Table 1
Social education at universities in the Czech Republic in the academic year 2018/2019
| University | Faculty | Bachelor degree (Bc.) | Master degree (Mgr.) |
| Tomas Bata University in Zlin
| Faculty of Humanities | Soc. ped. – Bc. (P i K) | Soc. ped. – Mgr. (P i K) |
| Charles University in Prague | Faculty of Arts | – | Soc. ped. – Mgr. (P i K) |
| Hussite Theological Faculty | Soc. ped. – Bc. (P) | – | |
| University in Hradec Králové | Faculty of Education | Social education focusing in educational work in ethopedy institutions – Bc. (P i K) | Soc. ped. – Mgr. (P i K) |
| University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice | Faculty of Education | Soc. ped. – Bc. (K) | – |
| Masaryk University in Brno | Faculty of Arts | Social education and counselling – Bc. (P) | Social education and counselling – Mgr. (P) |
| Faculty of Education | Social education and leisure time – Bc.(P) Soc. ped. – Bc. (K) | Social education and leisure time – Mgr. (P) Soc. ped. – Mgr. (K) | |
| Palacký University in Olomouc | Sts Cyril and Methodius Faculty of Theology – current programme | Soc. ped. – Bc. (P i K) | Soc. ped. – Mgr. (P i K) |
| Faculty of Education + Sts Cyril and Methodius Faculty of Theology – newly designed (2019+) | Soc. ped. – Bc. – Leisure time education (P i K) – Prevention of socio-pathological events (P i K) | Soc. ped. – Mgr. – Designing and management – Educational counselling (P) | |
| University of Ostrava | Faculty of Education | Soc. ped. – Bc. (P i K) | Soc. ped. – Mgr. (P i K) |
| Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem | Faculty of Education | Soc. ped. – Bc. (P i K) | Soc. ped. – Mgr. (P i K) |
| Humanitas University in Sosnowiec (European foreign university) | Faculty of Social Studies Vsetín | Soc. ped. – Bc. (P i K) | - |
Note: P = ful-time form of study; K = combined form of study.
Upon a close look at the offer, prospective students can find not only that the offer is relatively well-structured, but also that study programmes are offered in both bachelor and master degree programmes with full-time and part-time study. Very often the programme is not limited to the scope of social education alone. In addition to special education, it blends into education, leisure time education, and counselling, along with planning, management, and even theology.
Being aware of all the risks that this strongly generalizing approach entails, it is possible to analyse the available curricula of individual fields to arrive at approximately nine general categories of subjects taught. The most significant part of the taught material (one-third) belongs to a group which for the sake of simplicity can be referred to as educational-psychological propaedeutics. Within this category there are guarantors, across universities, of disciplines including general education, educational psychology, didactics, and developmental psychology. In approximately the same proportion, study plans consist of subjects with a social-educational basis, such as social education itself, as well as issues of social pathology, social work, social prevention – pathological phenomena, social and legal protection of the child, and others. These two areas form the logical figurative backbone of the field. The 10% share of study is occupied by blocks devoted to practice and leisure time, which surprisingly, however, range very widely between the different faculty offers (proportion of 2 - 18%). On the other end of the frequency spectrum of the subjects taught are management and planning, special education, medical propaedeutics, some theological issues and, of course, required preparation of the final thesis.
While in the case of the pedagogical-psychological and socio-pedagogical base, the offer across individual faculties is relatively balanced, in other areas students have a significant degree of freedom of choice. For example, leisure time is supported up to eight times more in the relevant study plans of Palacký University in Olomouc or Tomas Bata University in Zlín than in the case of Charles University or Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem. If we stay with this simplistic view, then Charles University and partly also Palacký University in Olomouc are the only two universities in the Czech Republic that also view social education through the prism of theology. Perhaps most interesting, however, is the view of the proportion of practice. Here, Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem is a clear trendsetter. Far more space in the curriculum is devoted to practice here than at any other university included in this comparison, and it even exceeds the usual ratio of study programmes in the Czech Republic (for a more detailed overview of the representation of subjects see analytical appendix to the study).
For successful completion of the study of social education, the student must complete the state final examinations. The overall (different) conceptions of the monitored programmes can again be clearly seen in the structure of the state examinations. State examiners are primarily focused on knowledge in social education, often supplemented by applied psychology, social work or educational and professional counselling. However, depending on the focus of their alma mater, candidates for an academic degree must also pass examinations in leisure education, re-socialization and re-education, and even security services and management must pass these examinations. In light of the information given below, the minimal emphasis on the field of law, or the possibly expected but almost indistinct link to special education, may be striking. Should we understand special education as a competitive field? According to representatives of primary and secondary schools, where social educators are already active, certainly not. It is easy to see that the study programmes are implemented on the diverse models of various faculties, which again confirms a lack of anchoring of the conception of the field itself. Efforts to establish the idea and the relatedness of educational outcomes can certainly be expected in the future, depending on how the position of social educator holds its own in relation to other pedagogical positions in the law (and at school).
Since 2016 at the latest, graduates of the social education disciplines have had an ideal opportunity to work in schools across the Czech Republic. In June of the same year,8 the Ministry of Education announced the receipt of applications from schools and school facilities for the support of simplified projects from the Operational Programme Research, Development and Education. As a result of the challenges, kindergartens and primary and secondary schools, as well as educational institutions for leisure education, have had two options since then to strengthen their teaching team through the addition of a social educator. More than 250 projects (schools) have been implemented within the framework of successive initiatives. The total budget of projects implemented, or already completed, to support the activities of social educators in schools is over 60 million CZK.
Although only a minimal number of applicants (less than half a percent of the total number of templates supported) chose the template “Social educator - personal support” compared to the others, this step is undoubtedly significant as a possible precedent. Since this position is already recorded from the systemic point of view (we still have to wait for the outcome and impact assessment of projects), the content of the activity of this expert as seen by the Ministry of Education is also described and thus codified in the accompanying documents.
Social educators are intended for pupils with a risk of school failure. These are pupils with low educational motivation, long-term and repeated school failure, and disciplinary offences, which may be the result of inconsistent parental guidance, probably related to the fact that most of them are from a socio-culturally disadvantaged environment. The primary task of the social educator is therefore to provide teachers with information concerning the background of the pupils and their problems, which in turn helps them to choose an appropriate approach to the pupils. It is also intended to establish links between the school and other entities (municipalities, police, prosecutors and health care facilities), including the provision of mediation between the school, parents, and institutions mentioned above. At the same time, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports requires that social educators acquire a professional qualification in the fields of social education or social work.9 From the attached concrete list of activities under this template, the problems that today's schools and teachers have with pupils and parents can be well deduced.
The scope of tasks for social educators is extensive, with one common denominator – it clearly reaches beyond the school plan. It includes, for example, protecting abused and traumatized children and strengthening the community character of the school, as well as educating teachers on social issues or coordinating and recruiting volunteers for tutoring, realizing social therapy with problem individuals, excursions, discussions, etc. 10
The much-needed multidisciplinary and cross-border approach naturally places enormous demands on the training of the required experts, which must be matched not only by their remuneration but above all by the precondition of their availability, i.e. that they are present on the labour market in the first place.
According to available data,11 about eight hundred graduates from both types of study programmes (BA and MA) graduate from the universities educating social educators. Among others, Tomas Bata University in Zlín (Faculty of Humanities) excels in this regard, and itself professionally trained 231 social educators in 2018. This number is insufficient, given the number of Czech kindergartens and primary and secondary schools, which number over ten thousand; of course, this assumes that a social educator should be a regular part of every full-time teaching staff. However, this is a topic for a separate study.
We have seen that the post of social educator resonates on the level of management of the education system, and has managed to establish itself in the form of study programmes at many universities. At the same time, there are significant financial incentives for schools to make space for them in their staffrooms. The role of the social educator in the school is proven, but its anchoring in the law, i.e. the provision of mandatory funding, is uncertain, which brings us back to the beginning.
One more general comment to conclude. In the case of social educators, two more general trends in the staffing of schools can be well observed. The first is the expected and long-announced lack of qualified specialists to take up the teaching and education process in Czech schools. In its estimates, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports envisages that there will be a shortage of four and a half thousand teachers, possibly more, in regional education by 2027. We will have to adapt more and more often to a situation in which teachers as practitioners, and undergraduates with or without a minimum educational background, enter the classroom, and where the obtained qualifications will no longer be a determining factor for placement in the school. These points are contained in the forthcoming amendment to the Act on Educational Staff. 12 An analogous situation applies in the case of social educators who are undergoing experimental testing at hundreds of Czech schools within the framework of the templates, in which the original qualification requirements have been significantly reduced. Whereas in 2016 (in the templates), work as a social educator was conditional upon university education in fields focused on social education, or demonstration of professional qualifications by university education in areas focused on social work, in 2018 any university education at all was sufficient and, under certain conditions, higher vocational education was accepted for the applicants.
The second trend is a gradual abandonment of the principle of one teacher – one class.13 This is a paradigmatic change accompanying the introduction of joint learning. According to the authors of the Guidelines for Education Policy of the Czech Republic up to 2030+.14 in the next decade, we will have to place increasing emphasis on staffing schools and on the development of teachers' competences to educate heterogeneous groups of pupils. Insufficient systemic provision of joint training, especially in the area of personnel, jeopardizes the provision of equal access to education for all, i.e. one of the two main objectives of the forthcoming Strategy. The path to its fulfilment will be more comfortable with the help of so-called support professions, experts on specific issues of upbringing and education. The authors of the documents for Strategy 2030+ directly recommend this step, especially within the context of developing the potential of pupils with social and other disadvantages.
Strengthening the methodology of cooperation with other (supporting) professions at school is one of the points of discussion that will undoubtedly be of interest, given both the financial demands it imposes on the system and the absorption capacity of the Czech Republic, in terms of the availability of various specialists. In any case, the experience of social educators, for example those experiences that relate to providing support primarily to pupils, and within this context, to teachers or schools in turn, should not be overlooked.
Tomáš Machalík
National Pedagogical Institute of the Czech Republic
|
|
Tomáš Machalík is a graduate of the Faculty of Arts of the University of West Bohemia. He led the Department of Strategy and International Cooperation at the National Institute for Further Education. Since 2017 is working as a Project Manager at the National Pedagogical Institute of the Czech Republic.