SCHOLAR: EDUCATION IN MOLDOVA

In contemporary terms, Moldova emerged from the Soviet Union in ruins.  Moldova was apparently named after a Romanian prince’s favorite dog named Moldova.  Moldova gained independence under prince Bogdan in 1359.  A notable person in Moldovan history is Stephen the Great (1957 – 1504) who protected Moldova against the invading Ottoman empire.  Stephen defeated the Turks and Wallachian forces with over 100,000 men (Worden 2014, page 21).  Today Moldovan consist of 90% Orthodox Christian (Worden 2014, page 21).  In 1538 the Ottomans finally captured Moldova although they never fully incorporated it the empire because local princes kept administrative control of the region.  Turkish Moldova became ignored and neglected although its elite where highly influenced by Turkish customs.  Before the Bucharest Treaty where the Russians annexed the eastern part of the country, Moldova was battling the Ottomans, Hapsburgs and Russians.  It was the Russians that are credited for bringing literacy to Moldova.  They also built roads and schools.  Tens of thousands of Russians and Ukrainians settled into the country under the delegation of Russian authorities.  In the second half of the nineteenth century, Russians pushed for mandating the Russian language to be used in Moldova.  In 1859 the remaining portion of Moldova, the western part, which was untouched formed what is Romania (Worden 2014, page 22).  In 1917 the Tsarist regime was dismantled this resulted in the Moldovan Democratic Republic (Worden 2014, page 23).  By March 1918 Moldova voted to unite with Romania.  By 1944 Soviets regained control of Moldova (Worden 2014, page 23).  They re-established boundaries.  This time they would shape the identity of the republics population.  They did this by creating a distinct national Moldovan identity.  The project is also known as, “Sovietization” (Worden 2014, page 24).  They were looking to incorporate this population to the larger Soviet peoples.  Moreover, the Soviets replaced the Latin alphabet with Cyrillic alphabet and by 1989 (Worden 2014, page 24), Moldovan became the national language.  In August 1991, the Moldovan parliament declared independence from the Soviet Union (Worden 2014, page 25). This would evidently form the Republic of Moldova.  With this, questions of reunification with Romania emerged.  Parties fought for support as people became divided.  There are three views points in the 1990’s that claim to explain the identity of the Moldovan people, they are as follows, Pan- Romanian, Eurasianist and Basarabisim.  The Pan- Romanian supported its heritage with Romanian.  Eurasianist however, sided with the Russian or Soviets.  And lastly, Basarabisim is a combination of both.  By Mid 2004 the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM) pushed to develop a distinct Moldovan identity.  This was a major part of their political platform.  This would be the beginning of the textbook controversy the country would experience in the future.  The confusion that colonization by the Ottomans and the Soviets would only add insult to injury as the government attempts to craft a unique identity.  

It was the use of Moldovan as the national language that encouraged educated professionals to revisit the idea of the history curriculum.  Up until that point, the Moldovan government was not as wealthy as other nations in Europe, they emerged in ruins from the Soviets, therefore, they used books donated by the Romanians.  The two books at the center of this subject of contention is the History of the Romanians and World History (Worden, 2014).  The PCRM announced that they would replace these textbooks.  With funding from the Council of Europe and EUROCLIO the PCRM would engage in what they believed to be nation building however, people would revolt claiming that the PCRM was falsifying the countries history.  The plan was to eliminate the two separate history courses pertaining to the two textbooks and create a single unified course which included aspects of both textbooks.  There were many critics of this approach as once replaced, people accused the government in glorifying the Soviets and denying ethnic Romanian identity.  Despite these claims, the government would push forward with their plans to modify the curriculum.  This resulted in an Integrated History course.  Teachers received little support or training from the government about this new material which caused educators to revert to teaching what they were teaching before the changes. 

The government was mainly concerned with creating an identity for the people to relate to, so that they may become citizens of Moldova.  The weapon by which this would be accomplished is the national history curriculum.  The government wanted people to develop a sense of patriotism for their country.  THE PCRM built their platform on attempting to create this national identity.  They wanted to unite the country and restore Moldova’s integrity.  Issues arose of the need to tell the truth about the Moldovan nation.  The party wanted to form citizens consciousness (Worden, 2014).  The people needed to understand the past so that they may be able to understand the future.  The books that were created resulting from the PCRM’s campaigns were accused of lies, one such lie is that Moldovans were Romanian people.  The government needed to create the democratic person, a citizen.  The social memory of being a submissive people is still evident as Moldova has been a nation that was conquered on many occasions.  This was a problem for the PCRM’s campaign for an independent Moldova.  In short, the PCRM was engaged in nation building.  They wanted to instil European values.  There were some that believed that history had been falsified on so many occasions that the Moldonvan people lost their grasp of their identity.  For example, the Soviets pushed, “Sovietization,” effectively denying Moldovans of an identity.  A compromise had to be reached and the way forward was through the history curriculum.  Moldova looked to Europe when adopting its Integrated History curriculum.  They saw that all of Europe had been doing this and evidently chose to follow.  Another issue was that the government needed to build a free-thinking citizen capable of critical thinking.  They would do this through increasing the student-centered approach of the books. 
                

Teachers, although are directly employed under the government had a distrust of the government and the new Integrated History course.  The curricula and exams are also determined by the Ministry of Education.  They provided little assistance to teachers teaching the course which caused problems.  Teachers generally believed they were working to the best of the interest of the students.  The democratic and political values are deemed as new values while traditional values were lost causing problems in the teaching of students civic responsibility (Worden, 2014).  The traits of being a patient people, hard working and submissive really resonated with teachers when prompted for explanations of the kind of people whom they think Moldova represents.  Generally a feature of Moldovan society is the distrust of the state.  People believed that the state couldn’t be trusted to write the curriculum of Integrated History because they would politicize it.  The problem with this is if a new political party gains power, the history would be rewritten again which would cause more confusion with national identity.  Teachers don’t earn much in Moldova, many have relatives supporting them and or working outside of the country.  Schools receive minimal funding, in fact, some schools are subsidized by wealthy parents.  Many teachers believed they were not living in a democratic society as they feel that disconnection, isolation or abandonment by the state.  Many teachers rejected the books that were made by the government.  It will take years to adjust to the changes.  

Lastly, Students were a major part of the introduction of the Integrated History course by the government.  These people were excluded from the reform.  Students at the time of the book were very socialized into the culture of the internet of things such as Twitter and Facebook.  These people felt disconnected from the government often distrusting the state.  From the perspective of political citizenship, they felt that the government wasn’t promoting or pursing the right legislation.  However, when looked at from the perspective of economic citizenship, they felt that their inability to find a job in Moldova was the states fault.  Lastly from the view of social citizenship, students felt that the state didn’t give them the kind of support that their parents received.  Students therefore felt that the state was corrupt and they explain many examples of this.  They felt that the government doesn’t respect their rights.  When the subject matter of the new curricula is considered, students generally didn’t care about identity but the government made it a big political issue.  They felt that identity became a political tool which distracts from actual issue and sways votes.  

I think the issue of Moldova is an interesting issue to the subject of comparative politics because the government was left to decide how it was they would approach the identity factor.  Moldova was always a nation that was under the control of another, and especially during the Soviet reign, Moldovan’s were not given the right to know about their identity.  It is therefore clear as to why the issue of the introduction of the Integrated History textbooks was a subject of contention.  The Moldovan government needed to do what other countries in Europe were doing and through this, they followed the EUROCLIO and Europe’s instructions but the matter of not providing teachers with clear enough instructions on how to teach the courses was an issue that the government could have improved on.  The PCRM was directly involved in nation building when they decided to make this issue a major part of their platform.  Moldova really needed to separate from the Romanians and form their own unique identity as they have become a separate nation, otherwise they may be at risk for another cultural invasion.  

SCHOLAR: EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA, BRITIAN, USA, LATIN AMERICA AND EUROPE

In order to be able to understand comparative education, it is first necessary to be able to define several recurring terms which will be used throughout this essay.  A historical context reveals the motives of education especially when considerate of political ideology.  This essay will explore education received in Australia, Britain and the United States.  It will brief on the Latin American experience and conclude with European education and its transformation.  Through this comparative analysis, one will ascertain an informed discourse about how education is provided in multiple contexts.  

To be able to look at the education of a specific nature, it is important to understand the concept of functional centralization or decenteralization.  This refers to the distribution of powers of an authority.  Education in some countries is managed by a Ministry of Education.  A centralized education system means that a single authority is responsible for all aspects of education.  In a centralized system the single authority makes the policy pertaining to education.  A move to separate this power would be referred to decentralization (Arnove R., et al, 2012).  Moreover if there is a transfer of power from higher to lower levels, it would be territorial decentralization.  Within territorial decentralization are three main subcategories which are as follows, deconcentration, delegation and devolution.  It is important to understand these terms as they relate to the power structures that administer education to a certain population.  Deconcentration is when a major authority creates branches.  Delegation is when an authority permits tasks to be completed by another authority lower in the power structure.  Devolution is when powers are held at subnational levels.  It is very important to understand the concepts of centralization and decentralization because it allows for a better understanding of the educational systems in place.  The reasons in which governments move to centralize or decentralize is because of political or administrative reasons.  For political reasons a government can choose to centralize to strengthen the power of the dominant group, they can on the other hand decentralize to spread or share the power.  For administrative purposes governments opt to facilitate bureaucratic efficiency.  There are also costs concerns and diversity considerations that governments may opt to perform de/ centralization.  In all, governments seek to nation build through education.  Governments vest their authorities with autonomy in decision making.  Through school- leaving qualifications, school textbooks and the operation of universities authorities can control the way education is provided.  Control of school leaving qualifications boards operated by the government may set entrance exams and the such so that they may control the quality of the students.  Through textbooks governments can control the ideology spread to the population via education.  For example, previously in China, they opted to use education to spread the ideology of communism to their students.  China has an official list of textbooks which are permitted to be used in schools.  These textbooks disseminate the ideas of communism and related subject matters.  Lastly, through the control of universities governments can influence the politics and reduce political threats.  Educated people serve as the fuel for activist movements and they are able to rationalize or normalize societal capitalism.

Through colonization, education spread to many countries.    Globalization has caused knowledge to be shared and disseminated from one country to another.  Through multiple voices, communities became diverse however, this diversity could be considered as a lack of agreements on values and ethics.  These disagreements can cause violence or even hatred.  Atrocities in the name of specific groups could be done, such is the case with Germany in WW2.  Dominant groups have and are marginalizing others (Arnove R., et al, 2012).  Although there is the risk of marginalization, education serves as a method to transform individuals.  Education can redefine who people are.  Identity is fluid and can be molded.  Through education identities can be formed.  In a multilayered construction of lives and cultures, governments can achieve identity creation.  This is then nation building.  

Australia, Canada and USA have federal systems in which substantial powers are given to the provincial governments.  Australia has pushed for centralized government control of the education system.  Education is provided under the human capital theory which viability of a nation is based on the foundation at which people are educated or skilled to work.  In Australia, the delivery of education occurs through grammar and largely private secondary education, a tertiary sector dominated by a university sector and a vocational and technical education to train people.  Schools in Australia all compete for students.  Therefore, the impact of neoliberalism in the Australian educational system is very evident as they move towards intensified market orientation.  For example in 2006 – 2007 Australia’s third largest export was education and in 2009 – 2010 educational services accounted for 36% of all exports.  Through the, “enterprise university,” a market becomes available in which universities can compete for students and funding from the government and private interests (Arnove R., et al, 2012).  

With pertinence to Britain after WW2 the welfare state reduced opportunity gaps between poor and rich.  Education became a pillar by which to reform the country.  Under Margret Thatcher however, the promotion of productivity and efficiency was paramount.  She promoted entrepreneurialism, consumer choice and reduced fiscal dependency.  They modeled the education system in Britain under the U.S. principles of monetarisim.  By the mid 1970’s it became clear that mass secondary schooling was reproducing patterns of inequality.  By 1984 Britain moved to centralize the curriculum through the School Examination Council and the School Curriculum Development Council.  This evidently dissolved the independent Schools Council.  Britain then decided to privatize through the Office for Standards Education.  They were responsible for standards in early learning, primary, secondary and post compulsory further education institutions and teacher education.  By 1994 Britain created a national curriculum for teacher education.  In 1996 the Education Act allowed students to borrow money from banks on the same terms as Student Loans Company.  This system was a U.S. style loan program which left students with debt payable after graduation (Arnove R., et al, 2012).  

The education system in the USA is based of neoliberalism.  Through this they focus on economic imperatives and choice agenda.  The role of the state, federal governments and corporations are factored in.  America is very competitive in a globalized world.  They address such problems as democracy, social cohesion and inequality.  The USA uses a corporatist model of schooling.  They believed that what has been effective in business can also be effective for fixing the education in USA public schools.  The dramatic expansion in global trade caused the USA to implement concepts of neoliberalism into their structures.  Governments opened markets, promoted free trade, reduced the public sector, reduced state intervention in the economy, and deregulated the markets.  The USA sought to privatize much of its government services as governments became bloated and inefficient.  The USA under Clinton established that in order to be successful in the globe, the USA needed an increase in highly skilled educated workers.  They based their educational policy under the concept of human capital (Arnove R., et al, 2012).    

Education in Latin America is riddled with the inability to mobilize enough resources or inability to provide sufficient wages.  Income inequality in Latin America is caused by its educational system.  Moreover, inadequate facilities, child labour and the distance of schools from communities are factors which affect school completion rates.  Large numbers of people from the least privileged sectors of society have not been enrolling to school.  Further, the average amount of education received by adults is less than six years.  The reduction of demand of oil has severely impacted Latin America’s prospects of improving the economy.  The rise of left centered socialist regimes has also made implications for policy.  The emergence of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America or ALBA was a response to the increasing influence of USA in the region.  Latin America has made attempts to expand the role of the state in redirecting resources.  Through these mutual agreements of member countries the cooperation of education is able to be accomplished.  Regardless, reduced government spending, outdated curricula and restricted access have ‘evidently reduced the quality of educations Latin Americans receive.  In Latin America public universities have started to charge for tuition, these fees could be the same as those charged in private institutions.  This is a result of insufficient state funding.  The decision to decentralize in Latin America has been very controversial.  Countries in Latin America that have decentralized include Columbia, Argentina, Mexico and Chile.  These countries that have decentralized face the issue of not having enough resources to make up educational costs which poses a problem for Latin America as a whole (Arnove R., et al, 2012). 

The Last region this essay is going to explore is Europe.  With the falling of socialisim in 1989, social and political change was imminent.  The objective to reform education to mirror the West was thus conceived.  Europe wanted to transform its socialist states to capitalist considerate economies in a globalized world.  There are three empires which are of significance in this region, the Hapsburg empire, Ottoman empire, and the Russian empire.  The Hapsburg empire was involved in educating all citizens so they can create a cohesive society.  The Ottoman empire were uninterested educating non-Muslims.  Therefore, each religion recognized by Islam ruled over their members with minimal interference.  Lastly, the Russian empire made a strong effort to make education a priority by establishing universities.  In the Post World War I era, curriculum development became the ideal tool to create a homogenized identity.  Policy makers favored highly centralized models.  European policy makers prioritized education and they encouraged the growth of higher education institutes.  By the early 1990’s Europeans began the discussion of decentralization.  They did this because they wanted to promote democracy, freedom, participation, and responsibility in education (Arnove R., et al, 2012).

As it becomes evident through this comparative analysis of education reform and policy, each region has their pros and cons.  They have evidently overcomed hardships and made due with what they had.  These changes don’t happen instantaneously.  Change occurs with a point of contention and through supportive voices countries can begin the transformation of policy and in this case education policy.  

SCHOLAR: IRANIAN SCHOOLS

Comparative education is the discipline of scrutinizing and evaluating different educational systems.  With pertinence to the education provided in Iran, we could see the educational bias and discrete racism towards aboriginals.  The author, Amir Mirfakhraie of “Discursive formations of indigenous peoples in Iranian school textbooks: racist constructions of the other,” takes a look at how education in the western countries and Europe privilege the colonizers while neglecting to depict the perspective of the natives that they invaded.  This article explores the term, “red skins,” and its racist connotations.  The article brings to light that it was the yellow skinned Asians that first settled in the new world.  The article questions Christopher Columbus’s venture or enterprise into America.  It provides some revealing information on the brutality that the whites created against the indigenous peoples which Iranian students are not invited to contemplate.  

As a first concept, the article argues that although Iranian scholars in their textbooks are critical of Euro-Western treatments of marginalized people across the world, they still depict that Anglo-Saxon Europeans are civilized/modern/progressive.  Moreover, they construct that the Iranian elite are a force that is revolutionary and who has struggled against colonization (Mirfakhraie, 2018).  They depict that White- Westerners were the exploiters of aboriginal interests to which aboriginals never had a voice.  The knowledge about aboriginals in the Iranian school system does not reflect the varied history of oppression and resistance of these people.  Thus, Iranian students don’t develop an adequate critique of Western imperialism.  Iranian students need to develop socio-empathic imagination, and this is done through getting an adequate historical context about events in the past and having multiple perspectives such as the oppressed and the oppressors.  This includes having accurate native representation (Mirfakhraie, 2018).  In this, people can make sense of the domination and oppression that has occurred.  

                Mirfakhraie draws from several authors who give some insight on the analysis of writings pertaining to the indigenous people.  These authors claim that it becomes increasingly important to get an accurate depiction of the history of their discrimination.  Also, these literatures should refrain from words to describe the indigenous such as, “primitive,” or “wild,” as this may indicate that the book is written under biased pretenses.  Further, books should refrain from using stereotypes.  Through this second concept, Amir was able to come up with key research questions in which to gain insight on the reification of the Orient, Occident and the Aboriginal other for a universal/scientific explanation (Mirfakhraie, 2018).  The author uses material from Iranian curricula (grade 1 – 9) to construct a methodology in which to understand the aboriginal point of view as well as the depiction of Iran and the Americas with relation to the concept of the self.  


                The third concept that is important is that the curriculum in Iran is based on normative revolutionary Islamic principles/values.  Through the textbooks, Islam unifies Iranians and the marginalized resulting from anti-colonial experiences and their desire for equality/ freedom/ independence.  Their textbooks reflect an anti-imperialist framework which serves to belong in the Islamic community preparing students for citizenship and labelling the west as the enemy.  Their textbooks ignore racialized conceptions of the self and others are narrated in such a way as they are friendly and or enemy insiders or outsiders (Mirfakhraie, 2018).  Iranian textbooks depict Indo- European origins as a sense of national identity.  Amir urges that scholars need to be critical of national approaches to history.  Iran focuses on internal events such as invading groups and neighboring countries with a lack of consideration of the Arian narrative or its relativity to “whiteness.”  Moreover, the author specifies that Iran’s curriculum racializes Arabs and Mongolians but neglects to construct detailed images for races in Americas/Africa/other parts of Asia.  The author argues that Iran’s students are ill prepared for a globalized world in which is considerate of diversity, one of the challenges in the twentieth century.  Amir further calls for the inclusion of anticolonial Iranian minority groups as a basis to change the curricula to include Blackness, Aboriginal peoples, South Americans and Europeans influences to construct the self as the ideal Iranian citizen.  Current curricula in Iran lacks comprehensive analysis of the global forms of otherness.  Amir suggests that historic accounts of the Middle East in curricula must include the deprived groups of Aboriginals and this can then extend to global oppressed voices.   These arguments are important because as mentioned it allows students to gain a diverse perspective considerate of the many events that unfolded through out Iran’s development.  Through this perspective students could interact with a world that is multicultural rather than being imprisoned to one perspective.  Not only does having this type of knowledge favorable for diversity and inclusiveness, students can develop their critical thinking skills to analyze the contemporary world via being able to factor in all the minute particulars of each group.  


                The fourth concept of relevance is when the author talks about the very origin of civilization and its many characteristics such as literacy, economics and religion.  He contrasts the, “old land,” and the, “new lands.”  The old lands include Asia, Europe and Africa where diverse groups of peoples lived or cohabitated.  Some distinctions include religion and form of government.  Asia is described as the cradle by which civilization emerged as it influenced others.  This is were Iran is framed.  Students learn values such as bravery, alertness and the readiness to defend their families.    Western Europe on the other hand is depicted as the most progressive and advanced resulting from science and the renaissance involving the white Europeans who were inspired by Muslim scholars (Mirfakhraie, 2018).  Iranian textbooks then frame the, “new lands,” as North and South America where indigenous peoples occupied with a lacked civilization.  The author claims that there is a lack of education with relation to these, “new lands,” in the Iranian curriculum.  They depict this land as, “non modern,” and or “primitive.”  This is a problem that is emphasized as racism by the author.  He suggest, these discrete racist language about the indigenous must change as it prevents an objective view of the concept of the struggles of the indigenous.  It is these discretely racist remarks that have prevented or made bias the education that is provided in Iranian textbooks.  So much so that there is not adequate representation of the indigenous voices within the curriculum thus leading to a historical view that is possibly inaccurate.    The textbooks don’t contextualize the devastation that colonialism had caused the indigenous people.  It doesn’t depict the slavery that was endured by people of color.  Furthermore, students are not invited to think about what they can learn as a result of this domination and oppression.  In fact, Iranian students are asked by teachers to search and use terms such as, “redskins.”  Iranian students are not encouraged to imagine the context of the events that transpired when Columbus had discovered the, “new lands.”  This discovery resulted in violence and force, murder and genocide.  Through this narrative, the education provided becomes the propaganda of the western imperialist.  Thus, it is the narrative of the winner of the wars and conflict that write history.  It is the authors of textbooks that validate these wins.  Therefore, what is being taught is the imperialist perspective as Iranian students are taught to homogenize all indigenous people as, “redskin.”  This is a form of institutionalized racism designed to erase the atrocities that colonization had caused.  This limits the Iranian student’s ability to approach or think about the Americas.  


                Through this next concept, the fifth of importance, the Iranians are taught to refer to all indigenous in America as, “red skins.”  This reifies the race social construct and validates the discrimination faced by indigenous people by the whites.  It is also educated that the original ancestors of these indigenous were the, “yellow skinned,” Asians who entered America through the Bering Strait (Mirfakhraie, 2018).  The term, “redskin,” as according to Amir is a term the dismisses the diversity of the aboriginal people.  This racist institutionalization of aboriginal people has caused nothing but further oppression.  These arguments are important because the contemporary world especially here in North America is constructed of immigrants from all around the world.  Iranian students have a very shallow understanding of other races as evident from their curriculum.  They may struggle in a globalized world to develop a knowledge base that is resilient to diversity.  


                Based on all the points mentioned herein, it can be concluded that Iran bases the education they give to their students in Europe.  This Eurocentric approach allows students to have knowledge of the history of Iran with relation to Europe but lacks diversity as the Iranian educators continue to focus on those who have attempted to colonize Iran.  Through this they depict Iran as against colonization, adequately framing the enemies of the nation.  Further, the lack of voices in diversity with pertinence to the America’s which gives Iranian students a view that lacks socio-empathetic imagination.  Their education does not include the actual memories or accounts of the aboriginal people.  This causes implications for the process of critical thinking.  Iranian students will struggle in a globalized world which consist of immigrants as their view lack sufficient authenticity and diversity.  I think it is important to teach students about the actual effects of the genocide, murder and stealing that resulted from colonization.  Through this, people can begin to develop a caused and effect process of critical thinking.