natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
From this time, school autonomy became an end in itself, it was no longer dependent on more general national reforms or concerns about the modernisation of public administration.
Od takrat je šolska avtonomija postala cilj sama po sebi in ni več podrejena modernizaciji javne uprave oziroma ni zgolj del splošnejših sistemskih sprememb.
The third scenario is extremely rare; in order to define school autonomy some countries rely on more flexible administrative regulations issued by executive bodies.
Tretji pristop je izjemno redek: nekatere države določajo šolsko avtonomijo kar z upravnimi predpisi, ki jih izdajajo izvršilna telesa.
These are by nature more adaptable. For example, this occurs in some German Länder such as Baden-Württemberg where a project entitled ‘Autonomy of
V nekaterih nemških deželah, npr. v Baden-Württembergu, so šolsko avtonomijo vpeljali kar s projektom 'Šolska avtonomija in upravljanje izobraževanja v šolskem letu 2006/07', na Bavarskem pa je projekt prenosa vodenja šole del širšega projekta deželne uprave, imenovanega 'Poskusni projekt Modus F'.
8) Établissement Public Local d’Enseignement – Local Public School.
Prenos pristojnosti in nove dolžnosti so bile šolam predpisane,
9) Article 117 gives the state power to determine general education standards, fundamental principles and basic levels of service across the whole country.
(9) 117. člen daje državi moč, da določa splošne izobraževalne standarde, temeljna načela in osnovno stopnjo storitev po vsej državi.
Regions are responsible for legislating on teaching matters ‘subject to the provisions for school autonomy’.
Regije so odgovorne za predpisovanje pedagoških vidikov, kamor spada tudi predpisovanje strokovne avto- nomije.
These general measures of 2001 complete the specific legislative framework for school autonomy: Act No. 59, 15th March 1997.
S to spremembo ustave iz leta 2001 so dopolnili posebno zakonodajo o šolski avtonomiji – zakon 59 (15. marec 1997).
Chapter 1:Implementation of School Autonomy
Prvo poglavje: Uvajanješolske avtonomije ne da bi se imele pravico izreči o njih.
Schools and the Management of Education in the School Year 2006/07’ or in Bavaria where a ‘leadership devolution’ scheme was developed as part of the administrative project ‘Pilot Project Modus F’.
Pravzaprav so šole nove pristojnosti, naloge in dolžnosti dobile proti svoji volji.
Whatever the chosen model, be it through general education legislation, specific legislation or more flexible regulations, because it was determined at central level by legislative procedures, autonomy was imposed on schools in nearly all countries.
V najboljšem primeru so v nekaterih reformah šole lahko izbirale, ali se pridružijo poskusnim projektom ali ne; na primer na Portugalskem in v nekaterih nemških deželah (na primer v Rhineland-Palatinate).
Schools themselves did not seek autonomy, the legislation made provision for the transfer of new duties without schools having any right to express their view on the matter.
Položaj šol v Združenem kraljestvu (v Angliji) izstopa v tem, da vse šole niso pridobile samo večjih finančnih in upravnih pristojnosti, ampak imajo nekatere kategorije šol še dodatne svoboščine.
In fact, schools acquired new responsibilities in spite of their own wishes.
Načelno šole lahko izberejo pravno kategorijo, ki najbolj ustreza njihovemu značaju in namenom, kar zanje ni bilo nekaj novega.
At best, under some reforms such as those in Portugal or in some German Länder (for example in Rhineland-Palatinate) schools were allowed to choose whether to join pilot projects. The position of the United Kingdom (England) is notable in that, not only have all schools gained wide-ranging financial and managerial responsibilities, but there are also some categories of school with additional freedoms.
Pravni okviri, sprejeti že leta 1944, so šolam v lasti cerkve ali drugih dobrodelnih organizacij (voluntary schools) omogočili, da se vključijo v šolski sistem, pri tem pa so lahko same izbrale, po katerih predpisih se bodo ravnale (ali bodo prejemale finančno pomoč, s katero bodo same upravljale (aided schools), ali bodo pod nadzorom cerkve (controlled schools) oziroma t. i. verske šole).
Schools can, in principle, choose the legal category which best suits their character and aspirations.
Šole so se odločale različno, glede na stopnjo avtonomije in finančne odgovornosti, ki so jo želele obdržati.
This diversity is not new; the legal framework originally established in 1944 enabled schools provided by voluntary bodies, mainly churches, to opt into the system with a choice of legal category (aided or controlled) related to the level of autonomy and financial responsibility they wished to retain. To these categories of school were added: grant-maintained schools (1988 to 1998); foundation schools (from 1998); and now, from 2007, trust schools.
V tem sistemu so še naslednje kategorije šol: šole, ki jih vzdržujejo šolske oblasti z javnimi sredstvi (grant-maintained schools) (1988 do 1998); šole, ki se vzdržujejo z javnimi sredstvi, s katerimi upravljajo neodvisno od lokalnih šolskih oblasti (foundation schools) (od 1998); in zdaj, od leta 2007, šole, ki se združujejo v konzorcije in se financirajo iz sklada konzorcija (trust schools).
From 1988, the City Technology College programme, and from 2000, the Academy programme introduced further levels of independence for new schools.
Od leta 1988 so s programom Mestnega tehnološkega kolidža in od leta 2000 tudi s programom Akademij (državnih šol, ki jih ustanavljajo in financirajo različni sponzorji) zelo povečali neodvisnost novih šol.
Apart from these important exceptions, school autonomy was imposed in a top-down fashion across Europe.
Razen teh pomembnih izjem je bila šolska avtonomija po vsej Evropi vpeljana z vrha navzdol.
This top-down nature of the school autonomy process is confirmed by the absence of any impetus from school staff.
Da je proces vpeljevanja šolske avtonomije potekal z vrha navzdol, potrjuje tudi popolna neiniciativnost šolskega osebja.
Taking into account the new freedoms at work, it could be logical for staff to have been at the forefront of the movement or, at least, strongly influential through their trade unions or school heads’ associations.
Glede na to, da so več svobode pridobili ravno zaposleni na šolah, bi bilo logično, da si ti najbolj prizadevajo za avtonomijo oziroma da bi poskušali vplivati vsaj v okviru svojih sindikalnih organizacij in ravnateljskih združenj.
However, it appears that their contribution was very limited.
Vendar kaže, da so le delno prispevali k večji avtonomiji.
In some countries, representatives of school staff were, at best, consulted about plans for reform.
V najboljšem primeru so v nekaterih državah šolske predstavnike vprašali za mnenje o načrtih za reformo.
In Estonia, the school heads’ union was involved in developing the thinking around school autonomy by suggesting amendments which were subsequently integrated into the reforms.
V Estoniji so bili ravnatelji šol vključeni na konceptualni stopnji in so lahko predlagali spremembe, ki so bile nato upoštevane pri pripravi reforme.
Some Nordic countries also entered into consultations with the trade unions before implementing their reforms.
Nekatere skandinavske države so se pred uvedbo reform prav tako posvetovale s sindikati.
In Bulgaria, the school heads’ union was also consulted on the school autonomy process during the reform at ISCED level 2.
V Bolgariji so sindikat ravnateljev šole vprašali za mnenje o šolski avtonomiji šele med vpeljevanjem reform na nižji sekundarni ravni.
In other countries, schools were also involved in developing the practical ways in which school autonomy was to be implemented.
V nekaterih drugih državah so bile šole vključene tudi v pripravo izvedbenih načrtov.
School by school negotiation took place with the ministry in Luxembourg before responsibilities were transferred.
V Luksemburgu se je vsaka šola posebej pogajala z ministrstvom, preden so se pristojnosti, naloge in odgovornosti prenesle nanje.
On a larger scale, Italy organised a vast consultation with schools before the orders were drawn up to implement Act No. 59 on school autonomy.
V Italiji so bolj na široko organizirali posvetovanja s šolami, preden so se odločili za uveljavitev zakona 59, ki govori o šolski avtonomiji.
Ninety per cent of schools gave their views on the outcomes of school autonomy, its management, the training available, or the relationship between school autonomy and the national training system.
Svoja mnenja o posledicah avtonomije, upravljanju šole, usposabljanju zanjo ter o povezavi med šolsko avtonomijo in sistemom izobraževanja učiteljev je oblikovalo kar 90 odstotkov šol.
Similarly, during trials in Romania, schools were consulted in order to identify their needs and the difficulties they had met in managing their new responsibilities.
Podobno so med poskusnim uvajanjem avtonomije v Romuniji šole vprašali za mnenje o tem, na katere težave so naleteli pri sprejemanju novih nalog in odgovornosti ter katere potrebe imajo.
However, even though trade unions and schools were consulted in some countries, it does not appear that the transfer of responsibilities resulted from demands made by people at the chalk face (with the exception of Italy, whose report highlights strong demands from school heads, and Slovenia which mentions intense activity by teachers regarding pedagogic innovation, linked to future consideration of pedagogic autonomy during the transition period following independence (1990-1996)).
Čeprav so se v nekaterih državah vendarle posvetovali s sindikati in šolami, pa vseeno ni mogoče sklepati, da so bila ta posvetovanja organizirana na zahtevo učiteljev in ravnateljev (razen v Italiji, kjer izrecno poročajo o zahtevi ravnateljev, in v Sloveniji, ki omenja močno pedagoško inovativno gibanje na šolah v prehodnem obdobju, ki je sledilo slovenski samostojnosti (1990–1996) in na katerem je gradila poznejše snovanje reform in uveljavljanje načela strokovne avtonomije).
The experience of the Nordic countries is markedly different from this very centralised transfer process.
Izkušnja skandinavskih držav je izrazito drugačna, kot so opisani precej centralizirani procesi prenašanja pristojnosti, nalog in odgovornosti na šole.
In Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway, local authorities became major players in the education system and could decide to grant autonomy to schools under their control if they felt it would be beneficial.
Na Danskem, Finskem, Švedskem in Norveškem so lokalne oblasti postale najpomembnejši akterji izobraževalnega sistema, tako da so se lahko odločile, da nekatere pristojnosti delegirajo šolam, če se jim je zdelo, da bi bilo to koristno.
Within each country, this resulted in the development of a variety of models by which responsibilities were transferred to schools.
V vsaki od teh držav so razvili različne modele prenašanja pristojnosti na šole.
In the same way, in the Netherlands, the principles behind deregulation prompted central
Podobno je bilo na Nizozemskem, kjer se je država na podlagi sprejetega načela deregulacije prenehala ukvarjati s podrobnostmi pri upravljanju šol in je prepustila več svobode tistim, ki so za upravljanje šole lahko dejansko odgovorni.
Overall, after three decades of massive change, the policy of school autonomy is now widespread throughout most European countries.
Na splošno lahko rečemo, da se je po treh desetletjih velikih sprememb šolska avtonomija razširila po večini evropskih držav.
A top-down approach was used, providing a strong framework for the new school freedoms.
Vpeljana je bila sistemsko z vrha navzdol.
Part II of this report examines the main areas of responsibility which were transferred to schools.
V drugem delu tega poročila bomo pregledali, na katerih področjih so šole pridobile večjo avtonomijo.
CHAPTER 2: LEVELS OF SCHOOL AUTONOMY AND TYPES OF SCHOOL DECISION-MAKING
DRUGO POGLAVJE: STOPNJE ŠOLSKE AVTONOMIJE IN VRSTE ODLOČANJA
The first chapter demonstrated that there were marked differences across Europe in the underlying rationale and the implementation timescale of the of the school autonomy process.
V prvem poglavju smo prikazali, da so po Evropi šolsko avtonomijo pojmovali precej različno in jo tudi vpeljevali v različnih časovnih obdobjih.
Therefore it is not surprising that, in 2007, the types of area in which schools have autonomy and the types of decision-makers also differ considerably.
Zato ni presenetljivo, da se leta 2007 sistemi prav tako precej razlikujejo glede na to, na katerih področjih imajo šole avtonomijo in katere ravni sprejemajo odločitve.
This chapter examines both the areas of autonomy and decisionmaking within schools.
Pričujoče poglavje prikazuje področja šolske avtonomije in procese odločanja v šolah.
Firstly, the study will analyse the areas of responsibility and degree of autonomy awarded to schools (section 2.1) and secondly, the role played by different types of school decision makers (section 2.2).
Najprej smo analizirali področja, na katerih so šole pridobile avtonomijo, stopnje te avtonomije (razdelek 2.1), nato pa še vlogo različnih akterjev, ki v šolah sprejemajo odločitve (razdelek 2.2).
Three basic areas of operation will be examined: the use of public funds, the raising and use of private funds and the management of human resources (selection, dismissal, discipline, etc.).
Ogledali si bomo tri osnovna področja: porabo javnih sredstev, pridobivanje sredstev iz zasebnih virov in njihovo porabo ter kadrovsko vodenje (izbira osebja, odpovedi, disciplinske zadeve ipd.).
Other areas of school operations which might also be within their domain such as education provision, education content (curriculum, teaching methods, etc.), pupil evaluation, and school regulations and organisation are not considered here. The third section (2.3) looks at the composition of school management bodies where they exist.
Drugih področij delovanja šol, ki verjetno prav tako spadajo v domeno šolske avtonomije, npr. poučevanje, izbira učnih vsebin, priprava učnih načrtov, izbira metod poučevanja, ocenjevanje učencev ter organizacija dela v šoli in priprava šolskih predpisov, tu ne obravnavamo.Tretji razdelek (2.3) prikazuje sestavo šolskih organov upravljanja, seveda tam, kjer so.
Because the areas of responsibility held by schools at ISCED levels 1 and 2 are very similar, these levels of education are generally treated together in this study.
Ker se šole na primarni in nižji sekundarni stopnji skoraj ne razlikujejo glede na področja, na katerih so pridobile večje pristojnosti, obravnavamo šole obeh stopenj kar skupaj.
Any differences that do exist are mentioned in the text and beneath the relevant figures on a case by case basis.
Razlike pa so v besedilu posebej omenjene, in sicer z ustrezno oštevilčenimi opombami za vsak primer posebej
Areas of responsibility and degree of autonomy
Področja in stopnje avtonomije
In this section, the degree of autonomy held by schools is divided into four broad categories ( autonomy – applies when a school takes decisions within the limits of the law or the general regulatory framework for education, without the intervention of outside bodies (even if they have to consult higher authorities); limited autonomy – when schools take decisions within a set of options predetermined by a higher education authority or obtain approval for their decisions from a higher authority.
V tem razdelku delimo stopnjo šolske avtonomije na štiri obsežne kategorije.10 Pri popolni avtonomiji šola lahko sprejema odločitve povsem samostojno, čeprav v okvirih zakonov ali drugih splošnih predpisov, morebitni zunanji organi pa ne posegajo v njene odločitve (celo kadar se mora posvetovati z višjimi oblastmi). Šola z delno avtonomijo sprejema odločitve v okviru vnaprej danih možnosti, ki jih določi višji organ šolske oblasti, ali pa mora za svoje odločitve pridobiti soglasje višjega organa šolske oblasti.
Schools are considered to be without autonomy when they do not take decisions in a given area.
Kadar na nekem področju šole ne sprejemajo odločitev, pravimo, da avtonomije na tem področju ni.
A fourth category appears in the organisational structures of some education systems.
V organizacijskih strukturah nekaterih izobraževalnih sistemov se pojavlja še četrta kategorija.
In some countries the administrative body and/or local authority may choose whether or not to delegate their decisionmaking powers in certain areas to schools.
V nekaterih državah se organi upravljanja in/ali lokalne oblasti lahko odločijo, ali bodo oziroma ne bodo prenesli moči odločanja na nekaterih področjih na šole.
In such cases, there may be differences between schools within the country in the level and areas of responsibility delegated.
V teh primerih se šole v isti državi razlikujejo glede na stopnjo in področja avtonomnosti.
In the Netherlands, the competent authority (bevoegd gezag) responsible for the school chooses the areas in which it delegates certain powers.
Na Nizozemskem se denimo pristojna oblast (bevoegd gezag), odgovorna (tudi) za šole, odloči, na katerih področjih bo svoja pooblastila delno ali v celoti prenesla na šole.
To a lesser extent it is found in Denmark (immovable goods and acquisition of computer equipment from public funds and selection for substituting absent teachers), and Finland (for example using public funds for operating expenses and recruiting substitute teachers).
V manjšem obsegu se to dogaja tudi na Danskem (ko gre za nakup nepremičnin in računalniške opreme iz javnih sredstev ter razporejanje učiteljev zaradi nadomeščanja odsotnih kolegov) in na Finskem (na primer pri porabi javnih sredstev za delovanje šole in zaposlovanje nadomestnih učiteljev).
1) A detailed table showing the different types of autonomy under each broad category and for each area discussed in this section is available in the annex.
(10) Podrobna tabela s prikazom različnih vrst avtonomije po naštetih kategorijah in področjih, omenjenih v tem poglavju, je v dodatku.
Use of publicfunds
Poraba javnih sredstev
Countries can be divided into three groups according to the degree of autonomy held by schools in their use of public funds which are allocated to cover several budget headings (capital expenditure, operating expenditure and acquisition of computer equipment).
Glede na stopnjo avtonomije, ki jo imajo šole pri porabi javnih sredstev, namenjenih za plačevanje stroškov premoženja, delovanja šole in nakup računalniške opreme, lahko države delimo v tri skupine.
In the first group (Belgium, Latvia and Sweden), schools have full autonomy (within the legal framework) in the use of funds for these budget headings.
V prvi skupini (Belgija, Latvija in Švedska) imajo šole popolno avtonomijo (v okvirih zakonskih določil) pri porabi sredstev za naštete proračunske namene.
Formally, delegation may, but will most probably not, occur in all areas in the Netherlands.
Na Nizozemskem sistem dopušča, da se ta odgovornost v celoti prenese na šole, vendar do tega po navadi ne pride.
In Denmark, depending on the type of expenditure, decisions may be delegated (or not delegated) to schools by the administrative body or taken by schools themselves.
Na Danskem lahko zunanji organi upravljanja šolam omogočijo svobodno odločanje o posameznih namenih porabe, ne vseh, v nekaterih primerih pa se lahko šole tudi same odločijo, ali bodo prevzele tako odgovornost ali ne.
Delegation also occurs in Finland except for buildings expenditure which does not fall into the remit of schools.
Do prenosa pooblastil prihaja tudi na Finskem, kjer je izvzeto le področje investicij, za katere šole ne morejo pridobiti pooblastil.
At the other end of the spectrum, in five countries, schools have no autonomy in their use of public funds. Decisions in these matters are not their responsibility in Bulgaria, Ireland (ISCED 1), France (ISCED 1), Cyprus and Romania.
V drugi skupini je pet držav, v katerih šole nimajo nikakršne avtonomije pri porabi javnih sredstev; to so Bolgarija, Irska (samo primarne šole), Francija (samo primarne šole), Ciper in Romunija.
In these countries decisions are taken by the higher education authorities although schools may be consulted during the procedure.
V teh državah sprejemajo vse odločitve višje šolske oblasti, čeprav v postopkih odločanja ponekod vprašajo šole za mnenje.
Greece is an exception since operating expenditure is determined either by the school (but subject to approval) or by a list of predefined options.
Tudi Grčija in Nemčija bi bili lahko v tej skupini držav, vendar z eno izjemo, saj v Grčiji stroške za svoje delovanje opredeli šola (odobriti jih mora višji organ upravljanja) ali pa so ti že vnaprej opredeljeni kot zaprt seznam možnosti, kaj vse je mogoče prijaviti kot upravičen strošek.
In Germany, this is the case for the acquisition of computer equipment.
V Nemčiji je sistem podoben, ko gre za nakup računalniške opreme.
The third group comprises countries where the degree of autonomy changes according to the category of expenditure.
V tretjo skupino spadajo države, kjer se stopnja avtonomije spreminja glede na kategorijo stroškov.
Generally all these countries have more autonomy for operating expenditure than for capital expenditure.
Na splošno imajo vse te države več avtonomije pri plačevanju stroškov delovanja kot pa pri investicijskih stroških.
In the latter case, schools often have no autonomy at all.
Pri slednjih šole pogosto nimajo nikakršne avtonomije.
In Lithuania, it is limited for both categories of expenditure.
V Litvi so šole omejene pri plačevanju obeh kategorij stroškov.
In France (ISCED 2), decisions about operating expenditure and the acquisition of computer equipment may be made by schools with the approval of the higher education authority.
V Franciji je mogoče, da šole na nižji sekundarni stopnji sprejemajo odločitve o stroških za delovanje in nakup računalniške opreme s soglasjem višjih izobraževalnih organov.
In Liechtenstein (ISCED 2), the degree of autonomy varies according to the level of expenditure.
V Lihtenštajnu se stopnja avtonomije nižjih sekundarnih šol spreminja glede na višino stroškov.
In the Netherlands, delegation from the competent authority (bevoegd gezag) regarding capital expenditure and/or acquisitions is formally possible but is most likely to remain in the domain of the competent authority.
Na Nizozemskem je sicer uradno možno, da pristojni organ (bevoegd gezag) investicije in nakupe prepusti v odločanje šoli, vendar pogosteje kar sam odloča o tem.
Figure 2.1: Autonomy of schools in the use of public funds, ISCED 1 and 2, 2006/07
Graf 2.1: Avtonomija šol pri porabi javnih sredstev, ISCED 1 in 2, 2006/07
Capital expenditure and/or acquisitions
Investicije in nakupi
Operating expenditure
Stroški delovanja
Acquisition of computer equipment
Nakup računalniške opreme
Limited autonomy
Popolna avtonomija
Full autonomy
Delna avtonomija
Belgium (BE fr, BE de): (a) refers to schools for which the Community is directly responsible and a minister is the responsible authority; and (b) refers to schools of the public and private grantaided sector.
Belgija (BE fr, BE de): (a) informacija se nanaša na šole, za katere je neposredno odgovorna skupnost, odgovorna oseba pa je minister; in (b) informacija se nanaša na javne in zasebne šole, ki se plačujejo iz javnih sredstev.
In the grantaided sector, the responsible authority is deemed to be the school-based management body.
V subvencioniranem sektorju je nosilec odgovornosti organ upravljanja na ravni šole.
Belgium (BE de) (a): Capital expenditure: schools can decide within a certain level of expenditure.
Belgija (BE de) (a): O investicijah lahko šole odločajo samo do določene višine sredstev, za več pa odloča ministrstvo.