Keywords

Introduction

This chapter describes the development of teacher education (TE) in Slovakia over a period of 30 years, commencing in the early 1990s and concluding with the current challenges teacher education faces on its way towards further transformation. The macro-level analysis of TE in Slovakia points at tensions and contradictions in the legal framework that controls and directs teacher education. It evaluates the impact of the political decision to grant universities high levels of independence (see it in Act No. 131/2002), without making them accountable for the employability of their teaching graduates or for meeting the pedagogical demands of the school sector. The meso-level analysis reviews the structure and content of university-based teacher education, noting the challenges universities face, primarily from the perspective of inadequate allocation of teaching time for the student teachers at the university and funding for the teaching practice of student teachers. At the micro-level, the study describes teachers’ responses to sudden societal changes after the fall of communism: namely, teachers’ desire to enhance their professional skills through their individual agency, resulting in engagement with international collaborative activities and projects. However, it also observes teachers’ gradual dissatisfaction with and disengagement from their professional development, due to inappropriate and unsystematic changes in teaching policies which have failed to meaningfully address teachers’ loss of social and economic status, starting from the middle of the twentieth century (Valica and Pavlov 2007). The study concludes with the identification of key challenges that teacher education faces in meeting the profound economic, social, and environmental changes currently underway, including the incorporation of information and communication technology (ICT) and greater integration of students with special needs (Hajdukova 2013; Hašková 2019; Hašková and Bitterova 2018).

Historical-Political Background

After 1989, Czechoslovakia commenced its political, economic, and cultural journey towards becoming a developed, Western-type parliamentary democracy (Kosová and Porubský 2007; Malová and Dolný 2016), a journey which has not been without challenges, tensions, or contradictions. In January 1993, Slovakia, a smaller geographical part of Czechoslovakia, became an independent state. In 2004, after a period of political struggle and international isolation, Slovakia joined the European Union in order to fulfil its dream of becoming ‘an equal member of the family of European nations’ (Malová and Dolný 2016, p. 302).

The difficult process of transition—from autocracy to democracy, from centrally planned economy to market economy, and the independent nation-state-building process after 1993—has had a profound effect on the attitudes and decisions of political elites regarding educational reforms. The leading political parties focused on the need to develop legislation and other aspects of a newly formed nation-state administration, while struggling to reverse an economic slowdown which was accompanied by ‘murky privatisation’ and high levels of political corruption (Malová 2017, p. 2). Educational policy, therefore, remained on the fringes of political interests, which impacted subsequent teacher education practices.

As numerous authors argue (Hroncová 1999; Kasáčová 2004; Kosová and Porubský 2011b; Porubský et al. 2014b; Hašková and Pisoňová 2019), radical economic, political, and social changes require the execution of a well thought through school reform, including teacher education reform. Such reform would need to be supported by a systematic analysis of the economic and cultural requirements of the country. It would also necessitate the dedication of all stakeholders engaged in the school sector at all levels, and inevitably require a cross-party political consensus regarding the aims of educational reform and strategies for its implementation. To date, despite a number of legislative and curricular initiatives, Slovakia’s political elites have been unable to agree on a shared vision for the future of teacher education policy. Each successive minister of education has attempted to promote their own vision of reform: however, none of them were anchored in the specifics of the Slovak cultural and historical context, nor were their decisions based upon evidence from practice (Porubský et al. 2014a).

From a historical perspective, three main barriers have hindered effective school and teacher education reforms in Slovakia (Kosová and Porubský 2011a). The first is the result of a deep-rooted belief that education should be managed and controlled through centrally-formulated directives initiated by the state education department. Top-down management as national management strategy in the absence of democratic political traditions within Slovakia’s historical development has led to the continuation of a culture that perceives teachers as ‘officials’ or ‘administrators’ expected to routinely implement new curricular reforms, while ignoring their personal and contextual needs or professional experience (Kosová and Porubský 2011a, p. 20). The implementation of change is therefore often initiated with insufficient pedagogical preparation or material support for teachers (Porubský et al. 2014a; Kubalíková and Kacian 2016).

Secondly, teaching and learning in Slovakia are traditionally based on the information transmission model of education (Kosová and Porubský 2011a; Kosová and Tomengová 2015), favouring the accumulation of encyclopaedic knowledge at the expense of creativity, critical evaluation, and application in practice. As such, the teacher is viewed as an ‘executor’ of the centrally approved and politically controlled curriculum without an autonomous professional status (Kosová and Porubský 2011a, p. 21). However, even when the government reconceptualised the professional role of teachers as ‘co-creators’ of the school curriculum (Act No. 245/2008), teachers generally perceived this change with a high level of scepticism and resistance towards another top-down initiative (Kosová and Porubský 2011a).

Thirdly, the social and personal value of education has been diminished to the level of other commodities: that is to say, society, parents, and learners themselves value education predominantly as a gateway to the job market (Gadušová et al. 2014a; Kubalíková and Kacian 2016). In addition, there seems to be an absence of any strong public pressure for an educational reform that would address the substantially decreased social and economic status of teachers. Furthermore, all existing and prospective reforms are hindered by ‘a rather mixed political system in Slovakia’ (Malová 2017, p. 10), with weakly-institutionalised and less stable political parties unable to develop a cross-party consensus on the longitudinal aims and principles of state-run public education, despite the governing parties’ seeming willingness to implement wider EU educational directives (Kubalíková and Kacian 2016; Malová and Dolný 2016; Kneuer et al. 2018).

Teacher Education Reform

It is possible to discern a number of phases within teacher education reform in Slovakia. Covering the period from 1989 to 2009, Kosová and Porubský (2011b) identify four phases in the transformation of teacher education. The first phase spans Slovakia’s coexistence with the Czech Republic from 1989 to 1992, in which both countries shared similar educational reforms, with this period of ‘searching for new beginnings’ (Kosová and Porubský 2011b, p. 45) lasting until 1996/1997, and featuring a rapid expansion in higher education institutions offering teacher education programmes. The second phase, from 1998 to 2004, was the period of the ‘conceptualisation of teacher education’ and marked the first significant effects of the Europeanisation of education in the structure of university education: the acceptance of the Bologna Process divided the structure of university-based teacher education into two distinct stages—a bachelor’s and a master’s award—which has had a detrimental impact on the promising attempts to reform initial teacher education (ITE) (Kosová et al. 2012). The ITE reform of the previous period aimed to strengthen the interconnectedness between pedagogical theory and its application in practice with emphasis on the gradual development of teacher’s professional identity as a reflective practitioner. However, as Kosová et al. (2012) strongly argue, the two distinct stages of university teacher education weakened the position of subject didactics in the ITE curriculum and thus prevented a more integrated teacher education (see more in detail below).

The third phase covers approximately the period from 2005 to 2009, most notably two key educational policies that influenced teacher education, the National Curriculum reform (2008) and the Pedagogical and Professional Employees Act (Act No. 317/2009). The fourth phase, post-2009, is characterised by the need for a systematic, evidence-based educational policy reform that addresses the contradictions and tensions between the current ITE curriculum structure, in-service teachers’ careers and education progress, as well as the needs of schools in a fast-changing contemporary society. However, the new Pedagogical and Professional Employees Act (Act No.138/2019), aimed at addressing irregularities and contradictions between the previous legislative framework and the reality of teachers’ professional status, education, and career opportunities, seems—thus far—to have only served to fossilise existing problems.

1990–2004: The Drive for Innovation at the Micro-Level Challenged by the Drive to Maintain the Status Quo at the Macro-Level

The 1990s were characterised by a historically unprecedented rate of change in the education system, with teachers demonstrating high levels of enthusiasm and willingness to change their professional practice, but gradually stifled by increased political control and a lack of political effort to initiate a systemic reform (Kosová and Porubský 2007). After 1989, teacher education and training underwent a number of changes. Unfortunately, these were neither systematically planned nor strategically implemented in any way (Kosová and Porubský 2007). A number of factors are responsible for this situation: firstly, school reform lagged considerably behind economic reforms; secondly, the political elites disregarded educational policy that would interlink school reform with teacher education reform and harness teachers’ willingness and desire to explore and implement innovative approaches in their professional practice; and thirdly, the university reform bills that granted universities autonomy enabled higher education institutions to structure teacher education programmes following their own needs and interests (Kosová and Porubský 2011a, b; Kosová and Tomengová 2015).

As Hargreaves and Shirley (2012, p. 49) argue, teachers’ professional capital plays a decisive role in the successful implementation of any school reform, and includes ‘assets among teachers […] that are developed, invested […] and circulated in order to produce a high yield […] in the quality of teaching and learning’. Professional capital is manifested through five forms of capital. To become agents of change, teachers should possess high levels of human capital (knowledge and skills developed via education and training), social capital (ability to work with others), moral capital (seeing oneself as responsible for others’ well-being and development), symbolic capital (having the high status of a profession that attracts people to it), and decisional capital (being capable of solving complex problems over a sustained period of time) (Hargreaves and Shirley 2012).

In this historical review of teacher education in Slovakia, which is inevitably linked with educational reforms, it is possible to observe teachers’ high levels of social and moral capital in their enthusiasm and willingness to engage in the transformation of their teaching practice during the last decade of the twentieth century. In addition, this rare moment of bottom-up pressure to reform originated from all stakeholders in education—educational experts, teacher educators, parents, and learners themselves—and seemed to win a positive response from the political leadership of the early 1990s. However, this opportunity has since been lost due to ad hoc educational reforms without any systematic analysis of the existing situation or consideration for teachers’ moral and decisional capital (Kosová and Porubský 2007).

Political Discourse and Educational Changes

In the early 1990s, there was a societal paradigm shift regarding the aims and sociocultural value of education. The communist ideology which had been underpinning the content of curricula at all levels of education was legally removed by parliamentary acts immediately after the political changes (Kosová and Porubský 2007). A different ideological and philosophical discourse emerged in newly formulated governmental policy papers, in which the aims of the democratisation and humanisation of education were emphasised. In this context, education was seen as a means to accomplish radical social changes that would lead to the establishment of a pluralistic democracy. The new values of education were defined in the spirit of the Erasmian humanist tradition of education (Parrish 2010), in which pupils and students should be led to aspire to higher human values such as love, freedom, and solidarity. These humanist ideals of education, accentuating respect for an individual and their cognitive, emotional, and creative growth, stood in stark contrast to the preceding communist educational discourse.

During the 1990s, three different, though philosophically and ideologically interconnected, documents outlining a new direction for school and teacher education reforms were presented to the government. The first document, Duch školy (Turek 1990; The Spirit of School) formulated a strong belief in education as a means to achieve radical social, economic, and political change. The document made explicit references to UNESCO’s recommendations on education and also outlined the profile of an ideal teacher, emphasising the personality of the teacher as virtuous, knowledgeable, and positive in attitude towards self-education. However, the message of the document was soon lost in the political turmoil of Czechoslovakia’s separation into two independent states.

During this decade, two other aspirational concepts were outlined by leading educational experts and presented to the government as possible directions for decisive educational reform: Constantine and Millennium. In 1994, the Ministry of Education published the first in-depth, complex conception of education and training, ‘Constantine: The national programme of education and training’ (Ministerstvo školstva a vedy 1994), outlining the aims, content, and structure of education and training in a similar philosophical vein to The Spirit of School. However, the concept was never seriously given life and was eventually succeeded four years later by ‘Millennium: The new conception of the development of education and training within 10–15 years’ (Rodina a škola 2002), which the government accepted in 2001 as part of its new conception of education system reform. Millennium identified key changes to be addressed in the new educational reform, in particular reformulating the aims and content of the national curriculum, and explicitly defining humanistic principles that would underpin school reform. It again highlighted a need to change the structure and quality of teachers’ professional identities in order to place more emphasis on their personal and professional development and growth. Furthermore, it demanded the creation of a professional framework for the recognition of teachers’ career stages and called upon the government to address teachers’ low social capital. Unfortunately, the concept followed the destiny of its two predecessors (OZPSAV SK 2013; Porubský et al. 2014b). A watered-down version was eventually accepted as part of the new school act, and national curriculum reform was agreed by the government in 2008 reform which was implemented into the education system in an abrupt manner without providing the necessary time, funding, or expertise. Traditionally, teachers had always been expected to implement the national curriculum developed by the National Institute for Education, and therefore did not possess adequate experience nor the requisite knowledge and skills for curriculum design. Indeed, the concepts of curriculum development, design, and innovation had not been part of the ITE curriculum, and therefore reports on teachers’ willingness to engage with the changes and implement them in their classroom practice revealed rather disappointing findings (Porubský et al. 2014b, 2015; Butašová et al. 2017; Bockaničová et al. 2018).

Higher Education Institutions and Teacher Education

Teacher education in socialist Czechoslovakia followed the model of a higher education-based certification for primary and secondary teachers, while early years teachers were graduates from upper secondary schools and academies (Petrová and Zápotočná 2018). Primary teacher education lasted for four years at the Faculties of Education. Lower and higher secondary teacher education entailed studying dual subject disciplines together alongside educational psychology and didactics for five years.

Changes in legislation (i.e. the Higher Education Act: 1990, amended in 1996 and the new act in 2002) enabled higher education institutions to gain autonomy as soon as the early 1990s. As a result, universities were able to open departments with new specialisations, equip laboratories to undertake research activities, and engage in international networks. The HEIs also embraced EU support programmes. For example, funding via PHARE (European Parliament 1998) and TEMPUS (European Commission 2014) programmes facilitated the exchange of knowledge, skills, and expertise among academics and university students, namely through the provision of mobility grants for collaborative education and research projects, international conferences, and language courses. Universities could also offer and some really did additional study programmes designed to meet the new national demand for teachers of foreign languages, brought about by changes in the national curriculum whereby learners were offered a choice of six foreign languages (English, French, German, Italian, Russian, and Spanish). Russian stopped being taught as the only compulsory and first foreign language and, through parental pressure, was substituted with English.

The growth of cross-border contacts increased the process of the Europeanisation and internationalisation of education (Dakowska and Harmsen 2015), further contributing to universities’ transformations. Support from various international organisations (e.g. the British Council and the Fulbright Commission in Bratislava), charity organisations, and volunteers (e.g. Peace Corps, East European Partnership, and Education for Democracy) enhanced the flow of human capital, as many HE departments accommodated the visits of colleagues from Western European and American universities who contributed significantly to the currency of subject disciplines; supported innovation in subject curricula; exposed academics to alternative teaching methods; and improved their foreign language competences. The universities also received resources in the form of books and modern information and communication technology (Fonodová 1996; Pugsley and Kershaw 2015). This international support was particularly crucial during the 1990s when the country faced a serious economic downturn. The funding of education projects coming from mainly EU institutions became a significant source of supplementary budget for HEIs. While the education sector was severely underfunded on every level, against these odds, there was a rapid increase in the number of HE institutions (including private ones) and faculties, many of which began to offer teacher education programmes. For instance, there were only five HEIs offering teacher training programmes prior to 1989, but by 2004 there were nine such HEIs (Kosová et al. 2012).

The newly acquired independence of universities brought about a number of consequences for initial teacher education still visible today. Firstly, individual institutions could make their own decisions about the quality of ITE. Though the teacher education model continued to mirror the pre-1989 tradition, there was a rapid increase in institutions offering teacher education programmes structured around subject knowledge, with considerably less emphasis being placed upon practical aspects of teacher pedagogical knowledge, skills, and competences. Indeed, the recent body of research, To dá rozum (That makes sense 2016–2020), clearly demonstrates the prevailing practice of teaching via traditional methods of lecturing, with limited practical application of theory in classrooms.

Secondly, despite the fact that HEIs are required to accredit their ITE programmes via an education expert (usually a professor) and a subject-specific guarantor, there has been a tendency to undermine any legitimate need for the application of theory into practice. Due to funding limitations, for example, universities have restricted the provision of teaching practice for trainee teachers. Consequently, trainees are expected to organise teaching placements on their own. This has resulted in unsystematic, unstructured, and ad hoc arrangements with no appropriate mentoring support for trainees, who often contact their childhood school’s teachers in order to conduct observations and lead classes there. By extension, unfortunately, it is all too possible at present to observe the direct consequences of the decision to emphasise subject knowledge at the expense of pedagogical expertise. As many researchers conclude, novice teachers consequently struggle with behaviour management and have a poor understanding of how to support learners with specific learning needs, as well as in formatively assessing learners, providing feedback, performing administrative tasks, and so on (Kosová and Tomengová 2015; Magová et al. 2016; Gadušová and Predanocyová 2018).

Thirdly, the status of pedagogy as a legitimate scientific subject was considerably undermined due to the socio-political, ideological role pedagogy played in the pre-1989 teacher education curriculum. The communist regime exploited pedagogy as a tool for its ideological control and indoctrination, which led directly to limited research into teacher education and other aspects of teaching and learning. This, as mentioned above, has also resulted in a weakened position of subject didactics: the focus is more on the theoretical knowledge base of trainees rather than on the actual application of theory in practice. Tandlichová (2008), for example, comments critically on the loss of foreign language didactics from the teacher education curriculum, highlighting the high levels of poorly qualified teachers teaching languages in primary, lower, and higher secondary schools as the outcome.

From the second half of the 1990s and onwards into the new millennium (1996–2004), a number of teacher training colleges (Faculties of Education) engaged in collaborative projects with their Czech counterparts, resulting in the development of a new, updated teacher education curriculum. The content of this curriculum was aimed at primary school teachers and was enriched with theories of teaching and learning; innovative and alternative teaching methods; child developmental psychology; and subject-related pedagogies. The aim was to develop a new professional identity of the teacher as a reflective practitioner (Kosová 2012; Kosová and Tomengová 2015), as opposed to the prevalent model of the teacher as an academic expert, as traditionally emphasised in programmes for secondary teachers of subjects in the humanities, social and natural sciences, and technology. Regrettably, these promising developments were abruptly interrupted by structural changes in the university systems following the requirements of the Bologna Process. Indeed, the directive to recognise two levels of higher education programmes—the bachelor’s and master’s—has had a detrimental effect on the quality of teacher education and training in Slovakia (Kosová 2012), and is still seen as one of the main barriers to transforming ITE into a more practice-based approach so as to adequately equip future teachers with the skills and competences to meet twenty-first-century challenges (Valica and Pavlov 2007; Schleicher 2015).

Teachers as Enthusiastic Agents of Change

The reluctance to consider the decreasing economic and social status of teachers—and the negation of educational reforms at the macro-level—can be viewed in stark contrast with ‘innovation-eager’ teachers at the micro-level (Porubský et al. 2014b). Teachers, determined to address the demand for pedagogical knowledge and transformation necessitated by the long-ignored need for educational reforms, began setting up professional organisations in their respective disciplines to enable national and international networking. As Kosová et al. (2012) rightly express, such a dynamic, bottom-up movement to promote educational reforms, including teacher education reforms, had not been evident at any stage in the history of Slovak schooling.

Even though some of Slovakia’s professional organisations had ceased to exist by the end of the 1990s, many have adopted a charity status or live on through their most popular events still being regularly organised by enthusiastic teachers and teacher educators. For example, one such event that continues to thrive (more than 20 years since its inception) is a foreign language school theatre festival, a highly popular event managed by lecturers from Constantine the Philosopher University (UKF) in Nitra, and annually attended by around 200 performing pupils from primary and secondary schools across the region and abroad. The festival is the outcome of a project originally financed by the British Council in Bratislava in collaboration with the UKF to develop the subject didactics of English language teachers (Bačová 2021) and was part of the activities promoted within an active and lively organisation for teachers of English (Slovak Association of Teachers of English). Set up in 1992 and active until 2012, its members were teacher educators, and in- and pre-service English teachers working across all educational levels and provision types. The aim of the organisation was to explore and develop communicative and creative approaches for language teaching and learning—it provided a platform for teachers and academics to share experiences, examples of good practice, and innovative teaching methods, as well as participate in different projects and events.

Other organisations were established in different, less economically developed geographical regions of Slovakia in order to introduce alternative teaching methods into the schooling system, and to simultaneously enhance teachers’ skills in these innovative approaches—offering short- and long-term courses to support teachers in pursuing their individual interests in specific pedagogical approaches. For instance, founded in 1992, Susan Kovalik’s Association: Education for the Twenty-First Century (ASK n.d.), has been actively involved in in-service and pre-service teacher education, collaborating with regional teacher education centres and some universities, with a particular focus on developing teachers’ understandings of the concept of an integrated thematic curriculum, and how to apply it in their practice. Similarly, the Association of Friends of Free Waldorf Schools (APSWŠ n.d.) set up regional centres for implementing innovative teaching and learning methods into the mainstream school system and, despite increased governmental efforts to halt free experimentation with particular teaching approaches, it remains active. The same is true of the Wide Open School organisation that has supported inclusion programmes for pupils from low socio-economic backgrounds and minoritised ethnic backgrounds (from Roma communities in particular), via developing training materials for teachers in the early years and primary sector (Škola dokorán—Wide Open School n.d.; Petrová and Zápotočná 2018). In a similar vein, the Association Orava (Združenie Orava 2019), established in 1994 as part of the Orava—IOWA project, has since grown and successfully established regional centres for facilitating the collaboration of professionals from a wide spectrum of educational institutions, to promote critical thinking and reading literacy in particular. Like the above-mentioned organisations, it has supported teachers’ continuous professional development via workshops, conferences (e.g. Innovations in School), and online resources. However, increasing governmental control over teachers’ involvement in their continuous professional development via independently organised, non-state-funded groups has gradually stifled teachers’ enthusiasm and voluntary engagement in extracurricular and professional activities. As a result, by the beginning of the millennium, a number of teacher and parent-led educational initiatives ceased to exist under the burden of administrative requirements and increased school inspection (Kosová et al. 2012; Porubský et al. 2014b). The activity of enthusiastic and creative teachers has, to some extent, been refocused on engagement with a variety of European-funded projects (e.g. Erasmus+) which have enabled schools and teachers, particularly those fluent in a foreign language, to engage in collaborative partnerships with colleagues from schools in other European Union countries.

2004–2020: Key Legislative Frameworks Defining Teacher Professionalism and the Impact of the Bologna Process on Teacher Education

The ongoing reluctance of political elites to systematically address the professional status of teachers is evident in the fact that it took Parliament 20 years to clarify the role, responsibilities, career stages, and required qualifications of employees working in the school sector. The No. 317/2009 Coll., Pedagogical and Professional Employees Act (i.e. the 2009 Act) originally drew upon a research project led by a group of experts between 2002 and 2005 (Kosová 2012). The findings and recommendations were introduced to the government in 2007, and despite the fact that the project was widely reviewed positively in the academic and teaching community, it took a further two years for Parliament to formally accept it. Unfortunately, the actual legislative outcome created a much more restricted view on the legal status of educators; their professional roles; required qualifications; career progression routes; and a formalised credit system of professional development than the authors of the research project had suggested themselves. Though the Act emphasised teachers’ autonomy in making decisions about their professional growth—following recommendations from the European Commission regarding the quality of teacher education (Commission of the European Communities 2007)—this has been restricted via the process of institutional accreditation.

Immediately after its publication, the Ministry of Education redefined the required qualifications for teachers and limited the choice of accredited institutions offering continuous professional development (CPD) courses. It also restricted the role of faculties of education in providing accredited teaching qualifications and CPD courses, in order to open the market to other providers. For instance, according to the Slovak Centre of Scientific and Technical Information Data (CVTI SR 2020), during the 2016/2017 academic year, there were a total of seven faculties of education at universities in Slovakia. However, up to 11 universities and 28 faculties trained a total of almost 15,000 future teachers—meaning that only 55% (8, 275 out of 14, 959) of future teachers were trained in faculties of education, while non-education faculties trained the other 45%. This situation, whereby almost half of Slovakia’s future teachers are being trained outwith education-specific faculties, has raised serious concerns about the quality of such teacher education programmes due to the definitive lack of pedagogical knowledge, expertise, and practical experience of teaching staff in non-education faculties, as numerous studies have expressed (Pavlov 2013; Kosová and Tomengová 2015).

The 2009 Act was updated ten years later in an attempt to address some of its inconsistencies (Act No. 138/2019 Coll. on Pedagogical and Professional Employees, 2019). However, the new act has actually fossilised—and even exacerbated—the problems with continuous teacher education, thus has been strongly criticised by teachers across the board (Slovenská komora učiteľov 2012–2020). It maintains, for example, the conditions which enable teachers to teach up to 70% of their workload in subjects they are not qualified to teach, and has dismantled the system of lifelong learning (Slovenská komora učiteľov 2012–2020).

Initial Teacher Education After the Bologna Process

Slovakia became a signatory of the Bologna Process in 1999. The three-level framework of higher education was introduced by Act No. 131/2002 on Higher Education, which has subsequently shaped the structure of teacher education programmes since 2005 (László 2008). The university-based teacher education programme was divided into three levels and currently has the following structure: a three-year bachelor’s degree, focusing on mastering theoretical subject knowledge, with some limited access to pedagogical disciplines and teaching practice; a master’s degree, concentrating on mastering specialist subject-related disciplines, and pedagogical and subject didactics knowledge with their application in practice; and finally, the doctorate level, focusing on empirical educational research.

In general, Slovak educators believe that the adoption of the Bologna Process was ‘a serious blow to the promising developments of teacher education programmes’ (Kosová and Tomengová 2015, p. 39). While the central premise of the EU policy was to offer students mobility, study stays abroad, and recognition of their results (i.e. transcripts of records) in order to aid graduates in entering the job market after the completion of the bachelor’s programme, teacher educators did not believe that a three-year programme would enable graduates to develop a robust knowledge base of their discipline(s), subject didactics, and their professional skills all at the same time. This fear was confirmed by the subsequent legislation (the 2009 Act), which provided bachelor’s graduates with very limited opportunities for employment (László 2008). Furthermore, universities have also struggled to develop the content and structure of ITE study programmes in a manner that would meaningfully and sufficiently meet the needs of employers, schools, and candidates’ diverse job profiles in the accepted two-level structure (Kosová et al. 2012). For example, from the point of view of primary school teacher education, the bachelor’s programmes aim to prepare their candidates for such job roles as qualified nursery nurse and/or educator in an informal educational setting, but are simultaneously viewed as a precondition for progression to master’s level for those candidates who wish to become qualified teachers in the primary sector. The master’s level study programme also faces a number of challenges and inconsistencies, particularly the overloaded curriculum containing a heavy weighting of subject-related didactics at the expense of the length and quality of actual teaching practice periods.

ITE for lower and higher secondary levels also faces a number of issues. As already mentioned, the current focus of bachelor’s courses is generally considered too theoretical, concentrating mainly on acquiring discipline knowledge in pedagogy and the chosen (usually) two subjects that the graduate will teach, with limited teaching practice and study of didactics. The components of subject didactics and some pedagogy disciplines are introduced and developed only at master’s level. Though the current Accreditation Committee’s prescribed curricula for teacher education do not prohibit higher education institutions from integrating a certain proportion of didactic subjects and teaching practice into their programmes at the bachelor’s level, bachelor’s graduates are not considered as fully qualified teachers, therefore universities are not obliged to take this approach. Moreover, the autonomy of universities has since become restricted: their study programmes must follow centrally prescribed study programmes that define core and optional subjects as designated by the Accreditation Commission. In practice, this means that teacher education providers can only enact changes within one-third of the curriculum content for a study programme which is stated in the official description of the study field (see Criteria).

The legislation does not restrict HEIs in their range of subject disciplines on offer for teacher education pathways, nor makes them accountable to the employment market and the actual needs of schools. Candidates usually choose a combination of two subjects, a tradition dating back to before 1989. As there is an evident decrease in the number of students applying for teacher education courses, while the number of faculties offering teacher qualifications has increased (Kosová and Tomengová 2015), HEIs compete for candidates by upholding the freedom of applicants to choose their own subject disciplines. In addition, universities have decreased the level of knowledge and motivation required from candidates by abandoning entrance assessments. The only exception is the Pre-school and Primary Education (PPE) study programme, the attractiveness of which seems to be related to the recent growth of the kindergarten business.

The HEIs’ strategies to increase student numbers may not be surprising, as the funding formula is tied to student numbers. Additionally and equally, the present quota-based system of state financing does not encourage universities to select students according to their knowledge and abilities when entering the second phase of their studies at master’s level (László 2008). However, graduates may find that they are either unemployable in schools, or they need to teach a significant proportion of subjects which they are unqualified for, because the allocation of teaching hours for their chosen subjects in the national curriculum is very low.

CPS—Complementary Pedagogical Study as an Alternative Way to Gain a Teaching Qualification

According to the 2019 Act, and the 2009 Act before it, in order to become a qualified teacher at primary, lower, and upper secondary schools, candidates need to complete a master’s degree in the relevant teacher education study programmes. The graduates of the second level of university studies (i.e. master’s/engineer level) in non-teaching fields of study (i.e. technical subjects) can complete their studies through complementary pedagogical study (CPS), which will enable them to gain a teaching qualification and to teach at lower and upper secondary level schools.

The full-time study programme lasts for two years and consists of 200 to 240 teaching hours, of which 20 hours are dedicated to the subject didactics and 20 hours to teaching practice. Candidates complete the programme by defending a written thesis and undergoing an oral examination based on their theoretical knowledge of pedagogy, the psychology of learning, and subject didactics. Complementary pedagogical studies, however, have become a lucrative business for HEIs and non-HE providers, since teaching candidates are required to pay for the qualification. In addition, the guarantors of the qualification course do not need to be experts in education, and are only required to hold the title of associate professor, which can relate to the subject as a discipline rather than its didactics. There is, therefore, not a sufficient quality assurance mechanism that would require institutions providing CPS to ensure an appropriate level of support for their candidates with the process of applying/transferring theory in teaching practice. This is an important issue as almost one-third of teachers in upper secondary schools are graduates of CPS (To dá rozum—That makes sense 2016–2020). Kosová’s (2012) critique nevertheless aims at all teaching programmes in general. As research findings point out, Slovak trainee teachers feel confident about their subject knowledge, but recognise insufficient preparation for their professional practice in a number of aspects, such as adapting content to the needs of their pupils; having difficulties with differentiation and inclusion; providing feedback; and understanding the administrative aspects of their work (Gadušová and Vítečková 2013, 2014, 2015a, b; Bilíková et al. 2014; Gadušová et al. 2014b; Kosová and Tomengová 2015; Magová et al. 2016; That makes sense 2016–2020; Vítečková et al. 2016).

Continuous Professional Development of Teachers

The legislation brought both a number of benefits and restrictions to teachers. Firstly, it clearly defined the four teaching career stages and linked these to teachers’ expert occupation: each has a prescribed number of teaching years, a certain number of credits the teacher must earn, and other indicators (Kubalíková and Kacian 2016). As each stage has a prescribed salary band (i.e. the higher the stage, the higher the salary band), achieving the required number of credits is paramount for teachers. This should not be surprising as, according to OECD reports, teachers’ financial rewards are one of the lowest in the EU and OECD countries, though the situation is gradually improving (European Commission 2018). However, in the same vein, the legislation did not enable those teachers who had been involved in different training programmes before 2009 to have these activities accredited as part of their professional development. Secondly, though the legislation distinguished three pathways for teachers’ CPD, only formally accredited institutions enable participants to gain formal credits. The other two pathways—that is, mutual expert discourse among teachers (non-formal) and self-education (informal)—do not enable teachers to formally evidence their enhanced professional knowledge, and thus have been marginalised.

The Methodology and Pedagogy Centres are state subsidised or financed via European Social Funds, and can therefore offer CPD training for free. However, there is no accountability or sufficient research into the impact of the CPD course on teacher practice, student learning, and school innovation (Pavlov 2013). As the education sector is underfinanced, teachers and schools have limited access to other providers who might have greater expertise in terms of aiding teachers in their professional growth. Universities, though the main providers of ITE, play a minimal role in the provision of CPD courses since they cannot afford to subsidise them. Lastly, the legislation does not recognise key professional roles engaged in teacher development, such as the role of a mentor or a coach (Jones 2009; Gadušová et al. 2014a; Hanesová 2016), though it simultaneously stipulates that novice teachers must be supported by such a professional during the first year of their teaching career. As a result, the CPD system is viewed as a process of knowledge transmission and related neither to teachers’ actual needs nor to the school context in which they work (Pavlov 2013; Kubalíková and Kacian 2016).

Conclusion

State-funded education cannot be separated from politics—from the relationships between the public, their political representatives, and those who are expected to exercise pedagogical expertise and implement the required changes (Apple 2004; Freire 2006; Ball 2016). However, education has never been at the centre of party politics in Slovakia (Kosová 2012; Slovenská komora učiteľov 2012–2020). This lack of interest in education can be seen in the fact that there have been 17 ministers of education (including 2 ad interim) since the establishment of Slovakia as an independent nation-state, many of whom have been the initiators of reforms based on the principles of school education in other countries without introducing similar or comparable conditions for their execution. Their proposals, however, have rarely been adopted by their successors and sometimes completely ignored. Slovakia, in contrast to other post-communist countries such as Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, initiated educational reforms later on, while leaving the control over education decisions in the hands of the government (Herbst and Wojciuk 2017). This is evidenced in the steps taken by various governments across different historical periods to formulate and implement seemingly systematic structural and curricular reforms; in the low levels of public spending (Kneuer et al. 2018); in an inadequate education policy regarding defining professional teacher competences, roles, and standardised qualification requirements; and last, but not least, in teacher pay reform (Hajdukova 2013; Kneuer et al. 2018).

Even 30 years since the collapse of the communist regime, Slovak educational experts, academics, and teacher educators—as well as teachers themselves—express deep disappointment with the insufficient transformation of the educational system, with unsatisfactory curriculum reforms and professional teacher education, as well as the low social status of teachers (e.g. Hroncová 1999; Kasáčová 2004; Valica and Pavlov 2007; Slovenská komora učiteľov 2012–2020; Porubský et al. 2014a; Hurajová 2016). These frustrations arise from the realisation that the contradictions and tensions between old and new educational policy and reforms are often expected to be resolved by schools and teachers ‘within their situated practice’ (Ball 2016, p. 1048) without any real support.

Research has evidenced pre-service and novice teachers’ inadequate professional preparation for the scope and complexities of the teaching role. This could also be the consequence of low-quality mentoring on placements (Bilíková et al. 2014). Indeed, the findings from a large-scale, cross-European research project (Jones 2009) suggest that Slovak mentors are not confident with the nurturing aspect of their role: they do not recognise the importance of critically analysing novice teachers’ classroom observations; seem to equate the concept of a good teacher with that of a good mentor; and raise the issue of increased workload as mentoring obligations occur in addition to their teaching responsibilities. Other studies likewise confirm that mentors’ unmanageable workloads can lead to ‘a lack of persistence and professionalism in their mentoring role’ (Sandvik et al. 2019, p. 575). Policy-makers and teaching institutions should therefore pay more attention to the specific role of mentors (Jones 2009; European Commission 2015; Sandvik et al. 2019). As quality mentoring of pre-service and novice teachers is paramount for their professional development, mentor education courses should be evaluated to measure their impact on mentors’ enhanced knowledge and understanding of novice teachers’ individual needs.

Slovakia now has, however, a great opportunity to review and restructure teacher education within the current system of education, as there are a number of evidence-based proposals already at the disposal of the Ministry of Education—drawing on current research and proposals, as reported in the documents on education policy for teachers in the European Union (e.g. Pokrivčáková et al. 2008; Gadušová et al. 2014b; Porubský et al. 2014a; Kosová and Tomengová 2015; Vítečková et al. 2016; Hašková and Pisoňová 2019). Even though researchers comment on teachers’ disillusionment, and even apathy and unwillingness to engage in lifelong learning, the authors of this study have observed evidence of untapped enthusiasm and energy in teachers, when given opportunities for self-determination and agency (Bačová 2021). Recent strikes and demonstrations by teachers (Slovenská komora učiteľov 2012–2020; Iniciatíva slovenských učiteľov 2018) also illustrate their willingness to engage in meaningful, well formulated, and carefully planned school and teacher education reforms, as well as their resilience and rich sources of moral capital. From this perspective it is possible to reimagine a new professional identity of the teacher ‘as an intellectual, rather than as a technician or as a bundle of skills and competences’ (Ball 2016, p. 1056). This would, as Ball strongly argues, put ‘the teacher back into the sphere of the political, as an actor who […] looks critically at the meaning and enactment of policy’ and who is able to develop their own professional identity within thriving collaborative learning communities (Admiraal et al. 2021). Teachers’ dedication to professionalism and the moral purpose of their role should be recognised by policy-makers. Slovakia’s teaching workforce, similarly to other European countries (EESC 2008), is clearly ageing, and therefore attracting high calibre young people to the profession is paramount. This will only be possible if educational policy sufficiently addresses teachers’ career development, and ensures ‘adequate pay and social recognition of the profession’ (EESC 2008). Policy implementation should both harness teachers’ professional capital and recognise their needs (European Commission 2015). Last but not least, more funding should be allocated to the organisation and management of teaching practice: that is, the subject expertise of trainee teachers could gradually develop and flourish with the support of teacher educators and teaching practice mentors, and the providers of teaching qualifications and CPDs should become accountable to the needs of their graduates and the schooling sector. Taken together, these recommendations would hold the teacher education market responsible to the current and future needs of the teaching profession.