Today I listened to Minister Sorin Kimpeanu’s explanation on the Digi TV channel at 12.00 on the draft laws on education. As always, His Lordship gave direct, specific answers, which perhaps added to the confusion for some, including myself, instead of reducing it.

1 Legality

A big surprise for many Romanians is why the public debate on the projects lasted so little and was scheduled at a time when teachers of all our education were on vacation, so they had little chance to follow or participate in the debate. The minister immediately gave us an explanation, at least on the first aspect. More precisely, until the refusal – the impossibility, as his Lordship states – to continue the debate due to legal restrictions. However, he forgot to say what kind of restrictions these are, in which normative text they are contained. The detail, however, is relevant, especially for an official who has become famous for truth and accuracy.

Not being a person of the law, I turned to the most convenient reference, quoted directly on the website of the Ministry of Education, in connection with the organization of the last round of online consultations with the public: Law 52 / 2003 “On Decision Making”. transparency of state administration”. I found several mandatory terms here, but they all prescribed minimum intervals (“minimum…”). I did not find a restrictive prescription (“maximum…”). Maybe I didn’t read carefully enough. Maybe I didn’t understand well enough. Therefore, I have a request to the minister to show the citizens of Romania which legal provision prevents the continuation of the debate.

2 Honesty and excellence

Legislative provisions giving national colleges the ‘privilege’ to organize their own admissions (a maximum of 90% of places) have also been highly controversial. I saw that even the teachers of these colleges expressed their disagreement with such differentiations in the network of schools – would they have time to conduct appropriate consultations among employees? In connection with these proposed differentiations, fears were expressed that they might become a source of corruption, of “specialized” meditations in the sense of the subjects to be presented in the examination, or even of their transfer to some candidates. Error! – the minister explained to us, because the subjects will not be compiled internally, but by a national body, and not for each individual school.

For me, this answer confused more than it clarified. For me, there remain serious unexplained question marks regarding the essence of the initiative: is registration for this competition carried out in a specific college? Then what will those candidates do who, having scored a certain score, will not be able to be admitted, although they could get in by taking the same tests, in exactly the same subjects, if they applied to other colleges? Or will this second exam be essentially a second “national assessment” of sorts, culminating in a new computerized distribution? Wouldn’t it make more sense then to try to strengthen the first national assessment so that it is relevant, rather than forcing children to sit two similar exams back to back in a very short space of time? To me, it looks like a kind of “second chance” in reverse: not for those who drop out of school, but for those who want to leave it with honors. Obviously, we should also deal with them, but without installing additional pass filters. In my view, the way forward would be the exact opposite, trying to alleviate the social pressures caused by barriers to entry that inevitably benefit children raised in wealthy families. Then we could also provide the flexibility of educational pathways that is vital to our education, so that it ceases to be like an obstacle course where, if you are unlucky enough not to overcome an obstacle, you are left to vegetate in its lap forever. Much more could be said on this subject – I have said much, others have said it – but I will stop to give way to another question.

I again ask the Minister to tell us as precisely as possible, as his Lordship is wont to do, what the detailed method of conducting this second examination will be, and what it will be used for.

3 Waiver of ownership

Regarding the provision that gives a person with a diploma and a doctoral degree the right to refuse them, there is almost nothing to say. It was offered again by Mr. Cimpeanu at the suggestion of Victor Viorel Ponta, then Prime Minister, embarrassed by the well-justified plagiarism conviction. As far as I remember, it was abandoned because of its obvious absurdity and the wave of negative reaction. I also remember that after entering the new mandate, Mr. Kimpeana was reminded of this episode, which his lordship qualified as a personal mistake due to a hasty assessment of the consequences.

Do I remember correctly, minister?

I see that recently there is an idea circulating about the possibility of giving up a doctorate “for a fee” by paying the equivalent of the amount invested by the state for the person concerned during his doctoral studies. I leave aside the fact that such a punitive measure would be ineffective for paying graduates. I’m just wondering what the decision someone would make in this situation would look like: “What costs me more? Should I get my money back for my studies or leave my doctorate in the drawer?”

This story reminds me of a funny situation during the time of Ceausescu, when residents of an apartment building were forbidden to cover their balconies with glass and wrought iron, otherwise they faced a fine. In this regard, the capital city hall was soon flooded by people who asked at which ticket office they could pay a fine in order to properly close the balcony. However, the reputation acquired by the doctoral system in Romania, at home and abroad, is not at all ridiculous.

I once again ask the minister to explain to us, illustrating at least a specific situation, to whom and in what way such a provision can be beneficial. I would also like to ask him if he is aware of any other country that has promoted similar measures and if his lordship thinks that maintaining this provision can help strengthen the reputation of Romanian PhD students.

4 Discrepancies

There were public reactions expressing disagreement with some aspects of the legislative projects, despite the tight deadlines and the chosen period. The most important would be, I believe, institutional ones, especially those coming from education, from schools, faculties, universities.

I don’t know how it was in schools, but in universities, of course, it was not very good.

The minister has extensive experience as a university teacher, rector, president of the National Council of Rectors. Your Excellency knows for sure that decisions are made with difficulty, painstakingly, in academic institutions, by competent bodies – Faculty Councils, University Senates – which, in this case. they could no longer meet in the summer. Often in important cases – shouldn’t the Education Laws be counted among them? – such decisions are preceded by consultations at all levels, with members and management of departments, with members and management of faculties, scientific research centers, other academic structures – which cannot be achieved in the interval designated for public discussion. There are, I repeat, issues that the minister knows about without the slightest doubt, but for reasons I do not understand, he preferred to ignore them.

I leave aside the fact that, being organized, bureaucratically, the debate did not seem to contribute in any way to what is essential in a debate: the exchange of ideas.

For the “marathon” of the last two days, it was announced that 1,000 people could register each day and each of them would be given 3 minutes to speak in order of registration. I am a philologist, but I still remember multiplication and division from school: 1,000 guests x 3 minutes = 3,000 minutes = 50 hours, instead of the planned 4. In these conditions, how to ask who those who subscribed are and what ideas they supported? Next, I understand, the report.

I would like to note one more organizational “trifle”: each legal entity/individual who wished to participate had to fill in, in order to gain access, a form in which, with the precision characteristic of the minister, write down the text of the law to which he wanted to make changes, and next to it proposed wording.

How many people with experience and, dare I add, vision in the field of education would make a laughing stock of themselves by trying to do something they have never done, write laws? I try to imagine, for example, how the late academic Solomon Marcus would have reacted to such an offer of “discussion”.

Finally, more hastily, still writing “on the corner of the table”, under time pressure, in a context that not only did not encourage, but even seemed intended to discourage participation in discussions, there were also initiatives to formulate points of view shared by institutions or groups of people with certain experiences or certain affinities. I know about four of them: the position of ANPRO – the National Association of Romanian Teachers “Ioana Em. Petrescu” – and the position of the country’s philological faculties regarding the status provided for the Romanian language and literature in the “baccalaureate 2027”. The first was published in Cultural columnist, in a group of texts divided into 3 numbers – is this also part of the “public discussion”, according to the minister? – the second, the assumption of the deans of the signatory faculties, was sent to the ministry, but I know about it because I am a philologist myself. The third text, which I have also followed, strictly addresses the issues of ethics and integrity addressed by the two legislative projects. It is accepted individually by 66 people who have experience and involvement in the relevant issues – course participants, members or presidents of ethics commissions in universities, members or presidents of national bodies that have authority in this field, etc. The main intention formulated in this text, quite naturally, was to continue the discussion in order to be able to consciously weigh the arguments “for” and “against” this or that legislative decision. The fourth text, signed by a group of 100 intellectuals, many of whom are leading names in Romanian culture, appears to be the only one that has so far caught the attention of the minister. His Holiness had a reaction to this, commented on in the media, which I quote below:

“We can understand the frustration of the interest group, but this should not affect the general interest of having a legislative framework that ensures the right to a quality education for over 3.5 million children and young people!”

Two points of detail: the “common interest”, however we define it, is to have a legislative framework that ensures children’s right to a quality education, but not to have it on August 24. Second observation: The minister seems to be implying that the “interests” of the group of signatories appear to be different from the just-articulated ones he “affects”. What does his lordship base this hint on? Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro