Teachers, counselors, and principals unfavorably judge the reform ofinclusive education and doubt its success. Although negative disposition is some-what expected with the change that is both radical, in its early implementationphase, these opinions should not be taken lightly. It is necessary that thepolicymakers examine the reasons behind these opinions, consider possible reme-dies, and, together with school staff, apply a variety of mechanisms that wouldimprove the reform’s implementation and effects.

& It is necessary to nurture and support readiness for the reform. Contrary to thepopular belief that education system in Serbia is Btired from the reforms,^ thisresearch discovered that potential for change is still alive in classrooms and schools.This should not be taken as a signal to continue introducing additional reforms, butas a circumstance that should be nurtured and supported. School staff should not beseen as an instrument for implementation of education policies, but as professionalswho should be given the right (and the obligation), as well as support, to improvetheir own work.

As Michael Fullan (2007, p. 104) said, BSuccess is about one quarter having theright ideas and three quarters establishing effective processes that sort out and developthe right solution suited to the context in question.^ Our results point out that educationpolicy formation, implementation, and evaluation in Serbia do not draw sufficientlyfrom the theoretical and empirical knowledge of education policy cycle heuristic andattainment of educational change. Even though no reform can be guaranteed success,deeper analysis and more adequate application of available knowledge of educationpolicymaking would likely increase the chances of genuine implementation, measur-able effectiveness, and sustainability of Serbian reforms.

Acknowledgments This paper is the result of the project BPerceptions of the educational changesin Serbia: Reflections on the past, visions of the future^ financed by the Swiss Agency for Developmentand Cooperation (SDC).



References

Anderson, J. E. (2003). Public policymaking: An introduction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., &Mehan, H. (1998). Educational reform implementation: A co-constructed process.

Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many.

London: Routledge Falmer Press.Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1–26.Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the real-life problems of

innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M. & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: a

synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida MentalHealth Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.Fullan, M. (2006). Change theory: A force for school improvement. Victoria: Center for Stategic Education.Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Haddad, W. (1994). The dynamics of education policymaking: Case studies of Burkina Faso, Jordan, Peru

and Thailand. Washington, DC: World Bank.Halasz, G. (2003). Governing school and education systems in the era of diversity. A paper prepared for the

21st Session of the Standing Conference of European Ministers of Education on BIntercultural education:Managing diversity, strenghtening democracy^ (Athens, Greece, 10–12 November 2003,Council of Europe).

Hargreaves, A. (2004). Inclusive and exclusive educational change: emotional responses of teachers andimplications for leadership. School Leadership & Management, 24(2), 287–309.

Hargreaves, A. (2010a). Introduction: Ten years of change. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D.Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of education change (pp. xi–xxi). New York: Springer.

Hargreaves, A. (2010b). Change from without: Lessons from other countries, systems and sectors. In A.Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook on educa-tional change (pp. 105–117). New York: Springer.

Hopkins, D. (2001). School improvement for real. London: Routledge/Falmer.Jones, C. O. (1970). Introduction to the study of public policy. Belmont: Wadsworth.Kovač-Cerović, T., Grahovac, V., Stanković, D., Vuković, N., Ignjatović, S., Šćepanović, D., Nikolić, G., &

Toma, S. (2004). Kvalitetno obrazovanje za sve: Izazovi reforme obrazovanja u Srbiji. [Quality educationfor all: Challenges of education reform in Serbia]. Beograd, Republika Srbija: Minstarstvo Prosvete.

Levin, B. (2008). How to change 5,000 schools. In А. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins(Eds.), Second international handbook оf educational change (pp. 309–322). New York: Springer.

Lipsky, M. (1971). Street level bureaucracy and the analysis of urban reform. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 6(4),391–409.

Маzmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1983). Implementation and public policy. Glenview: Scott, Foresman.McKinsey and company. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. New

York: McKinsey and Company.Ministry of Education of the Republic of Serbia. (2002a). Kvalitetno obrazovanje za sve: put ka razvijenom

društvu. [Quality education for all: Path toward developed society]. Beograd, Republika Srbija:Ministarstvo prosvete i sporta.

Ministry of Education of the Republic of Serbia. (2002b). Školsko razvojno planiranje: put ka školi kakvuželimo. [School development planning: Path toward the school we want]. Beograd, Republika Srbija:Ministarstvo prosvete i sporta.

Ministry of Education of the Republic of Serbia. (2008). Inkluzivno obrazovanje: put razvoja. Nacionalniizveštaj Republike Srbije. [Inclusive education: The path of development. National report of the Republicof Serbia]. Beograd, Republika Srbija: Ministarstvo prosvete.

OECD. (2010). Vignettes on education reform: England, Poland and Sweden. In Strong performers andsuccessful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States (pp. 221–228). Paris, France:OECD.

Porter, R. (1995). Knowledge utilization and the process of policy formation: Toward a framework for Africa.Washington, DC: USAID.

Pressman, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed inOakland. Berkeley: University of California Press.



Radó, P., & Lazetić, P. (2010). Rapid assessment of the implementation of inclusive education in Serbia:Report for UNICEF. Beograd: UNICEF.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York NY: Free Press.Smith, K. B., & Larimer, C. (2009). The public policy theory primer. Boulder: Westview Press.Stanković, D. (2005). Local/school level inputs to national policy formation: An example from Serbia. In S.

Kiefer, J. Michalak, A. Sabanci, & K. Winter (Eds.), An analysis of educational policy in a comparativeeducational perspective (pp. 159–172). Linz: State College of Teacher Education.

Stanković, D. (2009). Uključivanje nastavnika u razvoj škole [Involvement of teachers in school develop-ment]. Zbornik Instituta za Pedagoška Istraživanja, 41(2), 315–330.

Stanković, D. (2011). Obrazovne promene u Srbiji (2000–2010) [Educational changes in Serbia (2000–2010)]. In M. Vujačić, J. Pavlović, D. Stanković, et al. (Eds.), Predstave o obrazovnim promenama:Refleksije o prošlosti, vizije budućnosti. [Perceptions of educational changes: Reflections on the past,visions of the future] (pp. 41–62). Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja.

Teodorović, J. (2008). Why education policies fail: multiple streams model of policymaking. Zbornik Institutaza Pedagoska Istrazivanja, 40(1), 22–36.

UNICEF. (2001). Sveobuhvatna analiza stanja sistema osnovnog obrazovanja u SRJ. [Comprehensiveanalysis of primary education in Federal Republic of Yugoslavia]. Beograd: UNICEF.

Vujačić, M., Pavlović, J., Stanković, D., Džinović, V., & Đerić, I. (2011). Predstave o obrazovnimpromenama: Refleksije o prošlosti, vizije budućnosti. [Perceptions of educational changes: Reflectionson the past, visions of the future]. Beograd: Institut za Pedagoška Istraživanja.



Education policymaking in Serbia through the eyes of teachers, counselors, and principals.

Documents

Transcript of Education policymaking in Serbia through the eyes of teachers, counselors, and principals.