Page 35 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 35
i. elezović ■ civic and citizenship education in croatia ...
delivered to schools to implement. Practice showed that reasons for not
having cross-curricular themes organized in any different way were main-
ly more of an organizational nature. First of all, having to change many
legislature documents to be able to implement the new subject (probably
‘at the expense’ of the existing subjects) always had strong opposition. Sec-
ondly, there is simply not enough time in the already overloaded student
schedules for new subjects and the issue of who would teach cross-curric-
ular themes as a separate subject is also of relevance. Last, but not least, if
time and capacities are limited why and how can one choose one of those
themes over another to become a subject due to the fact that all themes
becoming new subjects was never a possibility without the prerequisite
of changing the overall concept of subject-oriented teaching. Another
stream of “arguments” in these matters are more worldview issues, espe-
cially in the case of Health Education and then also CCE, where parents,
supported by the right wing political parties and NGOs, protested that
school has no right to transfer worldview content to children and that this
is the exclusive right of parents only (based on the Constitution18). There
were alternative and opposite interpretations, based on the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, signed declarations in the area of educa-
tion, national strategies and their programs of activities, and other docu-
ments in which human rights and freedoms, as well as multi-faced stu-
dent education and upbringing model, were nominally accepted as the
only valid and implemented version of educational goals19.
For the sake of compromising, the situation with cross-curricular
themes was left as it is (and always has been) to the many governments
that have changed in the past twenty years and the practice of everybody
being responsible ‘on paper’ and nobody really assigned to the practical
tasks of implementation remained. Nevertheless, another set of activi-
ties in recent years gave stimulus to the CCE, and other cross-curricu-
lar themes, and these were additional projects coming from outside the
formal and usual state funding of the schooling system (whether by lo-
cal communities, national government or EU and/or other supra-nation-
18 Article 64. Parents have the obligation for the raising, supporting and schooling of chil-
dren and have the right and freedom to independently decide on the matters of child’s
upbringing.
19 Besides documents from the Ministry of Education, these include: the National Plan of
Activities for the Rights and Interests of Children (2006–2012); the National Programe
for Roma, of 2002, and the Action Plan for Roma Inclusion (2005–2015); the National Pol-
icy for the Promotion of Gender Equality (2006–2010; 2011–2015); the National Strategy
for the Creation of an Enabling Environment for Civil Society (2006–2011; 2012–2016);
the National Programe for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights (2008–2011;
2013–2016); and the National Programe for Youth (2009–2013; 2014–2017).
33
delivered to schools to implement. Practice showed that reasons for not
having cross-curricular themes organized in any different way were main-
ly more of an organizational nature. First of all, having to change many
legislature documents to be able to implement the new subject (probably
‘at the expense’ of the existing subjects) always had strong opposition. Sec-
ondly, there is simply not enough time in the already overloaded student
schedules for new subjects and the issue of who would teach cross-curric-
ular themes as a separate subject is also of relevance. Last, but not least, if
time and capacities are limited why and how can one choose one of those
themes over another to become a subject due to the fact that all themes
becoming new subjects was never a possibility without the prerequisite
of changing the overall concept of subject-oriented teaching. Another
stream of “arguments” in these matters are more worldview issues, espe-
cially in the case of Health Education and then also CCE, where parents,
supported by the right wing political parties and NGOs, protested that
school has no right to transfer worldview content to children and that this
is the exclusive right of parents only (based on the Constitution18). There
were alternative and opposite interpretations, based on the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, signed declarations in the area of educa-
tion, national strategies and their programs of activities, and other docu-
ments in which human rights and freedoms, as well as multi-faced stu-
dent education and upbringing model, were nominally accepted as the
only valid and implemented version of educational goals19.
For the sake of compromising, the situation with cross-curricular
themes was left as it is (and always has been) to the many governments
that have changed in the past twenty years and the practice of everybody
being responsible ‘on paper’ and nobody really assigned to the practical
tasks of implementation remained. Nevertheless, another set of activi-
ties in recent years gave stimulus to the CCE, and other cross-curricu-
lar themes, and these were additional projects coming from outside the
formal and usual state funding of the schooling system (whether by lo-
cal communities, national government or EU and/or other supra-nation-
18 Article 64. Parents have the obligation for the raising, supporting and schooling of chil-
dren and have the right and freedom to independently decide on the matters of child’s
upbringing.
19 Besides documents from the Ministry of Education, these include: the National Plan of
Activities for the Rights and Interests of Children (2006–2012); the National Programe
for Roma, of 2002, and the Action Plan for Roma Inclusion (2005–2015); the National Pol-
icy for the Promotion of Gender Equality (2006–2010; 2011–2015); the National Strategy
for the Creation of an Enabling Environment for Civil Society (2006–2011; 2012–2016);
the National Programe for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights (2008–2011;
2013–2016); and the National Programe for Youth (2009–2013; 2014–2017).
33
