regard to the education system in general and the sys-tem of professional development in particular.1
For example,
“In 1995 the priorities were set as follows:
•professional development for education managers;
•methodology for teaching foreign languages;
•methodology for teaching in the primary school;
•techniques of performance assessment;
•integrated curriculum development for the primary school.
It should be noted that these tenders had an inter-esting feature, namely, among the members of the tender committee were some organizations that acquired a significant part of the total amount of financing. For example, the Ministry of Education and Science published the following in the newspaper
“Izgl¥t¥ba un Kultra” on February 7, 1997: “The ten-ders for professional development programs for teachers were reviewed by a committee consisting of experts from the Ministry of Education and Science, the In-service Training Centre, the Professional Educa-tion Centre …” In the report on the approved financ-ing, it is stated that approximately 24% of the total amount in the tender was awarded to the In-service Training Centre and the Professional Education Centre!
In the tender for the year 2002, the conflict of interests was eliminated by the Ministry of Education and Science Instruction No. 81 “On the Procedure for Financing of Professional Development Programs for Teachers from State Budget Resources in 2002”, where it is clearly stated that 75,554 LVL or 73% of the total financing is coordinated by organizations under supervision of the Ministry of Education and Science: the Curriculum and Examination Centre, the State Youth Initiative Centre, and the Professional Edu-cation Centre.
G. Vasi∫evskis, the Director of the Department of General Education at the Ministry of Education and Science, explained the following: “The Law on Educa-tion states that with regard to local government edu-cation institutions, local governments should take responsibility to provide teachers with support in teaching methodology and other forms of profession-al development. In private education institutions, the founders should ensure opportunities for professional development of teachers. It is important for the state
to secure the implementation of the national policy, information, and methodology, which professional developments programs are primarily set for. Without fixed criteria, a major share or all financing was chan-neled into tenders. However, it is different now. As a result, the number of providers of professional devel-opment programs has decreased. However, it is cer-tain that education policy set by the state is followed, and it is certain that the questions most essential for the state are addressed.”
The statement above seems to be indisputable, if education policy is viewed in the light of a centralized system.
However, we may reconsider this statement from a different point of view:
•The number of participants in professional devel-opment courses financed from the state budget each year decreases (see Table 2).
•According to the information sent to the school boards by the Department of Professional Devel-opment “On Professional DevelDevel-opment of Teach-ers in 1995”: “The analysis of reports shows that in the future more attention should be paid to financ-ing professional development programs in the regions… School boards have better access to explore professional development needs for teach-ers.”
•On February 17, 1998, the Director of the Adviso-ry Board (one of the tasks of the board is to give recommendations for the development of in-serv-ice training) approved a document “On the Current Situation and Perspectives of Teachers in Latvia”, where in the section on “The Needs Analysis of In-Year Financing in LVL Teachers involved
1995 112,090 9,600
1996 122,478 9,600
1997 105,204 9,530
1998 105,204 6,900
1999 103,200 5,200
2000 103,7293,400
Table 2. The number of participants in professional development courses financed from the state budget.
Source: IZM Izgl¥t¥bas darbinieku noda∫a, 2000
service Training, Professional Development Pro-grams and Implementation” it is stated:
“...to provide financing for professional develop-ment programswhich are prioritized by teachers”.
•In the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooper-ation and Development) expert report on “The Analysis of the State Education Policy – Latvia. The Expert Report”, in summer of the year 2000 it was stated:
“Professional development should be intensified by increasing financing and coordination, and organiz-ing seminars to meet the needs the educators at schools have. More attention should be paid to tailor-made programs to meet local needs at schools, but external seminars do not meet the needs of local edu-cators, and teachers have to commute to attend exter-nal seminars, therefore they have to miss work in the classroom where they are needed most.”
•In the ASCD (Association for Curriculum Devel-opment) study in 2002:
“Efficient professional development focuses on assisting schoolchildren to achieve learning goals and to support their learning needs. There is cooperation – teachers and administration develop and implement plans. It is grounded in school, is long-term, is differ-entiated and is linked to the regional/national devel-opment.”
In sum, the implementation of professional devel-opment programs, which are really effective and needed for schools, depends on teachers themselves, schools and local governments.
“The Concept of Professional Development of Teachers” reinforces the conclusion above:
•“The gap between financing for professional devel-opment of teachers and the needs teachers have for professional development is growing;
•state financing for professional development does not correspond to teachers’ rights specified in the Law on Education, i.e., during the period of three years teachers have 30 days for professional development;
•state financing and local government subsidies do not provide resources for the implementation of priority tasks in professional development.”
Consequently, teachers at schools located in territories of economically weak local govern-ments have limited opportunities of good quali-ty tailor-made professional development pro-grams. In turn, it translates as a negative impact on the quality of teaching schoolchildren.
This statement may be compared to the findings in international studies: “National results in Latvia show cogently that schoolchildren in regional schools have less knowledge and skills than in Riga or other cities.”
(Geske, Gr¥nfelds, Kangro, 2001.)
The real investment of local governments and schools in professional development of teachers cannot be precisely calculated, because funding for professional development is found from other sour-ces, for example, administrative expenses, and there-fore it is classified as other expenditures. According to reports from some education boards, financing of pro-fessional development for one teacher is the follow-ing: in Riga district – 5 LVL, in Cïsis district – 4.86 LVL, in Valka district – 2.30 LVL.
The World Bank experts who carried out the survey
“Transition, the First Ten Years: Analysis and Lessons for Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union”
stated:
“By decentralizing financing and management of education to employ different financing mechanisms, the EU candidate states caused exceeded inequality in accessibility, especially regarding quality between the rich and poor parts of the society and between the rich and poor households. More and more relying on financing from households and the local society, the candidate countries have emphasized the differ-ence in education quality between the rich and poor regions. Local governments have a big difference in ability to mobilize resources from taxes and other sources.”
To improve the situation, a fraction of funding for professional development of teachers can be chan-neled to education boards, which could develop the most suitable model for professional development, taking into consideration the local needs of teachers.
Such a model would allow combining different forms of professional development and financing as, well as
choosing the most appropriate professional develop-ment programs.
The World Bank states that “risk of inequality is higher in those countries, where only salaries for teachers are financed from the central budget, leaving the rest of needs to be financed upon the responsi-bility of local governments and parents.”
Professional development should be reviewed within the context of the school’s priorities and teacher’s personal needs in order to promote teaching and learning. Demand regulates supply, and if the client has financial resources, the client can choose the most suitable and needed form and content to satisfy personal needs. As a result, the system may become more flexible, and the Ministry of Education and Science will be able to focus on other priority tasks.
This statement coincides with a project on the edu-cation system development by the Ministry of Educa-tion and Science “A Manual on School Assessment and Development Planning”, which will be used as a reference material in self-evaluation and external eval-uation processes. In relation to personnel develop-ment at school, there are two entries:
•relationship between personnel development and the school’s development plan (for example:
teachers participate in professional development programs corresponding to the school’s priorities;
the administration of the school provide profes-sional development of teachers in order to pro-mote the implementation of the development plan; in the development plan professional devel-opment needs of educators are indicated);
•efficiency of personnel development (for example, information about professional de-velopment events of each educator is system-atically registered; at school there is a speci-fied procedure to explore professional development needs of each educator; educa-tors report on the content and efficiency of professional development programs they have attended; at school there is a certain sys-tem to disseminate new information obtained at professional development programs).