Vitomir Jovanovic

(tekst je objavljena na platformi Mons-Monitoring socijalne situacije u Srbiji, na adresi www.mons.rs)

Kada je neki obrazovni sistem pravedan, to podrazumeva da on svim učenicima pruža jednake šanse za uspeh. Međutim, učenici nižeg socio-ekonomskog statusa (SES) nemaju jednake početne šanse da kroz obrazovanje unaprede svoj društveni položaj. Nizak SES negativno se odražava na razvoj intelektualnih sposobnosti, na šansu za ostvarivanje uspeha u obrazovanju, kao i na samu dostupnost obrazovanja. Zato u mnogim obrazovnim sistemima postoje mere koje pojačavaju pravednost, odnosno koji nastoje da pruže dodatnu podršku učenicima niskog SES. Zakon o osnovama obrazovanja i vaspitanja iz 2009. godine uveo je niz mera za jačanje pravednosti obrazovnog sistema: individualne obrazovne planove za učenike kojima je potrebna podrška, pedagoške asistente, besplatne udžbenike, afirmativne mere upisa, obavezni pripremni predškolski program, besplatan prevoz za učenike putnike, itd. Iako je puno urađeno na jačanju pravednosti našeg obrazovanja, ostaje još prostora za napredak, a ono što je urađeno, može lako biti anulirano različitim neoliberalnim politikama u obrazovanju. Konačno, u postojećem sistemu podrške učenicima i studentima postoji nekoliko " neuraligičnih tačaka ". Prva među njima su krediti i stipendije. U Srbiji, gotovo polovina studenata živi sa roditeljima (48%), 8% živi sa partnerom ili decom, 23% sami, a 21% sa drugim ljudima. Od toga, samo 7% živi u studentskom domu. Sve skupa, preko 90% studenata zavisi od roditelja, i što znači da studenti, a i sam proces studiranja, zavise od SES roditelja..Upravo zbog toga je važno da postoji sistem kredita, domova i stipendija koji bi podržavali studente iz porodica nižeg SES. Iako ovi mehanizmi postoje, oni imaju dve mane: (1) njihov obuhvat je mali i (2), usmereni su ne na one kojima je podrška najpotrebnija, dakle decu iz nižih društvenih slojeva, već na najbolje studente i đake. Tokom 2014. godine, od oko 240 hiljada upisanih studenata na državnim i privatnim fakultetima, kredite i stipendije koristilo je 19.150 studenata, a u studentske centre smešteno je 17.129 korisnika. Od oko 850 hiljada učenika, kredite i stipendije koristilo je 11.720, a u Srbiji 61 učeničkom domu bilo je smešteno 10.199 korisnika. ii Prema sadašnjoj zakonskoj regulativi, iii studentski krediti primarno su

ABSTRACT Education inclusiveness has been the strategic orientation of the Serbian education system since 2009 (Law on Foundations of the Education System). The development of the inclusive education system is supported by the new legislation, establishment of new structures at the national, local and school levels, training of teachers and schools, additional financial resources for school development, establishment of support networks, manuals and public promotion activities. However, monitoring and assessment of the effectiveness of these solutions has remained at a rudimentary level due to a number of circumstances (e.g. poorly developed education information system, insufficiently developed system for external school evaluation). As a result, within the project titled Development of Comprehensive Monitoring Framework for Inclusive Education in Serbia,a proposed monitoring system has been developed, based on all relevant contextual circumstances and sufficiently informative for the creation of new inclusive education policies. The Monitoring Framework for Inclusive Education in Serbia (hereinafter: the Framework) is multifunctional and comprehensive, so as to include all management levels (national, municipal and school). The Framework features one significant innovation it distinguishes between input, process and output indicators. The logic behind the said distinction is quite relevant, especially at the beginning of introduction of inclusive education: the effects of inclusive education (output indicators) result from a successfully delivered education process (process indicators), which, in turn, can only be the consequence of the effect of input variables/indicators. Therefore, in the first few years of introduction of inclusive education, it makes the most sense to focus monitoring efforts on input indicators, i.e. to determine whether all envisaged measures have consistently reached the beneficiaries (schools, teachers, children, parents) and then later to switch the focus to process indicators, to verify whether the measures are adequately implemented. Subsequently, after several years, it would make sense to focus on monitoring output indicators. The structure of the Framework, as well as the indicators it establishes, are inspired by a number of sources> a) the structure and indicators identified in the comparative analysis of the quality assurance system and external evaluation of education in Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Scotland and Wales; b) areas of research of inclusive education in Serbia, identified by reviewing a large number of studies published since 2009; c) the measures derived from the legislative framework for inclusive education in Serbia; as well as d) consultations with members of the Inclusive Education Support Network and other experts in this field. Based on all these four sources, a matrix of monitoring areas and subareas was created at each of the three levels described above and for each of the three types of indicators, and then indicators were formulated or classified for each cell in the matrix. This contributed to great comprehensiveness of the Framework, which is also significant for the start of introduction of inclusive education, since it enables multi-layer monitoring, but with an inbred capability to simplify and focus the monitoring system, in the later years, on the aspects that prove to be especially critical or sensitive, or in fact particularly successful. The Framework also contains the proposed values (comparison criteria) for a number of indicators for various time intervals, thus setting development expectations from the inclusive education system. In the current version of the Framework, these values are set primarily based on the logical analysis and on indirect findings about the status of certain indicators, identified by reviewing national research studies, and they are only given as an informed estimate. The expected indicator values given in the Framework, regardless of the above mentioned limitations, may already at this point serve as a useful guide, especially with respect to monitoring input indicators. In terms of their function, they are important for initiating the process of implementation of innovations, and they are more the subject of logical than empirical analysis. The Framework is developed taking into account the need for its multifunctionality and capability of enabling the production of information for the following purpose: a) annual or multiannual national level reporting on the state of affairs in inclusive education, based on selected input, process and output indicators, b) municipal-level reporting on the state of affairs in inclusive education, c) complementing the framework for external school evaluation with new indicators, d) supporting the development of school self-evaluation, and for e) various research purposes and meta-analysis of a larger number of studies. Finally, it is important to underline…

Iz perspektive praktičara u obrazovanju, podatak da veći deo varijanse postignuća gimnazijalaca objašnjavaju, više nego što je to uobičajeno, nekognitivni činioci, može biti znak da određeni učenici postižu slabije rezultate zbog obeshrabrenosti unutar školskog konteksta, straha od negativne evaluacije, negativne slike o sebi, nastale usled negativnih evaluacija ili smanjene motivacije usled gubitka uverenja da će dobre ocene dovesti do ostvarenja životnih ciljeva. Na uzorku od 297 beogradskih gimnazijalaca iz šest beogradskih gimnazija, koji pohađaju treći razred, ispitivan je odnos između akademskog self-koncepta, lokusa kontrole, postavljanja obrazovnih ciljeva i samoregulisanog učenja i školskog uspeha. Prediktori objašnjavaju 30% varijanse prosečnim ocenama na polugodištu (R = 0,544; R2, = 0,296; F = 24,765; p = 0,000) a svaki prediktor značajno doprinosi objašnjenju varijabilnosti kriterijumske varijable (standardizovani regresioni koeficijenti kreću se od 0,14 do 3,3 – u apso...

The main goal of this research was to study the correlates of school underachievement and to sketch the possible profile of the gifted underachiever. The study was conducted on a sample of high school students in Belgrade (N = 434). The subjects were administered a battery of ability tests and asked to self-estimate their intelligence. On the basis of ability test and
school achievement data, the subjects were classified into three groups: gifted underachievers (N1 = 26), gifted students (N2 = 81), and others (N3 = 332). The results of ANOVAs indicate
that these three groups differ significantly on the dimensions of Attitudes towards school: academic self-perception, attitudes toward teachers, assessment goals, and motivation and self-regulation. Also, significant between-group differences emerge on the following dimensions of self-concept: assessment of ability, assessment of achievement, and academic self-confidence. These dimensions show the highest correlation with the canonical function that efficiently discriminates between underachievers and gifted students (canonical correlation coefficient = .70, performance of classification = 91.6%). Students who do not realize their potential in school, although they consider themselves to be equally intelligent as gifted students, do not draw their confidence and self-esteem from academic achievement. Gifted underachievers evaluate educational goals as less important and are not motivated to make an effort in school. Also, they are likely to come into conflict with teachers in order to challenge their authority. These results suggest that being an underachiever is a „choice of will“, rather than the unwilling result of difficulties in the environment, psychological problems or underdeveloped meta-cognitive skills, but an alternative interpretation is also plausible. The roots of this hypothetical choice are examined with reference to the educational system and its possible effects of „normalization“.

Education inclusiveness has been the strategic orientation of the Serbian education system since 2009 (Law on Foundations of the Education System). The development of the inclusive education system is supported by the new legislation, establishment of new structures at the national, local and school levels, training of teachers and schools, additional financial resources for school development, establishment of support networks, manuals and public promotion activities. However, monitoring and assessment of the effectiveness of these solutions has remained at a rudimentary level due to a number of circumstances (e.g. poorly developed education information system, insufficiently developed system for external school evaluation). As a result, within the project titled Development of Comprehensive Monitoring Framework for Inclusive Education in Serbia,a proposed monitoring system has been developed, based on all relevant contextual circumstances and sufficiently informative for the creat...