Page 145 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 145
i. ž. žagar ■ slovenian experience with rhetoric in primary schools
to cut your nails. How to sell things efficiently has also been a hot “rhetor-
ical” topic in the last 10 years. Mostly, these schools would be run by peo-
ple from theatre, TV presenters or people from marketing, but usually,
anybody could do. And what they would teach/sell is mostly the last can-
on of rhetoric, delivery (actio or hypokrisis), leaving out the basic canons of
rhetoric: inventio, dispositio and elocutio.
As you can see, with the decision of the National Assembly, we were
confronted with a hard task: to establish rhetoric in its historical frame-
work, as a subject that educates for active citizenship in contrast with a
cheap everyday praxis that sees rhetoric as a rather instant tool for sell-
ing things.
So, I was asked to write the syllabus. In doing so, I was complete-
ly on my own, because no other country in the world had rhetoric as a
school subject in its own right. I was mostly in contact with colleagues
from the USA where (classic) rhetoric still enjoys a much greater repu-
tation (in academia as well as in professional life) than in Europe where,
since the 19th century, rhetoric became reduced to lists of rhetorical fig-
ures mostly taught in courses on world literature.
The syllabus was ready and officially approved in 1999 (Žagar, Ž. et
al., 1999/2004), and the teaching of rhetoric in primary schools started in
2000/2001. But, of course, the need to implement the syllabus caused new
problems: the textbook, for different reasons, was not ready until 2006
(Zidar et al., 2006), and there was no university program that would edu-
cate teachers of rhetoric. What to do?
What we did, at the Educational Research Institute where I work
and with the help of the Ministry for Education, Science and Sport was
to organize intensive in-service education/training for prospective teach-
ers of rhetoric: 3 consecutive days, 8 hours per day, free of charge. The de-
mand for this in-service training was extraordinary, but so was the stress,
for the participants and for us, the trainers (coaches), who were working
Saturdays and Sundays, the whole day through.
But after a few enthusiastic and successful years, the economic situ-
ation worsened, and the Ministry demanded that these in-training sem-
inars become payable. Since our seminar was the most extensive one, the
price they set was 82€ per person. Which is a lot, for schools as well as
for individuals. So, the interest and the attendance dropped immediately;
in the year that followed there was no more in-service training. Also the
teacher support, organized by the National Institute of Education, fol-
lowed the same track: in a few years the Subject (discussion) group for
Rhetoric was dismantled, and slowly schools were offering Rhetoric as
143
to cut your nails. How to sell things efficiently has also been a hot “rhetor-
ical” topic in the last 10 years. Mostly, these schools would be run by peo-
ple from theatre, TV presenters or people from marketing, but usually,
anybody could do. And what they would teach/sell is mostly the last can-
on of rhetoric, delivery (actio or hypokrisis), leaving out the basic canons of
rhetoric: inventio, dispositio and elocutio.
As you can see, with the decision of the National Assembly, we were
confronted with a hard task: to establish rhetoric in its historical frame-
work, as a subject that educates for active citizenship in contrast with a
cheap everyday praxis that sees rhetoric as a rather instant tool for sell-
ing things.
So, I was asked to write the syllabus. In doing so, I was complete-
ly on my own, because no other country in the world had rhetoric as a
school subject in its own right. I was mostly in contact with colleagues
from the USA where (classic) rhetoric still enjoys a much greater repu-
tation (in academia as well as in professional life) than in Europe where,
since the 19th century, rhetoric became reduced to lists of rhetorical fig-
ures mostly taught in courses on world literature.
The syllabus was ready and officially approved in 1999 (Žagar, Ž. et
al., 1999/2004), and the teaching of rhetoric in primary schools started in
2000/2001. But, of course, the need to implement the syllabus caused new
problems: the textbook, for different reasons, was not ready until 2006
(Zidar et al., 2006), and there was no university program that would edu-
cate teachers of rhetoric. What to do?
What we did, at the Educational Research Institute where I work
and with the help of the Ministry for Education, Science and Sport was
to organize intensive in-service education/training for prospective teach-
ers of rhetoric: 3 consecutive days, 8 hours per day, free of charge. The de-
mand for this in-service training was extraordinary, but so was the stress,
for the participants and for us, the trainers (coaches), who were working
Saturdays and Sundays, the whole day through.
But after a few enthusiastic and successful years, the economic situ-
ation worsened, and the Ministry demanded that these in-training sem-
inars become payable. Since our seminar was the most extensive one, the
price they set was 82€ per person. Which is a lot, for schools as well as
for individuals. So, the interest and the attendance dropped immediately;
in the year that followed there was no more in-service training. Also the
teacher support, organized by the National Institute of Education, fol-
lowed the same track: in a few years the Subject (discussion) group for
Rhetoric was dismantled, and slowly schools were offering Rhetoric as
143
