10 SODOBNA PEDAGOGIKA 6/2015
Dr. Edvard Protner in dr. Nataša Vujisic-Živkovic
Uvodnik
v
Šolstvo in socialistična pedagogika v nekdanji Jugoslaviji od leta 1945 do 1990
Politični, kulturni in gospodarski razvoj nekdanje Socialistične federativne republike Jugoslavije (SFRJ, 1945-1990) ostaja tudi po njenem razpadu sorazmerno pogost predmet zgodovinskega raziskovanja, toda razvoju šolstva in v tem okviru pedagoške teorije v nekdanji skupni državi se ni posvečalo večje pozornosti, kaj šele da bi se poskušalo narediti celovito sistematično primerjalno analizo med nekdanjimi republikami in avtonomnimi pokrajinami, iz katerih so po letu 1990 nastale samostojne države. Zdi se, da se je zadnja leta tudi na tem področju zgodil večji premik in da zanimanje za komparativno preučevanje zgodovine šolstva in pedagogike v novonastalih državah na tleh nekdanje Jugoslavije narašča. V ozadju zanimanja za preučevanje zgodovinskih razvojnih silnic je prepričanje, da razumevanje aktualnih šolskih sistemov v vsaki posamezni državi na tleh nekdanje skupne države zahteva natančno poznavanje šolskega sistema in pedagoške teorije, ki sta se razvila po drugi svetovni vojni, obojega pa ni mogoče razumeti ločeno od dogajanja v celotni Jugoslaviji, ki je bilo v največji meri zaznamovano z enopartijskim političnim sistemom ter komunistično doktrino kot prevladujočo politično ideologijo.
Obrisi sistematičnejšega sodelovanja strokovnjakov, ki se v okviru študijskih programov pedagogike v novonastalih državah nekdanje Jugoslavije ukvarjajo z zgodovino šolstva in pedagogike, pa tudi s komparativno pedagogiko, so se začeli kazati septembra 2010, ko je Oddelek za pedagogiko na Filozofski fakulteti Univerze v Mariboru organiziral mednarodni kolokvij s predavanji gostujočih profesorjev z naslovom Pedagoški tokovi v nekaterih državah z območja nekdanje Jugoslavije in delavnico z naslovom Comparative Study on Development and Actual Trends of Pedagogy Textbooks as Indicator of Changing Cultural Identities in South Eastern Europe.1 Na delavnici, kjer so ob kolegih iz Hrvaške in Srbije sodelovali tudi kolegi iz Avstrije in Madžarske, je bila dana pobuda za sodelovanje pri mednarodnem raziskovalnem projektu (Historische comparatistischen Forschungen zur Entwicklung der Lehrerbildung/Historic comparative research for development of teacher education), ki je potekal v okviru večjega projekta na Univerzi Eötvös Lorand v Budimpešti in sta ga podprla Evropska unija in Evropski socialni sklad. Vodja in koordinator tega projekta, Andras Nemeth, je (za obdobje od junija 2010 do decembra 2012) predlagal oblikovanje skupine, ki bi zajela države jugovzhodne Evrope oziroma nekdanje Jugoslavije in bi se priključila podprojektu zgoraj omenjenega projekta (Teacher Education in Europe - History, Structure and Reform). Pobuda
1 Program kolokvija in delavnice je mogoče najti na spletni strani http://www.ff.uni-mb.si/novice/ dogodki/?inode=18733.
Uvodnik
11
je kmalu prerasla v konstituiranje skupine, ki je združevala kolege iz vseh delov nekdanje Jugoslavije,2 rezultat sodelovanja v projektu pa je bil skupni članek z naslovom The development of teacher training in the states of former Yugoslavia (Protner idr. 2012), ki ga je pozneje skupina še razširila in ločila v samostojno zgodovinskoprimerjalno analizo (Protner idr. 2012a) ter analizo učinkov bolonjske reforme na koncepte izobraževanja učiteljev v primerjanih državah (Protner idr. 2014).
Ob pripravi gradiva za skupna besedila se je postopno oblikovala ideja, da predstavimo in objavimo podrobnejše analize za vsako državo posebej. To je bil motiv za organizacijo novega simpozija, ki je bil realiziran oktobra 2012 na Filozofski fakulteti Univerze v Mariboru pod naslovom The Development of Teacher Education in the Countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe.3 Druženje kolegov iz regije je utrdilo prepričanje o nujnosti sodelovanja, saj nas družijo skupna zgodovinska izhodišča, srečanje pa je še dodatno utrdilo namero kolegov, da postane strokovno sodelovanje pri raziskovanju zgodovinskih in aktualnih trendov na področju šolstva in pedagoške teorije v državah na tleh nekdanje Jugoslavije trajno. Že dve leti pozneje (novembra 2014) se je skupina ponovno sestala, tokrat na Filozofski fakulteti Univerze v Beogradu, kjer je tamkajšnji Oddelek za pedagogiko in andragogiko organiziral simpozij z naslovom Školstvo i socialistička pedagogija u bivšoj Jugoslaviji 1945-1990.4 Vprašanja, ki naj bi jih obravnavali udeleženci simpozija, so bila naslednja:
-	socialistični pristop k izgradnji šolskega sistema skupaj s samoupravnimi elementi jugoslovanskega socializma in njegov odnos do nacionalne afirmacije južnoslovanskih narodov, ki so vstopili v skupnost držav;
-	odnos ideologije in politike do konstituiranja pedagoške metodologije in raziskovalne prakse;
-	vpliv ključnih pedagoških osebnosti iz tega obdobja;
-	institucionalne forme razvoja pedagoškega izobraževanja v deželah nekdanje Jugoslavije s posebnim ozirom na pripravo znanstvenoraziskovalnega kadra na področju izobraževanja;
-	domet socialistične pedagogike v nekdanji Jugoslaviji na posameznih disciplinarnih pedagoških področjih in projektirane vloge pedagoške znanosti v razvoju »znanstvenega socializma« v celoti.
Ta vprašanja (in naslov simpozija) ostajajo vodilo tudi pri zamisli tokratne tematske številke.
Simpozij je bil zamišljen kot intenzivno delovno srečanje članov omenjene skupine, torej tako, da vsak predstavi značilnosti razvoja socialistične pedagogike
2	Žal nam ni uspelo pridobiti nikogar s Kosova.
3	Koncept, program in povzetke referatov je mogoče najti na spletni strani http://mmpc20.pfmb. uni-mb.si/protner/. Motivi za organizacijo simpozija so podrobneje opisani v Protner (2012b).
4	Program in povzetke referatov je mogoče najti na spletni strani https://147.91.75.9/manage/shares/ Quality_of_education/Skolstvo_i_socijalisticka_pedagogija.pdf.
10 SODOBNA PEDAGOGIKA 8/2015
Dr. Edvard Protner in dr. Nataša Vujisic-Živkovic
v svoji državi - nekdanji jugoslovanski republiki - ter svoj pogled nanj. Večino članov skupine druži generacijska pripadnost - šolsko izobrazbo smo si pridobili, ko smo še živeli v skupni državi, poklicno in akademsko kariero pa smo večinoma nadaljevali vsak v svoji državi, ki je nastala na tleh nekdanje Jugoslavije. Gre torej za mlajšo generacijo pedagoških raziskovalcev, ki (večinoma) ni bila aktivno vključena v raziskovanje takratne šolske politike ali pedagoške teorije, kaj šele da bi imela priložnost na oboje vplivati, zato je bilo na simpoziju v Beogradu toliko zanimiveje prisluhniti spominom (93-letnega) Nikole Potkonjaka, enega najvidnejših akterjev izgradnje socialistične pedagogike in samoupravljavske prosvetne politike v Jugoslaviji.
Tematska številka, ki je pred vami, prinaša prispevke, ki so bili pripravljeni za predstavitev na omenjenem simpoziju, vendar pozneje na podlagi medsebojnega usklajevanja in recenzentskih pripomb še dograjevani in popravljani. Članki obravnavajo značilnosti »socialistične pedagogike« v posameznih republikah, ki so sestavljale nekdanjo Jugoslavijo.
Zdenko Medveš, zaslužni profesor Univerze v Ljubljani, se simpozija v Beogradu žal ni mogel udeležiti, čeprav je bil povabljen in z omenjeno skupino tesno sodeluje. Za to številko je pripravil prispevek z naslovom Socialistična pedagogika, ujeta v mit o pravičnosti enotne šole in kulturno hegemonijo. Gre za avtorja starejše generacije, ki je - drugače kot drugi avtorji člankov v tej številki - aktivno sodeloval v oblikovanju tako šolske politike kot pedagoške teorije. Izhodišče njegove analize »socialistične pedagogike« v Sloveniji temelji na razlikovanju med šolsko politiko ter pedagoško teorijo, pri čemer avtor v uvodu zagovarja tezo, da izraz »socialistična pedagogika« ni uporaben klasifikacijski termin za poimenovanje pedagoške smeri v povojni Jugoslaviji, saj je bila pedagoška teorija preveč pluralna, da bi jo bilo mogoče opisati z izrazom »socialistična« - predvsem pa je bila ta teorija bliže znanstvenim pedagoškim tokovom v mednarodnem prostoru kot pa jugoslovanski šolski politiki. Tako Medveš že v uvodu zavrne dve v širši javnosti splošno uveljavljeni prepričanji: da je bila pedagoška teorija v povojni Jugoslaviji povsem monolitna in da je bila povsem podrejena državni ideologiji in politiki, ki jo je diktirala Zveza komunistov Jugoslavije - pojem »socialistična pedagogika« te različnosti preprosto ne označuje dovolj enoznačno in je povsem neuporaben za premišljeno kategoriziranje pedagoške paradigme. Avtor je v prvi verziji članka obe tezi sistematično argumentiral na 36 straneh, vendar je bilo treba članek skrajšati in prilagoditi uredniškim pravilom, tako da se je v tej številki posvetil samo analizi druge teze, prvo pa bo v obliki samostojnega članka predstavil v eni od naslednjih številk Sodobne pedagogike.
Po avtorjevem mnenju se je šolska politika v nekdanji Jugoslaviji povsem usmerila na vzpostavitev enotne šole kot tistega ideala, ki je bil ustrezno uglašen z ideologijo Zveze komunistov Jugoslavije. Ob tem avtor izriše dve ključni fazi reformiranja šolskega sistema na zvezni ravni, strokovne polemike, ugovore in odpor, ki se je oblikoval med predstavniki pedagoške znanosti v Sloveniji. Nadalje razvije in utemeljuje tezo, da propada obeh reform ne moremo iskati v strokovnih
Uvodnik
11
šolskosistemskih rešitvah, temveč je bil posledica konflikta med centralistično in unitaristično naravnanostjo šolske politike na eni strani in prizadevanjem za ohranitev šolske avtonomije ter kulturne identitete posameznih republik na drugi strani, pri čemer je bil odpor do zvezne šolske politike v Sloveniji še posebno močan, in to tako na ravni strokovne pedagoške argumentacije (kjer je imel najpomembnejšo vlogo Vlado Schmidt, vodilni teoretik na Oddelku za pedagogiko na Filozofski fakulteti v Ljubljani v tistem času) kot na ravni javnega mnenja, ki so ga oblikovale kulturne in strokovne organizacije civilne družbe. Ne samo da ta pogled odpira povsem nov pogled razumevanja »socialistične pedagogike« in podira ustaljene sodbe, ki povojno pedagoško misel vrednotijo pejorativno omogoča tudi drugačen pogled na tiste razlage razpada Jugoslavije, ki izpostavljajo ekonomske in politične neenakosti - namesto njih Medveš izpostavlja kulturne razlike.
Slog pisanja razkriva osebno angažiranost avtorja in to je gotovo zelo dragocena odlika besedila. Ob sklicevanju na relevantno literaturo in arhivsko gradivo (tudi iz osebnega arhiva) je avtorju uspelo rekonstruirati kronologijo šolskih reform v Jugoslaviji, njihovo pedagoško, ideološko in politično utemeljitev ter znanstveno distanco do njih, ki so jo gojili vodilni pedagoški teoretiki v Sloveniji. Besedilo bo v prihodnosti nedvomno standard za vse tiste, ki bodo raziskovali povojno jugoslovansko pedagoško misel, saj po eni strani ponuja teoretski aparat, ki omogoča sistematičen raziskovalni pristop, po drugi strani pa merilo za presojo, v kolikšni meri teza o odvisnosti pedagoške teorije od šolske politike velja tudi v drugih nacionalnih okoljih oziroma republikah nekdanje Jugoslavije. To merilo je mogoče uporabiti že v odnosu do drugih člankov te tematske številke.
Avtorja naslednjega članka prihajata iz Hrvaške. Igor Radeka je profesor na Oddelku za pedagogiko Univerze v Zadru, Štefka Batinic pa je zaposlena v Hrvaškem šolskem muzeju in je sodelavka Univerze v Zagrebu. Njun članek (ob prikazu šolskih reform povojnega obdobja ter izgradnji šolske mreže) postavlja vprašanje kontinuitete pedagoške misli med obdobjem pred drugo svetovno vojno, ko je bila na Hrvaškem v okolju živahnega teoretsko pluralnega dogajanja vodilna pedagoška paradigma kulturna oziroma duhoslovna pedagogika, in obdobjem po drugi svetovni vojni, ko je bila ta tradicija grobo prekinjena. To ponazorita z analizo življenjske poti Stjepana Patakija, edinega predvojnega profesorja pedagogike, ki je ohranil položaj na Univerzi v Zagrebu tudi v povsem novih političnih okoliščinah povojne Jugoslavije. Prav ideološkim pritiskom povojne politične oblasti pripisujeta, da se je Pataki v povojnem obdobju povsem odrekel paradigmi kulturne pedagogike in postal celo »pionir razvoja socialistične pedagogike tako na Hrvaškem kot tudi v celotni Jugoslaviji«.
V večini prispevkov te tematske številke bomo v takšni ali drugačni obliki naleteli na misel, da so se bili pedagoški teoretiki prisiljeni ukloniti ideološkim pritiskom, pa vendar se zdi njuna ugotovitev, da se povojna socialistična pedagogika Stjepana Patakija ni pomembno razlikovala od teorije preostalih pedagogov, in to ne le na Hrvaškem, temveč tudi v drugih republikah, preveč kategorična. Vsaj za Slovenijo teza o monolitnosti povojne pedagoške teorije ne velja; kot pokaže Zdenko Medveš v svojem prispevku (prim. tudi Protner 2000, Medveš 2010), obstajajo dovolj jasni indici, da je Stanko Gogala, univerzitetni profesor pedagogike, ki je
10 SODOBNA PEDAGOGIKA 2/2015
Dr. Edvard Protner in dr. Nataša Vujisic-Živkovic
na Univerzi v Ljubljani že v predvojnem obdobju (podobno kot Pataki v Zagrebu) razvijal duhoslovno pedagoško paradigmo, tudi po vojni ohranil kontinuiteto svojega teoretskega snovanja, obenem pa tudi položaj profesorja. V zvezi s tem se zastavlja vprašanje, ali gre za razlike v percepciji teoretskega pluralizma v posameznih republikah povojne Jugoslavije ali pa je bil položaj v Sloveniji vendarle drugačen kot v drugih republikah. Dopustiti je treba tudi možnost, da gre pri Gogali za izjemo, saj je bil na primer Franc Pediček, pedagog, ki je v bistveno manjšem obsegu kot Gogala zagovarjal duhoslovni (antropološki) koncept vzgoje, v Sloveniji deležen hudih strokovnih in poklicnih diskvalifikacij (prim. Šinkovec 2013).
Tezo, da se je povojna pedagoška misel povsem poenotila in podredila vladajoči socialistični ideologiji, v svojem prispevku zagovarja tudi Nataša Vujisic-Živkovic, profesorica na Oddelku za pedagogiko in andragogiko Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Beogradu. Že naslov njenega prispevka Konstitutivna diskontinuiteta: šolstvo in pedagogika v socialistični Srbiji nakazuje, da je bila diskontinuiteta s predvojnim obdobjem v Srbiji močno prisotna, vendar je poanta avtoričinega prispevka tudi poudarek, da je bila ta diskontinuiteta hkrati konstitutivna za razvoj šolstva v socialistični Srbiji, ki mu je treba pripisati tudi številne pozitivne premike na področju emancipacije, povečane dostopnosti izobraževanja, večje enakopravnosti žensk in manjšinskih narodnih skupnosti, povečane dostopnosti izobraževanja za kmečko mladino ... V okviru tega avtorica jugoslovanskih šolskih reform ne pro-blematizira tako, kot jih je v svojem prispevku Zdenko Medveš, in očitno je, da so bile te reforme v Srbiji deležne bistveno manj kritične refleksije pedagoške stroke kot na primer v Sloveniji. Po drugi strani pa nam s prikazom percepcije avtorjev, kot sta Pataki in Schmidt v Srbiji, avtorica izriše prepletenost pedagoških idej v skupni državi in prizadevanje za izgradnjo izvirne, metodološko dobro podprte pedagoške teorije, kar nikakor ni bilo omejeno na posamezna nacionalna okolja.
Pa vendar je iz prispevkov v tej tematski številki mogoče razbrati, da se je pedagoška teorija v nekdanji Jugoslaviji razvijala zelo neenakomerno. Medtem ko v Sloveniji, na Hrvaškem in v Srbiji od prvih povojnih let naprej delujejo pedagoški teoretiki, ki usmerjajo konstituiranje »socialistične pedagogike«, se Bosna in Hercegovina sooča s povsem drugačnimi problemi. Snježana Šušnjara, profesorica na Oddelku za pedagogiko Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Sarajevu, v članku z naslovom Razvoj šolstva in pedagogike v Bosni in Hercegovini v obdobju med koncem druge svetovne vojne in letom 1970 izpostavi izjemno slabe šolske razmere, ki so bile v tej republiki nekdanje Jugoslavije pred drugo svetovno vojno. Bosni in Hercegovini je povojni čas hitrih družbenih, gospodarskih in kulturnih sprememb prinesel vrsto negativnih sociokulturnih sprememb, povezanih s prisilno industrializacijo, po drugi strani pa je to obdobje šolske modernizacije, ki je učinkovito odpravljala nepismenost in prispevala k splošnemu dvigu izobrazbene ravni prebivalstva. Kot v vseh drugih republikah nekdanje Jugoslavije sta se šolska politika ter pedagoška teorija tudi tukaj do leta 1948 ravnali po sovjetski pedagogiki, po političnem razdoru s Sovjetsko zvezo pa sta se ravnali predvsem po ideoloških direktivah partijskih kongresov. Drugače kot v Sloveniji, na Hrvaškem in v Srbiji, kjer so vidni pedagoški teoretiki izobraževali šolske delavce in oblikovali podobo pedagogike kot znanosti od leta 1945 naprej, je bilo treba v Bosni in Hercegovini
Uvodnik
11
te profesorje šele formirati. Avtorica opisuje uspeh generacije izbranih študentov pedagogike, ki jih je Ministrstvo za prosveto Bosne in Hercegovine leta 1954 poslalo na študij v Beograd in Zagreb, po povratku v Sarajevo pa so na Katedri za pedagogiko Filozofske fakultete v Sarajevu prevzeli učiteljska mesta in se uveljavili kot pedagoški teoretiki tudi v širšem jugoslovanskem merilu.
Še večje pomanjkanje strokovnjakov, ki bi se s pedagogiko ukvarjali na ravni znanosti, je bilo v Črni gori. Vučina Zoric, profesor na Oddelku za pedagogiko Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Črni gori, v svojem članku z naslovom Izobraževalna politika v socialistični Črni gori že v uvodu pojasni, da tukaj vse do razpada države ni bilo osebe, ki bi pedagogiko razvijala na omembe vredni znanstveni ravni. Še več, v Črni gori v obdobju do razpada države ni bilo niti študijskega programa pedagogike, ki bi zagotavljal znanstveno spremljanje in morda tudi oblikovanje šolske politike, razvoj pedagoške teorije ter formiranje pedagoških delavcev. Prisotnost »socialistične pedagogike« avtor analizira v prikazu razvoja šolske politike: opiše delovanje političnega sistema, postopke sprejemanja šolske zakonodaje, odvisnost strokovnih organov od partijskih usmeritev ipd., pri čemer se opira na klasifikacijo obdobij, ki označujejo bistvene reformske premike v razvoju jugoslovanske socialistične družbene ureditve. Njegova analiza je sicer usmerjena v specifiko črnogorskega razvoja, vendar nam hkrati izriše delovanje partijskih, političnih, šolskoupravnih ter pedagoških struktur v celotni Jugoslaviji, kar bi lahko zelo koristilo prihodnjim raziskovalcem tega obdobja. Sklep, ki ga avtor izpelje, nam nazorno prikaže vso protislovnost razvoja jugoslovanske družbe: na eni strani se je politični sistem v okviru samoupravljanja razvijal v smeri vedno večje decentralizacije šolskih upravnih organov, na drugi strani pa je pristojnost za oblikovanje šolske politike ostajala centralizirana v najvišjih partijskih strukturah.
Na protislovja že v naslovu Dosežki in protislovja v razvoju šolstva in pedagogike v socialistični Makedoniji (1945-1990) opozarja tudi Suzana Miovska-Spaseva, profesorica na Inštitutu za pedagogiko Filozofske fakultete Univerze svetega Cirila in Metoda v Skopju. Tudi ta avtorica poroča, da je bila razvitost pedagoške teorije v prvem desetletju po drugi svetovni vojni na zelo nizki ravni, čeprav je bila pedagogika na Filozofski fakulteti v Skopju prisotna od ustanovitve leta 1946 naprej. V teh razmerah se je tudi tukaj (tako kot v drugih republikah nekdanje Jugoslavije, ne glede na razvitost pedagoške teorije) pedagoška misel opirala na sovjetsko pedagogiko, marksistično filozofijo in program Komunistične partije Jugoslavije ter njene dokumente. Tako kot Zdenko Medveš in Nataša Vu-jisic-Živkovic tudi Suzana Miovska-Spaseva ugotavlja, da se je bistven preobrat v razvoju pedagoške teorije zgodil konec petdesetih in v začetku šestdesetih let, ko se je začela uveljavljati empirično-induktivna metodologija pedagoškega raziskovanja. Zagon, ki ga je s tem dobila pedagoška znanost, je ob intenzivnem raziskovalnem delu omogočil tudi kritično vrednotenje in distanciranje od politično diktiranih šolskoreformskih zamisli oblasti. Medtem ko besedila tokratne tematske številke sicer ne zanikajo pozitivnih pridobitev razvoja šolskega sistema v republikah nekdanje Jugoslavije, pa Miovska-Spaseva te pridobitve za Makedonijo tudi posebej izpostavi. Makedonija je v nekdanjo Jugoslavijo po drugi svetovni vojni vstopila kot republika z izrazito slabo razvito šolsko mrežo in izobraženostjo prebivalstva.
10 SODOBNA PEDAGOGIKA 7/2015
Dr. Edvard Protner in dr. Nataša Vujisic-Živkovic
Rezultate, ki jih je razvoj šolstva naredil v Makedoniji v socialističnem obdobju, avtorica označuje kot »impresivne« in pri tem izpostavlja vrednote (podobno kot Nataša Vujisič-Živkovič), kot so dostopnost izobraževanja, neselektivnost, pravica do izobraževanja v materinščini, sekularnost izobraževanja. Zanimivi pa so tudi tisti poudarki v njenem prispevku, ki nakazujejo, da so bili v Makedoniji sorazmerno močno prisotni nekateri pedagoški koncepti, ki so podobni tradiciji progresivne oziroma reformske pedagogike ali pa celo neposredno prevzeti iz nje, kar postavlja novo polje vprašanj, ki bi jih bilo vredno preučiti na ravni komparacije pedagoških tokov v republikah nekdanje Jugoslavije.
Sodobna pedagogika s tematsko številko o šolstvu in socialistični pedagogiki v Jugoslaviji do njenega razpada prinaša prvo sistematično zgodovinsko pedagoško primerjavo pedagogike in šolstva med državami, ki so nastale na tleh nekdanje Jugoslavije. Obseg in vsebina razprav sta še daleč od tega, da bi bila vsa zapletenost ter raznolikost razvoja pedagogike in šolstva v socialistični Jugoslaviji celovito obdelana, vendar pa je obravnava te teme pomemben korak k boljšemu razumevanju skupne zgodovine in prepoznavanju zablod, problemov in potencialov socialističnega obdobja. Nedvomno bodo tukaj objavljena besedila pomembna referenčna točka pri prihodnjem raziskovanju na tem področju, ki ga je z gotovostjo mogoče pričakovati, saj je to po eni strani potreba, ki izhaja iz notranje logike pedagoške znanosti, po drugi strani pa pomemben korak k povezovanju in spoznavanju pedagogov mlajše generacije v regiji. Sodobna pedagogika želi biti tudi v prihodnje odprt forum razprav, ki bodo prispevale k boljšemu razumevanju pedagoških tokov in trendov v tranzicijskih državah.
Literatura in viri
Medveš, Z. (2010). Pedagogika med humanistiko, družboslovjem in tehniko. V: D. Nečak (ur.). Pogledi: humanistika in družboslovje v prostoru in času. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, str. 84-113.
Protner, E. (2000). Stanko Gogala in pedagoške polemike med obema vojnama. Sodobna
pedagogika, 51, št. 5, str. 38-55. Protner, E., Medveš, Z., Batinič, Š., Miovska-Spaseva, S., Radeka, I., Spasenovič, V., Šušnjara, S., Zorič, V. in Vujisič-Živkovič, N. (2012). The development of teacher training in the states of former Yugoslavia. V: A. Nemeth in E. Skiera (ur.). Lehrerbildung in Europa: Geschichte, Struktur und Reform. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, str. 237-265. Protner, E., Medveš, Z., Batinič, Š., Miovska-Spaseva, S., Radeka, I., Spasenovič, V., Šušnjara, S., Zorič, V. in Vujisič-Živkovič, N. (2012a). Primerjava razvoja izobraževanja učiteljev v državah nekdanje Jugoslavije. Šolska kronika, 21/45, št. 1/2, str. 82-100. Protner, E. (2012b). Mednarodni znanstveni simpozij Razvoj izobraževanja učiteljev v državah centralne in jugovzhodne Evrope (Maribor, 11.-13. 10. 2012). Sodobna pedagogika, 63/129, št. 5, str. 212-216. Protner, E., Medveš, Z., Batinič, Š., Miovska-Spaseva, S., Radeka, I., Spasenovič, V., Šušnjara, S., Zorič, V. in Vujisič-Živkovič, N. (2014). The Bologna reform of subject teacher education in the newly founded states in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoška istraživanja, 46, št. 1, str. 7-28.
Uvodnik
11
Šinkovec, S. (ur.). (2013). Franc Pediček, slovenski pedagog. Ljubljana: Inštitut Franca Pedička, Društvo katoliških pedagogov Slovenije, Jutro.
Dr. Edvard Protner in dr. Nataša Vujisic-Živkovic, urednika tematske številke
6 
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 2/2015	Zdenko Medveš
Editorial
The educational system and socialist pedagogy in former Yugoslavia (1945-1990)
The political, cultural and economic development of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1945-1990) remains a relatively frequent topic of historical examination after the country's breakup. However, less attention has been paid to the development of the educational system and thus the development of pedagogical theory in the former state, let alone any attempts at comprehensive, systematic and comparative analyses among the former Yugoslav republics and autonomous regions that became independent states after 1990. In recent years there seems to have been a major shift in this area, too, and there is a growing interest in comparative studies of the history of educational systems and pedagogy in the states newly formed in the area of former Yugoslavia. This interest in historical development is underpinned by the belief that understanding current educational systems in each individual state of former Yugoslavia requires a profound knowledge of the educational system and pedagogical theory as they developed after World War II. This cannot be understood in isolation from events in the whole of Yugoslavia, which was predominantly defined by the single-party political system and the communist doctrine as the dominant political ideology.
Foundations of a more systematic cooperation among experts who do research in the history of education and pedagogy as well as comparative pedagogy within the educational studies programs in the states formed in the area of former Yugoslavia date back to 2010. In that year the Department of Pedagogy at the Faculty of Arts, University of Maribor, Slovenia, organized an international colloquium Pedagogical flows in the countries of former Yugoslavia and a workshop Comparative study on development and actual trends of pedagogy textbooks as indicator of changing cultural identities in South Eastern Europe} At the workshop, with participants from Croatia and Serbia as well as Austria and Hungary, the initiative was put forward to collaborate on the international research project Historische comparatistischen Forschungen zur Entwicklung der Lehrerbildung / Historic comparative research for development of teacher education conducted within a larger project at Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest and supported by the European Union and the European Social Fund. The chair and coordinator of the project Andras Nemeth suggested the formation of a group (for the period from June 2010 until December 2012) which would include the countries of Southeast Europe / former Yugoslavia and which would join a subproject of the above-mentioned project (Teacher education in Europe - History, structure and reform). The initiative soon led to the formation of a group which included colleagues from all
1 The programs of the colloquium and the workshop are available at: http://www.ff.uni-mb.si/ novice/dogodki/?inode=18733.
Editorial
7
parts of former Yugoslavia,2 and the outcome was the joint article The development of teacher training in the states of former Yugoslavia (Protner et al. 2012). Later the article was extended and divided into a separate comparative analysis (Protner et al. 2012a) and an analysis of the effects of the Bologna reform on the concepts of teacher training in the compared countries (Protner et al. 2014).
When working on the articles, we came up with the idea of presenting and publishing more detailed analyses for each state individually. This was the motive for the organization of another symposium, in October 2012, which took place at the Faculty of Arts, University of Maribor, Slovenia, called The development of teacher education in the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe.3 Socializing with colleagues from the region confirmed our belief in the necessity of collaboration, given that we share historical bases. Moreover, we became clear about the intention of permanently collaborating in researching historical and current trends in education and pedagogical theory in the countries originating in former Yugoslavia. Only two years later (in November 2014) the group met again, this time at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Serbia, as their Department of Pedagogy and Andragogy organized the symposium Educational system and socialist pedagogy in former Yugoslavia 1945-1990.4 The issues addressed by the symposium participants were the following:
-	the socialist approach to the development of the educational system, together with the self-management elements of Yugoslav socialism and its attitudes toward the national affirmation of South Slavonic peoples who entered into the common state;
-	the attitudes of ideology and politics toward the constitution of pedagogical methodology and research practice;
-	the influence of key pedagogical authorities from the period;
-	institutional forms of the development of pedagogical education in the countries of former Yugoslavia with a special emphasis on the training of scientific and research staff in the area of education;
-	the reach of socialist pedagogy in former Yugoslavia in individual pedagogical disciplines and the projected role of pedagogy in the development of "scientific socialism" as a whole.
The same topics (and the title of the symposium) were guiding us also when conceiving the present thematic issue of this journal.
The symposium was conceived as a work-intensive meeting of the group members in which each member would present the characteristics of the development
2	Unfortunately, we were unable to have any participants from Kosovo.
3	The concept, program in paper summaries are available at: http://mmpc20.pfmb.uni-mb.si/ protner/. The motives for the organization of the symposium are dealt with in more detail in Protner 2012b.
4	The program and paper summaries are available at: https://147.91.75.9/manage/shares/ Quali-ty_of_education/Skolstvo_i_socijalisticka_pedagogija.pdf
8 
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 2/2015	Zdenko Medveš
of socialist pedagogy in her/his country - a former Yugoslav republic - and her/his view of the development. The majority of the members belong to the same generation - we were educated when still living in the same state, but we continued our professional and academic careers in different states that were once part of former Yugoslavia. We are, thus, a younger generation of pedagogical researchers, who (mostly) did not actively participate in examining socialist educational policies or pedagogical theory, let alone having an opportunity of influencing them. It was therefore immensely interesting, at the symposium, to listen to the memories of 93-year-old Nikola Potkonjak, one of the most prominent people building socialist pedagogy and self-management educational policies in Yugoslavia.
The thematic issue brings contributions that were prepared for the symposium. After the symposium they were extended and changed on the basis of editorial coordination and reviewers' observations. The articles examine the characteristics of "socialist pedagogy" in the individual republics which formed former Yugoslavia.
Zdenko Medves, emeritus professor at the University of Ljubljana, was unfortunately not able to attend the symposium in Belgrade, although he had been invited and works closely with the group. For the present issue he wrote the article Socialist pedagogy: Caught between the myth of the fairness of the unified school and cultural hegemony. Medves is an author of the older generation, who - unlike other authors in this issue - actively participated in the creation of both educational policies and pedagogical theory. The starting point of his analysis of "socialist pedagogy" in Slovenia is a distinction between educational policies and pedagogical theory. In his introduction, the author advances the thesis that the term "socialist pedagogy" is useless as a classifying term to name pedagogical orientations in postwar Yugoslavia, since pedagogical theory was too plural to be described with the expression "socialist". Most of all, the theory was closer to international scientific pedagogical trends than Yugoslav educational policies. Already in the introduction Medves shakes two convictions widely spread in the general public: that pedagogical theory in postwar Yugoslavia was totally monolithic and that it was completely subordinated to the state ideology and politics as dictated by the Communist Party. The concept "socialist pedagogy" simply does not describe unambiguously enough the diversity and is quite useless in a well-considered categorization of pedagogical paradigms. In the first version of the article the author provided systematic arguments on both thesis on 70 pages, but the text had to be shortened and adjusted to the editorial rules, so that in this version Medves focuses on the second thesis only. He is going to present the first thesis in an independent article in one of the future issues of the Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies.
According to the author, educational policies in former Yugoslavia were entirely defined by establishing unified school as the ideal which was in sync with the ideology of the Communist Party. He delineates two key stages in the educational system reforms at the federal level and the controversies and objec-
Editorial
9
tions among pedagogy experts in Slovenia. Medves advances the thesis that the collapse of both the reforms was not due to expert educational-system solutions but rather due to the conflict between the centralist and unitarist orientation of educational policies on the one hand and attempts at preserving educational autonomy and cultural identity of individual republics on the other hand. The opposition to federal educational policies in Slovenia was especially strong - both at the levels of expert pedagogical argumentation (with Vlado Schmidt, the leading theorist at the Department of Educational Sciences at the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana, having the most important role) and public opinion created by cultural and professional organizations of civil society. Not only does this view open up a completely new perspective on how to understand "socialist pedagogy" and not only does it undermine long-held beliefs that value postwar pedagogical thought pejoratively, but it allows for a different view of the breakup of Yugoslavia from those emphasizing economic and political inequalities - instead, Medves stresses cultural differences.
The style of writing reveals the author's personal commitment, which is surely valuable. Referring to relevant literature and archive materials (including his personal archives), the author has succeeded in reconstructing the chronology of educational reforms in Yugoslavia, their pedagogical, ideological and political foundations as well as scientific distance from them as maintained by leading pedagogical theorists in Slovenia. The text is doubtlessly going to become a standard for everyone doing research in Yugoslav pedagogical thought, since it provides a theoretical apparatus to enable a systematic research approach and it also provides a measure to assess the degree to which the thesis on the dependence of pedagogical theory on educational policies is valid in other national environments (republics of former Yugoslavia). This measure can already be used in relation to the other articles published in this thematic issue.
The authors of the next article are from Croatia. Igor Radeka is a professor at the Department of Pedagogy at the University of Zadar, Croatia, and Stefka Batinic works at the Croatian School Museum as well as with the University of Zagreb, Croatia. Their article Pedagogy and school system in Croatia between the end of World War II and the end of 1950s addresses the question about the continuity of pedagogical thought between the time before World War II, when cultural pedagogy was dominant in the environment of lively and plural theoretical considerations, and the time after the war, when the tradition had been abruptly broken off. They illustrate it with an analysis of the life of Stjepan Pataki, the only prewar professor of pedagogy who retained his position at the University of Zagreb also in the completely new political circumstances of postwar Yugoslavia. The authors see the ideological pressures of postwar political authorities as the reason for Pataki's renunciation of the paradigm of cultural pedagogy and for his becoming "a pioneer of the development of socialist pedagogy both in Croatia and the whole of Yugoslavia".
The majority of the articles published here suggest that pedagogical theorists were forced to yield to ideological pressures. Yet Radeka and Batinic's conclusion that Stjepan Pataki's postwar socialist pedagogy did not differ significantly from
10 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 2/2015	Zdenko Medveš
other theorists', not only in Croatia but also in other republics, does seem too categorical. The thesis on a monolithic postwar pedagogical theory is not valid at least as far as Slovenia is concerned. This is supported by Zdenko Medves in his article (cf. also Protner 2000, Medves 2010), since there are obvious clues that Stanko Gogala - a university professor of pedagogy, who developed the cultural pedagogical paradigm at the University of Ljubljana already before the war (similarly to Pataki in Zagreb) - maintained the continuity of his theoretical notions as well as his position as professor. In this relation, the question arises about possible differences in the perception of theoretical pluralism in individual republics of postwar Yugoslavia or the possibility that the situation in Slovenia was different from other republics. We should also acknowledge the possibility that Gogala was an exception, as Franc Pedicek - an educator who advocated the cultural (anthropological) concept of education far less strongly than Gogala - had to face serious professional denigration (cf. Sinkovec 2013).
The thesis that post-was pedagogical thought was entirely unified and subordinated to dominant socialist ideology is also supported by Natasa Vujisic Zivkovic, a professor at the Department of Pedagogy and Andragogy at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade. The very title of her article, Constitutive discontinuity: Education and pedagogy in the socialistic Serbia (1945-1990), suggests that discontinuity between pre- and postwar periods in Serbia was strong. However, the author also emphasizes that the discontinuity was constitutive of the development of the educational system in socialist Serbia, which must be attributed to a number of positive changes in the areas of emancipation, improved access to education, greater equality for women and minority ethnic communities, greater access to education for rural youth, etc. In view of that, the author does not question Yugoslav educational reforms in the same way as Medves does in his contribution, and it is obvious that these reforms received much less critical attention of educational experts in Serbia than, say, in Slovenia. On the other hand, the author presents the perception of authors like Pataki and Schmidt in Serbia, demonstrating the intertwining of pedagogical ideas in former Yugoslavia and the attempts at constructing an original, methodologically well-founded pedagogical theory, which was by no means limited to individual national environments.
And yet the articles published here show that the development of pedagogical theory in former Yugoslavia was very uneven. Whereas there were pedagogical theorists working and directing the constitution of "socialist pedagogy" in Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia after the war, Bosnia and Herzegovina had to face entirely different problems. Snjezana Susnjara, a professor at the Department of Pedagogy, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, wrote the article Development of school systems and pedagogy in Bosnia and Herzegovina — From the period after World War II to the 1970s, in which she highlights the extremely bad educational conditions in this former-Yugoslav republic before World War II. The postwar period of fast social, economic and cultural changes brought Bosnia and Herzegovina numerous negative sociocultural changes related to forced industrialization. On the other hand, this was a time of educational modernization that was effective in reducing illiteracy and increasing educational levels of the
Editorial
11
population. As in all other Yugoslav republics, educational policies and pedagogical theory in Bosnia and Herzegovina followed Soviet pedagogy until the year 1948, and after the political conflict with the Soviet Union they primarily followed the ideological directives of Communist Party congresses. Unlike Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia, where notable pedagogical theorists educated pedagogues and created an image of pedagogy as science from 1945 onward, Bosnia and Herzegovina still had to form such professors. Susnjara describes the successes of the generation of selected pedagogy students who were sent to study in Belgrade and Zagreb by the Ministry of Education in 1954. Having returned to Sarajevo, they were appointed as professors at the Chair of Pedagogy at the Faculty of Philosophy in Sarajevo and became established pedagogical theorists not only in their own republic, but also all over Yugoslavia.
An even more serious lack of experts to approach pedagogy at the level of science was felt in Montenegro. In the introduction to his article Educational policy in socialist Montenegro, Vucina Zoric, a professor at the Department of Pedagogy, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Montenegro, explains that until the breakup of Yugoslavia there was no-one to develop pedagogy at any noteworthy scientific level. What is more, until the breakup there was no study program of pedagogy available in Montenegro to guarantee expert monitoring and perhaps creation of educational policies, the development of pedagogical theory or formation of pedagogues. The author analyses the presence of "socialist pedagogy" through his presentation of the development of educational policies. He describes the functioning of the political system, the procedures of the adoption of educational legislation, the dependence of expert bodies on party-political directions, etc. In so doing, he employs the period classification that identifies crucial reform shifts in the development of Yugoslav socialist social order. His analysis does focus on the specifics of Montenegrin development, but it also provides us with an outline of how Communist Party, political, school-authority and pedagogical structures functioned in Yugoslavia as a whole, which may be immensely helpful to future researchers into the period. The conclusion that the author draws illustrates vividly all the contradictions of the development of Yugoslav society: on the one hand, within self-management, the political system was developing in the direction of an increased decentralization of school regulatory bodies, but on the other hand the responsibility for designing educational policies remained centralized in the top party-political structures.
Contradictions are obvious from the very title of the article Achievements and contradictions in the development of schooling and pedagogy in socialist Macedonia (1945-1990), written by Suzana Miovska Spaseva, a professor at the Institute of Pedagogy at the Faculty of Philosophy, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Macedonia. This author also reports that the level of development of pedagogical theory in the first decade after World War II was very low, although pedagogy was present at the Faculty of Philosophy from its establishment in 1946. In such circumstances in Macedonia (just as in other former-Yugoslav republics, regardless of how developed pedagogical theory was) pedagogical thought leaned on Soviet pedagogy, Marxist philosophy and Communist Party programs and
12 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 2/2015	Zdenko Medveš
documents. Similarly to Zdenko Medveš and Nataša Vujisic Živkovic, Suzana Miovska-Spaseva also finds the key shift in the development of pedagogical theory to have occurred in the late-1950s and early 1960s when empirical inductive methodology of pedagogical research began to be established. The added impetus that pedagogy as science gained together with intensive research also allowed for critical assessments of and distance from politically dictated reform ideas of the authorities. While authors published in this thematic issue do not deny the positive achievements of the development of the educational system in former-Yugoslav republics, Miovska-Spaseva lays special emphasis on the achievements for Macedonia. Macedonia became part of Yugoslavia after World War II as a republic with a particularly badly developed school network and low levels of education. The author describes the development of the educational system in Macedonia in the socialist period as "impressive". She (like Nataša Vujisic Živkovic) highlights the values such as accessibility of education, non-selectivity, right to education in the native language, secular education. Additionally, her text interestingly emphasizes that some pedagogical concepts - similar to or even directly taken from the tradition of progressive or reform pedagogy - were relatively strongly present in Macedonia. This, then, opens an entirely new field of inquiry into comparing pedagogical trends in former-Yugoslav republics.
This thematic issue of the Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies on education and socialist pedagogy in Yugoslavia until its breakup is the first systematic historical comparison of pedagogies and educational systems in the countries originating in former Yugoslavia. The range and content of the articles are still far from presenting comprehensively all the complexity and diversity of the development of pedagogy and education in socialist Yugoslavia. But it is an important step toward a better understanding of our shared history and a recognition of the delusions, problems and potentials of the socialist period. The contributions published here will undoubtedly be an important reference point for future research into the field, which is certain to follow. Such research is, on the one hand, a need arising from the internal logic of pedagogical science, and on the other hand it means an important step toward collaboration and mutual acquaintance of younger-generation education experts in the region. The Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies wishes to continue as an open forum of debate, contributing to a better understanding of pedagogical currents and trends in countries in transition.
References
Medveš, Z. (2010). Pedagogika med humanistiko, družboslovjem in tehniko. In: D. Nečak (ed.). Pogledi: humanistika in družboslovje v prostoru in času. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, pp. 84-113.
Protner, E. (2000). Stanko Gogala in pedagoške polemike med obema vojnama. Sodobna pedagogika, 51, issue 5, pp. 38-55.
Editorial
13
Protner, E., Medveš, Z., Batinic, Š., Miovska Spaseva, S., Radeka, I., Spasenovic, V., Šušnjara, S., Zoric, V., and Vujisic Živkovic, N. (2012). The development of teacher training in the states of former Yugoslavia. In: A. Nemeth and E. Skiera (edsj. Lehrerbildung in Europa: Geschichte, Struktur und Reform. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 237-265.
Protner, E., Medveš, Z., Batinic, Š., Miovska Spaseva, S., Radeka, I., Spasenovic, V., Šušnjara, S., Zoric, V., and Vujisic Živkovic, N. (2012a). Primerjava razvoja izobraževanja učiteljev v državah nekdanje Jugoslavije. Šolska kronika, 21/45, issue 1/2, pp. 82-100.
Protner, E. (2012b). Mednarodni znanstveni simpozij Razvoj izobraževanja učiteljev v državah centralne in jugovzhodne Evrope (Maribor, 11.-13. 10. 2012). Sodobna pedagogika, 63/129, issue 5, pp. 212-216.
Protner, E., Medveš, Z., Batinic, Š., Miovska Spaseva, S., Radeka, I., Spasenovic, V., Šušnjara, S., Zoric, V., and Vujisic Živkovic, N. (2014). The Bologna reform of subject teacher education in the newly founded states in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoška istraživanja, 46, issue 1, pp. 7-28.
Šinkovec, S. (ed.). (2013). Franc Pediček, slovenski pedagog. Ljubljana: Inštitut Franca Pedička, Društvo katoliških pedagogov Slovenije, Jutro.
Edvard Protner, Ph.D., and Nataša Vujisic-Živkovic, Ph.D., editors of the thematic issue