<<

Florida State Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2003 Reforming English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Curriculum in : The Global and the Local Contexts Florin M. Mihai

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THEFLORIDASTATEUNIVERSITY COLLEGEOF REFORMINGENGLISHASAFOREIGNLANGUAGE(EFL)CURRICULUMIN ROMANIA:THEGLOBALANDTHELOCALCONTEXTS BY FLORINM.MIHAI ADissertationsubmittedtothe DepartmentofMiddleandSecondaryEducation inpartialfulfillmentofthe requirementsforthedegreeof Doctorof DegreeAwarded: SpringSemester,2003 ThemembersoftheCommitteeapprovethe dissertationofFlorinM.MihaidefendedonMarch7,2003. ElizabethJ.Platt ProfessorDirecting Dissertation GeorgeJ.Papagiannis OutsideCommitteeMember FrankB.Brooks CommitteeMember FrederickL.Jenks CommitteeMember Approved: DavidF.Foulk,DepartmentChair,DepartmentofMiddleand SecondaryEducation TheOfficeofGraduateStudieshasverifiedandapproved theabovenamedcommitteemembers ii TABLEOFCONTENTS ListofTables……………………………………………………………………… v ListofFigures………………………………………………………………………… vi Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………… vii 1.INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………… 1 PurposeoftheStudy……………………………………………… 1 TheLocalContext:Romania……………………………… 1 TheGlobalContext…………………………………………………… 4 StatementoftheProblem…………………………………… 5 ResearchQuestions…………………………………………………… 6 MethodsofAnalysis………………………………………………… 6 ImportanceoftheStudy……………………………………… 7 Limitations……………………………………………………………………… 8 Summary………………………………………………………………………………… 8 2.THEGLOBALAND,ORVERSUS,THELOCALIN EDUCATION………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 Introduction…………………………………………………………………… 9 TheGlobalContext…………………………………………………… 9 TheLocalContext……………………………………………………… 16 TheGlobal-LocalInteractionin Education………………………………………………………………………… 24 Summary………………………………………………………………………………… 36 3.METHODS……………………………………….…………………………………………… 37 4.REFORMINGENGLISHASAFOREIGN LANGUAGE(EFL)CURRICULUMINROMANIA:A COMPREHENSIVEPICTURE………………………………………………………… 40 Introduction…………………………………………………………………… 40 EnglishasaForeignLanguagebetween 1945and1989………………………………………………………………… 40 iii TheSituationofEFLTeachingand Learningafter1989………………………………………………… 56 Summary………………………………………………………………………………… 73 5.THEGLOBALANDTHELOCALINTHENEW ROMANIANEFLCURRICULUM…………………………………………………… 74 Introduction…………………………………………………………………… 74 TheGlobal-LocalInteractionin Education…………………………………………………………………………… 74 InfluencesontheRomaniaEFL CurriculumReform……………………………………………………… 76 InterpretationandRepresentationof theEFLCurriculumReform………………………………… 83 DirectionsforFurtherResearch………………… 84 FinalRemarks………………………………………………………………… 89 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………… 90 BIOGRAPHICALSKETCH……………………………………………………………… 99 iv LISTOFTABLES 1.NumberofForeignLanguageHours/Week……………… 49 2.ForeignLanguageTeachinginRomania between1945and1963………………………………………………………………… 49 3.NotionsandExemplificationsinEnglish………… 62 4.FunctionsandExemplificationsinEnglish…… 62 v LISTOFFIGURES 1.Figure1.1.MapofRomaniaand neighboringcountries………………………………………………………… 1 2.Figure2.1.Roman…………………………………………… 18 3.Figure2.2.RomanianLands…………………………………… 20 4.Figure2.3.MoldaviaandWallachia……………… 21 5.Figure2.4.InterwarRomania……………………………… 22 6.Figure2.5.Global-localinteractionin education………………………………………………………………………………………… 35 7.Figure5.1.RepresentationofRomanian EFLcurriculuminthemodelofglobal-local interactionineducation………………………………………………… 84 8.Figure5.2.FurtherdirectionsforEFL researchinRomania……………………………………………………………… 88 vi ABSTRACT ThepurposeofthisstudywastoanalyzetheEnglish asaForeignLanguage(EFL)curriculumreforminRomania fromtheperspectiveoftheinfluenceoftheglobaland localcontextsoneducation.TocharacterizetheEFL curriculumreforminRomaniafromtheinteractionofthe globalizationmovementwiththelocalcontextsin education,amodelofrepresentationwasdesigned.This model,basedontheanalysisofvariouseducationreforms, hadfourpossibleoutcomes:globalversuslocal,globaland local,localandglobal,andlocalversusglobal. Adocumentanalysis,thestudyfirsttookintoaccount theinternationalandglobalfactorsthatinfluence educationreformingeneral.Then,thehistoricaland culturalbackgroundrelevanttoeducationaldevelopmentin Romaniawasexplored.Afterthat,adocumentanalysiswas conductedtolearnaboutthepre-reformandpost-reform RomanianEFLpicture,bringingintheroleandthe influenceoftheWorldBank,EuropeanUnion,andBritish Council,ontheonehand,andofRomanian,culture, education,andpoliticsontheotherhand.Finally,based ontheanalysisoftheselectedsourcesofinfluenceandon themodelintroducedinthisstudy,arepresentationofthe RomanianEFLcurriculumwasconstructed. Thisstudyofferedamodelofrepresentationfor educationreformsfromtheperspectiveoftheinteraction oftheglobalwiththelocalandappliedthemodeltothe caseofEFLcurriculumreforminRomania.Furtherresearch intheareaofeducationreformcannotonlyutilizebut alsoexpandthisrepresentationmodel.

vii CHAPTER1 INTRODUCTION ThePurposeoftheStudy ThepurposeofthestudyistoanalyzetheEnglishasa ForeignLanguage(EFL)curriculumreforminRomaniafromthe perspectiveoftheinfluenceoftheglobalandlocalcontextson education.Educationalprocesseshavealwaysbeeninfluencedby bothexternalandinternalfactors.Global,top-downapproaches aresometimesoverwhelminglyinfluentialinshapingeducation, andtheinternal,bottom-up,localfactorsmaybeignoredwhen decidingeducationalpriorities.However,theresultof educationalreformsandinitiativesisdeterminedbyboth sourcesofinfluence.Therefore,thisstudyconsidersbothtypes offorceswhenitdescribestheEnglishasaForeignLanguage (EFL)curriculumreforminRomania. TheLocalContext:Romania BriefHistoricalOverview ThehistoryofRomaniahasbeeninfluencedagreatdealby itsgeographicalposition.

Figure1.MapofRomaniaandneighboringcountries

1 LocatedinSouthEasternEurope,Romaniaisacountrywith anareaof92,043sq.miles,aboutthesizeofOregonintheUS, andapopulationof21,399,114people,aboutthesameasTexas intheUnitedStates.ItbordersBulgariainthesouth,the RepublicofMoldova(aformerSovietRepublic)intheeast, UkraineintheNorth,andHungaryandYugoslaviaintheWest. TheprincipallanguagesspokeninRomaniaareRomanian,whichis alsotheofficiallanguageofthestate,Hungarian,andGerman. TheethnicgroupsareRomanian,representing89%ofthe population,Hungarian7%,Gypsyalmost2%,andothers2%. PowerfulnationsofoccidentalculturesuchasPoland, Austria,andHungary,andthoseoftheEastern-Orthodox, traditionsuchasRussiaandGreece,influencedRomaniainthe past.Also,theTurkishEmpireexercisedagreatdealof influenceforthreecenturies(1538-1711),whenRomaniawas underitsdominance(Bulei,1996). Romaniahasexperiencedmanypolitical,cultural,and socialchangeseversincetheRomanianpeoplecompletedtheir ethno-genesisbytheendofthe9thcentury(Candea,1977).It struggledforindependenceandstatehoodandbuiltitsnational identityduringthe19thcentury.Itgainedaswellaslost territoriesinthe20thcentury.Traditionallyamonarchy,it becamearepublicwhenitfellundertheinfluenceoftheSoviet UnionafterWWII.Also,itexperiencedthreedictatorships (royal,fascist,andcommunist)before,duringandafterWWII. Inthe1980’s,RomaniawasundertheCommunistdictatorship ofNicolaeCeausescu.Thewindofchangethatwassweeping throughEasternEuropeandtheSovietUnioninthelate80'sdid notseemtohaveaneffectontheCommunistregimeinRomania. Nevertheless,inDecember1989populardemonstrationsinthe cityofTimisoaraignitedanationwideupheavalthateventually overthrewtheRomanianCommunistregime.Unlikewhathappenedin therestofEasternEurope,theRomanianrevolutionwasviolent, morethan1000peoplebeingkilled,includingCeausescu,the Communistdictator.Heandhiswife,Elena,fledon December22nd1989,buttheywerequicklycaptured,triedbya militarytribunal,andexecuted.(Pop,1999). AfterDecember1989,Romaniabecameamulti-party democracy,adoptedanewconstitutionbyreferendumin1990,and establishedarepublicanformofgovernment.Nolongera satelliteoftheSovietUnion,Romaniastartedaprocessof integrationintothepolitical,economic,andcultural structuresofWesternEurope.Thisre-orientationtowardsEurope hasbroughtmanychangesinRomanianlife.Naturally,education hasbeenoneofthefirstsectorstoexperienceeffortsof reforminordertorespondtothenewpolitical,social,and economicchanges.

2 RecentEducationReformProjectsinRomania Sincethechangethatoccurredin1989,therehavebeen manygovernmentsinpowerwithdifferentpoliticalagendasin Romania.However,allthesegovernments,includingthecurrent one,havedeclaredandmadeofficialthesamemainpoliticaland economicgoals:toacquireNATOmembership,topoliticallyand economicallyintegrateRomaniaintotheEuropeanUnion,andto conducteconomicreformsthatwouldmakethetransitionfromthe centralizedandstate-controlledeconomyofthepastCommunist regimetoafree-markettypeeconomy(Lucescu,1999). Georgescu(1997)hasnotedthatthereseemstobea nationalconsensusonanumberofbasicprinciplesnecessaryfor astructuralreformofRomania’seducationalsystem.All Romanianpoliticalpartiesconsidereducationanational priority,promoteareorientationtowardsEuropeanvalues,and supportadecentralizationoftheeducationalsystemby privatizationofschoolsandrelaxationofstateauthority.In addition,allpartiesencourageaprocessthatclearlydefines nationalobjectivesandstructuresineducationthatwould contributetotheformationofcomplex,independentand freethinkingindividualswhoareabletotakeanactivepartin societyandactasresponsiblecitizens.Consequently,theideas thatdominatetheeducationalpolicydebatesarecenteredupon theshapingofanationaleducationalsystemthatwillrespond tothechallengesofincreasingglobalcompetitionandwill contributetoarapidintegrationoftheRomanianeconomyin internationaltrade.Marga(1998a)recognizesthattheRomanian educationalsystemneedstorespondtothemodernizationneeds ofRomaniansocietyandtoincreasedglobalcompetition,adding thatRomanianpubliceducationispartlyresponsibleforRomania beingoneofthepoorestEuropeancountries. InRomania,twomajoreducationalreformprojectshavebeen implemented:EducationReformandReformofHigherEducationand Research(WorldBank,1992).TheRomanianMinistryofEducation andResearchcoordinatedbothreformprojectsthatwere substantiallyfinancedthroughWorldBankloans.TheEducation ReformProject,aimedatsupportingtheRomaniangovernment’s strategytoreformbasicandsecondaryeducation,hadatotal costofUS$73.5millionofwhichUS$50millioncamefroma WorldBankloanandtherestfromtheGovernmentofRomania.The projecthadbeenineffectsinceOctober1994andendedin September2001.TheReformofHigherEducationandResearch ProjecthadatotalcostofUS$84million,ofwhichUS$50 millionrepresentedaWorldBankloan.Thisprojectstartedin January1997andwascompletedonJanuary30,2002. TheEducationReformProjecthadtwoobjectives:raising thequalityofbasicandsecondaryeducation,andimproving

3 educationfinancingandmanagement.Thequalityofbasicand secondaryeducationwastobeimprovedthroughcurriculumreform andcurriculumdevelopment,training,newassessmentand examinationprocedures,newtextbooks,andsettingof occupationalandassessmentstandards(EducationReformProject, 2001). ThenewEnglishasaForeignLanguageCurriculumisa directresultofcurriculumreformthathasbeenpromotedunder theRomanianEducationReformProject.Withastructure identicaltothenewRomanianNationalCurriculum,which includesattainmenttargets,referencegoals,learning activities,syllabi,andcurricularstandardsofperformance, thenewEFLcurriculumisbasedontheEuropeanFrameworkfor ForeignLanguageLearningpublishedbytheCouncilofEuropein 1998. TheGlobalContext WhenanalyzingthecurrentdirectiontakenbyRomanian education,theinfluenceoftheglobalcontextandglobalization onRomanianeducationbecomesevident.First,educationalpolicy debatesemphasizethecrucialneedforcreatinganational educationalsystemthatwillrespondtothechallengesof increasingglobalcompetition,andcontributetoarapid integrationoftheRomanianeconomyininternationaltrade (Georgescu,1997).Second,theRomanianeducationreform projectsarebasedforthemostpartonWorldBankloans.The WorldBankisasupranationalinstitutionthatsupports globalization,andineffect,isacreationoftheglobalization movementthatdominatestheglobalcontextnowadays. Globalizationisthedominantcharacteristicofthecurrent globalcontext.Itaffectsallnationstates.DaviesandGuppy (1997)identifytwobroadconceptsofglobalizationwithdirect influencesoneducationalsystems.Thefirstconceptiseconomic globalizationthatpromotesmarketcompetitionandglobal capitalbyencouragingaconvergenceofinstitutionalagreements amongnations,consequentlyamongeducationalsystems. Supranationalorganizationsdictatethetermsandconditionsof economicpracticemoreandmore.Nation-statesmustincreasingly reacttothesepressuresoftheexpandingnetworkofmarket relations.Oneconsequenceoftheinteractionbetweentheglobal marketandthenationstatesisthestandardizationofknowledge systemsinallindustrializedstates.Nationstatesorganizeand distributeknowledgethroughformaleducation.Therefore,across thedevelopednations,thereisatendencyforschoolssystems toconverge.Inthecaseoflessdevelopedstates,Inkelesand

4 Sirowy(1984)notethatchangetowardsthiscommonstructuremay resultfromtakingstructuresandpracticesfrommoredeveloped nations.Thisborrowingispossiblebecausethelessdeveloped nationsbelongtovariousnetworksofinfluencethatare vehiclesforideasandsocialforms.Representativesof internationalorganizations,whichencouragealleducational systemstoacceptcommoninternationalstandards,distribute thesegreaterglobalpressures,whichattimestaketheshapeof educationalreformmovements Globalrationalizationisthesecondconceptionof globalizationidentifiedbyDaviesandGuppy(1997).Whilenot unrelatedtoeconomicimperatives,globalrationalization emphasizestheideaofaglobalculturalsystem.Thisstresson rationalityandstandardizationillustratesasecondgeneral forcetowardconvergenceinexistingsocieties.Whilenot implyingthatallnationsmovetowardaworldwideuniform structureofeducation,thisviewonglobalizationsuggeststhat schoolssystemswilladoptbroadlysimilarformsbecauseof increasingglobalrationality. StatementoftheProblem RomanianeducationalreformreliesagreatdealonWorld Bankloans.Therefore,thepressuresofeconomicandrational globalizationpromotedbyinternationalaidorganizations,such astheWorldBank,playanimportantpartinshapingthegoals andobjectivesofeducationalreforminRomania.However,there areotherforcesandpressuresthat,ifignored,cannegatively affecttheRomanianeducationalreform.Simmons(1983) emphasizestheimportanceofpoliticalandeconomicfactorsin determiningtheeducationalreformgoals.Heconsidersthese factorsmoreimportantthanthefactorsinternaltothe educationalreformitself.Educationalreformdependsmoreon thetypeofpoliticalsysteminplace,thetypeofeconomyand thedominantpoliticalobjectivesforeconomicdevelopmentthan itdoesonspecificcircumstancesthatmightexistinthe educationalsystem,suchasshortagesinstafforirrelevanceof educationalpurposes.Inaddition,socialandculturalfactors thatarecontext-specificplayanimportantpartindetermining thenatureandconsequencesofreform.Heproposesabasic causalmodelinwhichcauses(political,economic,social, cultural,etc.)determinethenatureofreform(expansion, equalization,relevance,efficiency),whichinturndetermine theconsequencesofreform(educationalandsocietal). Intheanalysisofreformefforts,Simmons’scausalmodel includesnotonlyfactorsthatmayhaveexternalsources,such aspoliticalandeconomicinfluences,butalsorecognizesthat

5 thelocalbackgroundhasitsshareininfluencingthenatureand consequencesofreform.Thereliesapotentialsourceof conflict.TheWorldBankviewoneducationissometimes fundamentallydifferentfromtheviewoneducationofthe countriesinwhicheducationalprojectsaretobeimplemented,a viewthatfindsitsorigininthehistorical,social,and culturalmilieu.Whenthissourceofconflictisnot anticipatedandincorporatedineducationalreformprojectswith heavyexternalinfluence,itcanleadtodisastrouseducational results. ResearchQuestions Consideringtheproblemtobeinvestigated,thestudy addressesthefollowingresearchquestions: 1.WhatistheEFLcurriculumreforminRomania? 2.Howmightinternationaltrendsineducation,stemmingfrom theglobalizationmovement,andlocalfactorsinfluencetheEFL curriculumreforminRomania? MethodsofAnalysis DataCollection:SourcesandAnalysis Inaddressingthefirstresearchquestion,datacollection entailedmostlyanalysesofdocumentsrelatedtotherecent educationalreformmovementinRomania,withafocusonthe EnglishasaForeignLanguagecurriculumreform.Thesedocuments wereeithergeneratedbytheRomanianMinistryofEducationor byorganizationssuchastheWorldBank,workingcloselywith theRomanianMinistryofEducationforthesuccessofthe educationalreformprojects.Examplesofsuchdocumentswerethe NationalCurriculaforEnglishasaForeignLanguageforbasic andsecondaryeducationinRomania,WorldBankdocuments (EducationReformProjectandReformofHigherEducationand ResearchProject),andtheEuropeanUniondocumentspertaining toForeignLanguageLearningandTeaching. Inaddressingthesecondresearchquestion,thestudyfirst focusedontheinteractionbetweentheglobalandthelocal contextsbycriticallyexaminingbothelementsofthe relationship.Then,theinfluenceoftheinteractionlocal- globaloneducationwasinvestigated,andamodelofpossible representationsforeducationalinitiativesandreformmovements wasdesigned.Basedonthistheoreticalmodel,theEFL curriculuminRomaniawasthenanalyzedandrepresentedfromthe perspectiveofthelocalfactorsinrelationtoglobal influences.Historicalandculturalaccountsofthedevelopment ofRomanianeducation,ontheonehand,andanalysesofWorld

6 Bankpolicyineducationontheotherhand,wereamongthe sourcesutilizedtoanswerthesecondresearchquestion. StructureoftheStudy Thestudyisdividedintofivechapters.Thefirstchapter introducesthepurposeandimportanceofthestudy,the statementoftheproblem,andtheresearchquestions,alongwith introductoryinformationonRomaniaanditscurrenteducational reformmovement.Thesecondchapterreviewsmajortheoretical conceptsrelevanttothestudyandotherresearchefforts similartothisintendedprojectofinquiry.Thethirdchapter presentsthemethodsofanalysis.ChapterFouraddressesthe firstresearchquestionofthestudybyprovidinga comprehensivepictureoftheEnglishasaForeignLanguage(EFL) curriculumreforminthelargercontextoftheRomanian educationreformmovement.ChapterFiverepresentstheEFL curriculumreforminRomaniafromthestandpointofthe interactionbetweentheglobalandthelocalcontext,alongwith possiblesuggestionsandrecommendationsforfurtherresearch. ImportanceoftheStudy Thestudyisimportantfortworeasons.Thefirstreasonis relatedtothedescriptivenatureofthestudy.Thestudy proposestocarefullyanalyzethecurrentreforminRomanian education.Itprovidesvaluableinsightregardingtheframework oftheRomanianeducationalreformingeneralandoftheEnglish asaForeignLanguagecurriculumreforminparticular,thegoals andtheobjectivesofRomanianeducationreformandEFL curriculumreform.Also,itreportswhateducationreformhas accomplished. Additionally,therecentreformmovementisexaminedfroma historicalperspectivethatincludesananalysisofother educationalreformsthatoccurredinRomanianeducationand theirrespectivehistorical,social,andculturalcontexts.In thisway,therecentreformmovementisunderstoodnotonlyfrom theimmediateperspectiveofcontemporaryevents,butalsofrom abroaderhistoricalperspective,thuscontributingtothe inclusionofthepresentreformeffortsinthehistoryof Romanianeducationandinthehistoryofeducationalreforms worldwide. Thesecondreasonthisstudyisimportantderivesfromthe processofrepresentingtheEFLcurriculumreforminRomania fromthepointofviewofglobalandlocalinfluences.This processconsistsoftwostages.First,theresearcherbrings togetherexistingstudiesofeducationalmovementsand initiativesinamodelthatconsiderstheglobal-local

7 interactioninthefieldofeducation.Then,thistheoretical modelisappliedtothespecificsituationoftheRomanianEFL curriculumreform.Itisimportanttoemphasizethat,whenthe RomanianEFLcurriculumreformisexamined,bothglobaland localcontextsareconsideredandpotentialsourcesofconflict betweenthetwoareacknowledged.Therefore,thesecond importantcontributionofthestudywillbethatitexamines educationalmovementsfromaperspectivethatincorporatesthe localandglobalcontextsinadynamicrelationship,especially whenboththeglobalandthelocalmeetintheareaofeducation andeducationchange.Manytimes,WorldBankandotheraid organizationshavefailedtorecognizeandincorporatethelocal conditionsandfactorsintheireducationalprojectsdespitethe factthateducationalreformscannotbeseparatedfromtheir political,economic,social,andculturalenvironments. Limitations Theprimarylimitationofthestudyarisesfromtheextent andfocusofthestudy.TheresearchconcentratesonEnglishas aForeignLanguagecurriculumreforminRomaniaonly.Therefore, becausethisisastudyofonecountry,theconclusionsderived fromtheinquiryarenotnecessarilyapplicabletoother countriesandcontexts.However,themodelofinquirymaybe usefultofuturestudiesoneducationreformsandinitiativesas resultsoftheinteractionbetweentheglobalandthelocal contextsinthefieldofeducation. Summary Thepurposeofthischapterhasbeentodefinethe educationalproblemtobeaddressed,i.e.thepotential influencesontheEnglishasaSecondLanguagereformfromthe broaderperspectiveofRomanianeducationalreform, internationaltrends,andlocalfactors.Theproblemis educationallyrelevant:theresearchprojectattemptsto representtheEFLcurriculumreforminRomaniafromthe interactionbetweenthelocalandtheglobalcontexts.The purposeofthenextchapteristoreviewmajortheoretical conceptsrelevanttothestudyandsignificantresearchrelated tothisproposedprojectofinquiry.

8 CHAPTER2 THEGLOBALAND,ORVERSUS,THELOCALINEDUCATION Introduction Thepurposeofthischapteristoestablishtowhatextent therelationshipbetweentheglobalandthelocalcontexts influenceseducationmovementsandinitiatives.Thisassessment leadstothedesignofamodelofrepresentationsforeducation reformsingeneralandforEFLcurriculumreforminparticular. First,thechapterfocusesonglobalizationandonitsinfluence oneducationalprojects.Then,forabetterunderstandingofthe Romaniancontext,thechapterbrieflyreviewsrelevant historicalandculturaleventsthataffectedRomania.Finally, thestudytakesintoaccounttheinseparablerelationship betweentheglobalandthelocalcontexts,anditsinfluenceon education.Thisresultsinamodelforrepresentingeducational reformsandinitiativesasaconsequenceofglobal-local influences.Thismodelisultimatelyusedfortherepresentation oftheEFLcurriculumreforminRomania. TheGlobalContext Globalization OriginsofGlobalization.Globalizationisaconceptthat hasdeeplypenetratedtheeconomic,political,cultural,and educationaldiscoursesofmostnation-states.Particularlyin education,policydebatesaredominatedbytheimageof globalization.Globalcompetition,internationaltrade,and globaleconomyaremajorthemesthatdominatedebateson educationalreforms,curriculumcontent,evaluationand assessment,orschoolgovernance.Thesedebatesinvolveparents, educators,unionleaders,politicians,orbusinessadvocates (DaviesandGuppy,1997).Frequently,nationalleadersand politiciansattributethepoorstateoftheireconomy,either underdevelopedorinrecession,toyoungworkersseenasill preparedbyschoolstofacethechallengesofthenewglobal economy(NationalCommissiononExcellenceinEducation,1983). However,beforedefiningtheconceptofglobalizationand exploringtheeffectsofglobalizationoneducation,itis beneficialtoanalyzetheoriginsofglobalization. Thereareseveralmajortheoriesrelatedtotheoriginsof globalization.Thefirsttheoryiscenteredupontheissueof universalismandparticularismintheglobalcontext.Robertson (1997)arguesthatglobalizationisaprocessthatdirects attentiontobothparticularityanddifference,ontheonehand,

9 andtouniversalityandhomogeneityontheother.Thisprocess isatwo-foldprogressioninvolvingtheuniversalizationof particularismandtheparticularizationofuniversalism. AccordingtoRoberstson,theissueofuniversalism-particularism isabasicfeatureofthehumanconditionandhasitsorigin connectedtotheemergenceofgreatreligioculturaltraditions, developedaroundtheuniversalism-particularismtheme.Theway inwhichJapanacquiredthethemeofuniversalitywithits exposuretoandadaptationofConfucianismandBuddhismisa relevantexampleoftheinterpenetrationoftheuniversalwith theparticular.Japanhasalongandsuccessfulhistoryof selectiveincorporationofideasfromotherculturesinsucha wayastoparticularizetheuniversalandtoreturntheproduct ofthatprocesstotheworldasauniquelyJapanesecontribution totheuniversal.Thisinseparabilityoftheuniversalfromthe particularculminatesintheproblematicofglobalization constructedasadialecticrelationshipbetweentheglobaland thelocal. AsecondapproachproposedbyWallerstein(1979)associates globalizationwiththeoriginsofcapitalism,culminatingwith theemergenceofaglobaleconomyinthesixteenthcentury. Wallersteinclaimsthatananalysisofthepoliticaleconomyof sixteenth-centuryEuropeisnecessaryforabetterunderstanding ofthecurrentworld-system.Themodernworld-systemhasits originsinthe'extended'sixteenthcentury,from1450to1640. Duringthisperiod,throughaseriesofhistorical,ecological, andgeographiccircumstances,thenorthwesternpartofEurope wasbettersituatedthanotherpartsofEuropetodiversifyits agriculturalspecializationandtodevelopcertainindustries, suchastextiles,shipbuilding,andmetalproduction.Asa consequence,northwesternEuropeemergedasacoreareaofthis worldeconomy,favoringtenancyandwagelaborasthemodesof laborcontrol.EasternEuropeandtheWesternHemispherebecame peripheralareasspecializinginexportofrawmaterials, favoringtheuseofslaveryandcash-croplaborasthemodesof laborcontrol.MediterraneanEuropeemergedasthesemi- peripheralareaofthisworldeconomyspecializinginhigh-cost industrialproducts,i.e.silk,andcredittransactions, favoringsharecroppingasthemodeoflaborcontrolinthe agriculturalarea.Core,semi-periphery,andperipheryreferto thepositionsintheeconomicsystem.Thecoreareaswere characterizedbyacomplexvarietyofeconomicactivities:mass marketindustries(textilesandshipbuilding),internationaland localcommerceinthehandsofalocalbourgeoisie,and relativelyadvancedandcomplexformsofagriculture,suchas leasing.Bycontrast,theperipheralareasweremonocultural, withcashcrops,producedonlargepropertiesbycoercedlabor.

10 Inthesemi-peripheralareas,theformofagriculturallabor controlwassharecropping,whichwasanintermediatemode betweenthefreedomoftheleasesystemandthecoercionof slaveryandserfdom.Thesemi-peripherystillretainedforthe timebeingsomeshareininternationalbankingandhigh-cost industrialproduction,suchassilkmanufacturing.Allthese regionscreatedaworld-economyinthesensethatvariousareas cametobedependentuponeachotherfortheirspecialized roles.Theprofitabilityofspecificeconomicactivitiesbecame afunctionoftheproperfunctioningofthesystemasawhole. Profitabilitywasgenerallyservedbyincreasingtheoverall productivityofthesystem. Athirdperspectiveidentifiestheoriginsofglobalization inthemid-1800'sanddividesglobalizationintotwomajor periods(Friedman,1999).Thefirsteraofglobalizationand globalfinancecapitalismstartedinthemiddleofthe nineteenthcenturyandendedwiththemajoreventsofthefirst halfofthetwentiethcentury:WorldWarI,theRussian revolution,theGreatDepression,andWorldWarII.Thisfirst eraofglobalizationwasbuiltaroundfallingtransportation costsbroughtaboutbytheinventionoftherailroad,the steamship,andtheautomobile.Peoplecouldtraveltoandtrade withmanyplacesfasterandcheaper.Theformallydividedworld thatemergedafterWorldWarIIwasfrozeninplacebytheCold War,aperiodthatlastedbetween1945and1989.Thefallofthe BerlinWallin1989markedtheendoftheColdWarasan internationalsystemandthebeginningofanewsystem,the seconderaofglobalization,whichtheworldexperiencestoday. Today'seraofglobalizationisbuiltaroundfalling telecommunicationscosts,thankstomicrochips,fiberoptics, andtheInternet.Thesenewallowpeopletooffer andtradearangeofservicesglobally,suchasmedicaladvice andsoftwarewriting,thatcouldneverreallybetradedbefore. Friedman(1999)addsthat,ifthefirsteraofglobalization shrunktheworldfromasizelargetoasizemedium,thesecond eraofglobalizationisshrinkingtheworldfrommediumto small. Definitionsofglobalization.Asaterm,globalizationis conceptualizedindifferentways.Fromoneperspective,theterm referstotheemergenceofsupranationalinstitutionswhose decidingpowersnotonlysurpassnationalborders,butalso shapeandconstrainthepolicyoptionsforanyparticularnation state(McGinn,1997).Anotherviewemphasizestheoverwhelming impactofglobaleconomicprocessessuchasproduction, consumption,trade,capitalflowandmonetaryinterdependence (Burbules&Torres,2000).Anotherpointofviewconsiders globalizationastheriseofneoliberalismasahegemonic

11 politicaldiscourse(Apple,2000).Adifferentperspective definesglobalizationastheemergenceofnewglobalcultural forms,mediaandtechnologiesofcommunication,allofwhich shapetherelationsofaffiliation,identity,andinteraction withinandacrosslocalculturalsettings(Luke&Luke,2000). Todefineglobalizationistoincludeallthese perspectivesandpointsofviewunderoneunifyingproposition. Globalizationistheproductoftheemergenceofaglobal economy,expansionoftransnationallinkagesbetweeneconomic unitscreatingnewformsofcollectivedecision-making, developmentofsupranationalinstitutions,intensificationof transnationalcommunications,andthecreationofnewregional andmilitaryorders(MorrowandTorres,2000).Stressingthe ideaofinterconnectivity,Held(1991)proposesanother appealingdefinitionofglobalization.Heseesitasaprocess throughwhichworldwidesocialrelationsconnectingremote regionshaveintensifiedinsuchawaythatlocalhappeningsare theresultofeventsoccurringfarawayandviceversa. Characteristicsofglobalization.Characteristicsof globalizationcanbetracedineconomic,political,cultural, andeducationaltrendsofcontemporarysocieties. Ineconomicterms,globalizationischaracterizedbya transitionfromFordisttopost-Fordistformsofworkplace organization,byanincreaseininternationaladvertisingand consumptionpatterns,andbyareductionofbarriersto encourageafreecirculationofgoods,workers,andinvestments acrossinternationalborders(BurbulesandTorres,2000). StromquistandMonkman(2000)notethatthedynamicsof globalizationhaveemphasizedtheimportanceofthemarketand transnationalcorporationsintheeconomicdecisionprocess, withrepercussionsinthepoliticalarena.Withtheendofthe ColdWar,whichbroughtthedemiseofthecentrallyplanned, socialisteconomies,themarketisseenasholdinggreatpromise inreleasingcreativeenergiesandminimizinginefficiencies. Competitionoffirmstoenableproductioninhighvolumeand qualityisamajorprincipleintheglobalizedmarket.A characteristicofcontemporarymarketsistheirclusteringin regionalblockswiththepurposeofattainingbenefitsofscale, coordinatingproduction,andtargetingspecificpopulations. Europe,NorthAmerica,andEastAsiaarethreeexamplesofsuch blocksthathaveemerged,andwhicharepreparingthemselvesfor increasingcompetition. Transnationalcorporationsrepresenttheotherimportant factorineconomicdecisionprocesses.Transnational corporationsareboththeprimaryagentsandmajorbeneficiaries ofglobalization.Moghadam(1999)reportsthattherearearound fortythousandlargefirmsthatcanbequalifiedas

12 transnationalcorporations.Moghadamaddsthat,throughaccess tohighlymobilecapital,transnationalcorporationshave establishedglobalfactories,relyingonthecheapest combinationoflaborandskills.Asaresult,transnational corporationshavecreatedincreasinglyintegratedand interdependentsystemsofcapital-laborflowacrossregionsand betweenstates.Withthesupportofinternationalfinancial institutions,transnationalcorporationscanengagein substantialandspeedycapitalinvestment,transfer, financialexchangesandincreasedtrade. Inpoliticalterms,globalizationinfluencesnotonly economicdecisionmakingprocesses,butpoliticalonesaswell. Blackmore(2000)warnsthattheinternationalmarketnow disciplinesthestate,whereaspreviously,thewelfarestate disciplinedthemarketwithinitsnationalboundaries.Capella (2000)liststhelossofnation-statesovereigntyandthe erosionofnationalautonomyasresultsoftheinfluenceof globalizationonthepoliticalrealm.Thenotionofthecitizen asaunifiedandunifyingconceptcharacterizedbyprecise roles,obligations,andstatusischanged. Evenpowerfulstates,suchastheUnitedStates,suffer politicalconsequencesderivedfrominternationaltrade agreements.TheNorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreementisan internationalcommercialagreementbetweentheU.S.,Mexico,and Canada,andcameintoeffectin1994.NAFTAincludesexpansive rulesoninvestmentdesignedtograntspeciallegalprotections andnewrightstocorporationsfromoneNAFTAcountrythat investsinanotherNAFTAcountry.NAFTA’sinvestmentchapter, Chapter11,isuniquebecauseitprovidesfortheprivate enforcementofthesenewinvestorrightsandprivilegesoutside ofanation’sdomesticcourtsystem.Previousmultilateraltrade agreementshadneverincludedanyinvestmentprovisions.NAFTA’s Chapter11investmentrulesnotonlyprovidenewsecurityand easeforcompaniestorelocateproductiontoanotherNAFTA country,butalsoempowercorporationstochallengebasic governmentpoliciesasviolatingNAFTA’snewinvestorrights. WhenacorporationbelievesitsinvestorrightsunderNAFTA’s Chapter11havebeenviolated,thecorporationcanchallengethe policyorlawofthegovernment'hosting'itsinvestmentusing NAFTA’sspecial'investor-to-state'disputeresolutionsystem. Thisallowsaprivateinvestortoprosecuteacaseagainsta NAFTAgovernmentforfailuretoprovideaNAFTA-grantedinvestor privilege.SuchNAFTAinvestorclaimscanbebroughttoa specialNAFTAtribunalratherthanpursuedinacountry’s domesticcourtsystem(NorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreement, 1994).Neithersovereignimmunityshieldsnorbasicdueprocess guaranteesexistinthisNAFTAenforcementsystem.Thisprivate

13 enforcementsystemoperatesparalleltothestate-to-state disputeresolutionsystemthatwasalsoestablishedinNAFTA. State-to-stateenforcementactionsarehowtradedisputesare traditionallyresolved.Forexample,theglobaltradeagreements oftheWorldTradeOrganizationareenforceableonlythrougha disputeresolutionsystemthatallowsonlygovernmentstobring cases,notprivatebusinesses. ThereareseveralpendinglawsuitsfiledunderNAFTA Chapter11.PublicCitizenandFriendsoftheEarth(2001) presentsseveralpendingcases.OneexampleisCalifornia,where thegovernmentdecidedtorequirethephasingoutofagasoline additivecalledMTBE.Thechemical,whichcausedcancerin animals,leakedintothewatersupply,contaminating 30publicwatersystemsand10,000groundwatersites,and forcingtheshutdownofathirdofthewellsinSouthLake Tahoe.ACanadiancompanycalledMethanexproducesthekey ingredientofMTBE.ThecompanyinvokedNAFTA'sChapter11 provisionandclaimedthestateofCalifornia'sactionswere detrimentaltoitsfutureprofit.Thecompanyisaskingfor$970 millionincompensationifCaliforniadoesnotallowthemto sellMTBE. Inculturalterms,globalizationbringsconsiderable complexitythroughtheinteractionbetweentheglobalandthe local.Ononeend,therearewaysinwhichglobalizationpushes formorestandardizationandculturalhomogeneity.Ontheother end,therearewaysinwhichglobalizationbringsmore fragmentationthroughtheriseoflocallyorientedmovements, whichopposeandfightstandardizationandhomogeneity(Barber, 1995).However,thereisathirdtheoreticalalternativein whichtheglobalandthelocaldonotfindthemselvesinan irreconcilableposition.Thisperspectiveviewscultural homogeneityandculturalheterogeneityasappearing simultaneouslyintheculturallandscapeinwhatArnoveand Torres(1999)identifyas'theglocal'. Friedman(1999)defines'healthyglocalization'asthe abilityofaculture,incontactwithotherstrongcultures,to absorbinfluencesthatcanenrichthatculture,toresistthose culturalelementsthataretrulyalien,andtoacknowledgethose elementsthat,whiledifferent,canneverthelessbeenjoyedand celebratedasdifferent.OneexampleofwhatFriedmancalls 'healthyglocalism'isofferedbyJudaism,aclassicexampleof areligiousculturethathasabsorbedinfluencesfrommany differentcountriesovertime,withoutlosingitscoreidentity. WhentheJewsencounteredtheGreeksinthefourthcenturyB.C., theonethingthatwasabsorbedmostcomprehensivelyintoJewish thoughtwasGreeklogic.TheincorporationofGreeklogicwas relativelyeasybecauseGreeklogicwasorganicallyrelatedto

14 whattherabbisandbiblicalscholarsofthatdayweredoing, whichwascultivatingthetruth.AtthesametimethattheJews wereabsorbingtheGreeklogic,theywerealsoexposedtothe Greekcelebrationofthebody,Eros,andpolytheism.TheJews didnottakeintheseinfluences,viewedasalien.Finally, therewereGreekfoodsandclothesthatJewsinthosedays selectivelyadoptedandenjoyedpreciselybecausetheywere different,butnevermadethemtheirown. Someculturesmaythinktheyareglocalizinginahealthy mannerwhen,infact,theyareassimilatingandlosingtheir identityinasubtleway.With2,000restaurants,McDonald's JapanisthebiggestMcDonald'sfranchiseoutsideoftheUnited States.McDonald'sJapanhasbeensosuccessfullyintegratedin JapanthatalittleJapanesegirl,uponarrivinginLosAngeles, looksaroundandtellshermotherthattheUnitedStatestoohas McDonald's.ForFriedman,thefactthatthelittlegirldidnot knowthatMcDonald'scomesfromChicagoandwasfoundedbyan Americanisasignof'unhealthyglocalism'.Somethingthat shouldbetreatedandenjoyedasdifferentisnot.Anunhealthy glocalizationoccurswhenmembersofacultureabsorbsomething thatneitherbelongstothatculture,norconnectswithanything latentinthatculture.Nevertheless,becausetheyhavelost touchwiththeirculture,theythinkitdoes.Whenthishappens, homogenizationisinevitable,andthereiseverychancethatthe Japanesegirlwilleventuallylosetouchwithwhatisreallyher originalselfandculture,withwhatmakesherJapanese. Ineducationalterms,thereisagrowingunderstandingthat theneoliberalversionofglobalization,particularlyas implemented(andideologicallydefended)bybilateral, multilateral,andinternationalorganizationsisreflectedinan educationalagendathatprivileges,ifnotdirectlyimposes, particularpoliciesforevaluation,financing,assessment, standards,teachertraining,instruction,andtesting.Pure marketmechanismsareutilizedtoregulateeducationexchanges andotherpoliciesthatseektoreducestatesponsorshipand financingandtoimposemanagementandefficiencymodels borrowedfromthebusinesssectorasaframeworkfordecision making(Burbules&Torres,2000). Bilateral,multilateral,andinternationalorganizations are,mostofthetime,supranationalorganizations. Supranationalorganizations,liketransnationalcorporations, areorganizationswhoseexistencedoesnotdependonthe approvalandsupportofanyonenation.Theseincludereligious supranationalorganizations,suchastheRomanCatholicChurch, charitableandreliefsupranationalorganizations,suchasthe InternationalRedCross,militarysupranationalorganizations, suchasNATO,andinternationaldevelopmentsupranational

15 organizations,suchastheWorldBankandUNESCO(McGinn,1997). TheWorldBankisoneexampleofasupranationalorganization thatpromotesaneoliberalversionofglobalization,withthe marketandfreetradeasproblem-solvingsolutions.Accordingto thecurrentpresidentoftheWorldBank,itsagendacontains fourmajordirectionsofaction.First,thedevelopingcountries mustcontinuetoimprovepolicies,investmentclimateand governance.Second,allcountries,regardlessoftheireconomic status,eitherdevelopedordeveloping,mustreducetrade barriersandgivedevelopingcountriesbetteraccesstoworld markets.Third,developedcountriesmustincreasedevelopment aid,butallocateitbetter.Fourth,theworldmustactasa globalcommunity.AccordingtotheWorldBank'sagendaof action,effectiveglobalizationrequiresinstitutionsofglobal governanceandmultilateralactiontoconfrontglobalproblems suchasterrorism,internationalizedcrime,andmoney laundering,andtoprovideglobalpublicgoods(Wolfensohn, 2001). Supranationalorganizationsinfluenceeducationinmany ways.Oneoftheinfluencesofsupranationalorganizationshas beenthroughtheirsupportofreducedstatecontrolofpublic education.UNESCOhasbeenencouragingregionalizationof educationandtheWorldBankactivelypromotesdecentralization andprivatization(McGinn,1997).Anotherwayinwhich supranationalorganizationsimpactpubliceducationisthrough theirparticipationinthedecisionsabouttheorganizationand thecontentofeducationsystems.TheWorldBankdirectly affectspolicyandpracticeineducationinseveralways.It grantsloansonlyforBank-specifiedprogramsanditimposes conditionssuchaschangesinpoliciesandpracticesthatmust bemetbeforetheloanscanbeimplemented.TheWorldBankalso influencesthehiringofforeignconsultantstohelpin implementation,andprovidesoverseastrainingandeducationin institutionsapprovedbytheBank.Italsosetsupcommunication amongpolicy-makersinvariouscountries,andusesresearchto justifyrecommendationsforspecificprograms(Samoff,1993). TheLocalContext Romania Globalizationhasanimportantroletoplayininfluencing educationreformsandinitiatives.TheWorldBankgeneratesa tremendousnumberofeducationalprojects.Itisimportantto note,though,thatallWorldBankeducationalprojects, includingtheonesforreformingRomanianeducation,havetobe implementedonexistingconditionsandenvironmentsthatcan

16 negativelyorpositivelyaffecttheoutcomeofeducational projects. Politicalandeconomicfactorsplayanimportantpartin theformulationandtheadoptionofeducationalreformgoalsand objectives.Inadditiontothesefactors,Simmons(1983)adds thesocial,educationalandgeneralhistoricallegacytothesum ofcausesthatdeterminethenatureandtheresultsof educationalreforms.Educationandeducationreformcannotbe analyzedindependentoftheirpolitical,economic,social,and culturalcontexts.Therefore,itisimportanttotakeinto accountandinvestigatethecharacteristicsofthelocalcontext thatmightinfluencetheoutcomeoftheeducationalreformin Romaniaingeneral,andofthenewEFLcurriculuminRomaniain particular. Originof Around480BC,GreekhistorianandgeographerHecateus mentionstheexistenceofseveralGetictribesontheterritory southwestoftheBlackSea(Giurascu,1974).TheGetianswere relatedwithothertribesknownasDacians,wholivedinthe mountainsnorthoftheDanubianPlainandintheTransylvanian Basin.Overthecenturies,theGeto-Daciansdevelopeda prosperousandambitiouscivilizationthatoftenengagedinmany warsofdefenseorconquest.Thisflourishingcivilizationposed achallengetotheRomanEmpire’sambitionsintheregion.To endthethreat,EmperorTrajanwagedtwowarsagainstGeto- Dacians,onein101ADandthesecondin105AD.TheRomanswon, andforalmosttwocenturies,theTransylvanianBasinandthe plainnorthoftheDanubeconstitutedtheRomanprovinceDacia Felix,dividedintoDaciaInferiorMalvensius,Dacia Porolossensis,andDaciaSuperiorApulensis(Basdevant,1965). TheRomanemperorTrajanandhissuccessorsfolloweda policyofRomanizationbyencouragingthesettlingofcolonists andminers,whocamefromthewholeRomanworld,andofRoman legionaries,who,afterleavingthemilitaryservice,often remainedintheprovincewiththeirDacianwivesandchildren (Iorga,1925).Althoughthepopulationwasethicallydiverse, theRomanadministration,thelargenumberofcities,andthe languagespeededuptheprocessofRomanizationand integrationintheRomanEmpire(Durandin,1995). TheconstantpressureofmigratorypeoplesontheRoman EmpiremadeEmperorAurelianwithdrawthearmyandthe administrationfromDaciabetween271-275AD.Betweenthethird andtheseventhcenturies,Daciawasagatewayofinvasionfor severalmigratorypeoples.Theearliestofthem,ofTeutonic (GothsandGepidae)andMongolianorigin(HunsandAvars),had noinfluenceontheLatinelement(Bulei,1996).

17

Figure2.1.RomanDacia(Pop,1999) However,theSlavs,whomassivelyadvancedintoDacia around567AD,deeplyinfluencedthelanguageoftheRomanized populationofDacia.TheSlavicimpactwasprimarilyatthe lexicallevel.Approximately16to20percentofthewordsin thebasicvocabularyofRomanianisofSlavicorigin.Agreat partoftheagriculturalterminology,numerousverbs,andother wordsareofSlavorigin.Also,animportantpartofthe RomaniantoponomyisalsoofSlavoriginandindicatesalong commonlifeofthetwopeoples(ForterandRostovsky,1971). Theethno-genesisoftheRomanianpeoplewascompletedby the9thcentury.Itconsistedoftwostages:first,the RomanizationoftheGeto-Dacianpopulationfollowedbythe assimilationoftheSlavsbytheDaco-Romans.Theyear1050is thefirsttimeRomanianswerementionednorthofDanube: Gardini,aPersiangeographermentionedaChristianpeopleas partoftheRomanEmpire,apeopledistinctfromtheSlavsand theHungariansaroundit(Giurascu,1974). Panaitescu(1990)dividestheChristianpeoplesofEurope intotwogreatcategories:ontheonehand,therearetheGreeks andtheRomans,whoembracedthebeforetheMiddle Ages,andontheotherhand,theGermans,theSlavs,andthe Mongols,whobecameChristianduringtheMiddleAgesthrough missionariessentbythePopeinRome,orbythePatriarchin Constantinople.AccordingtoPanaitescu,RomanianChristianity belongstotheformer.ItstartedtospreadamongtheRoman colonistsandsoldiersduringtheRomanoccupationofDacia.The persecutionsofChristiansfromtheRomanemperors,and,after

18 theRomansleft,fromtheHunishrulersbetween350and450 A.D.,drovetheChristianreligionunderground.Itnever representeditselfasanorganizedchurch.Therewasno ecclesiasticalhierarchy,norformerlinkswitheitherRomeor Constantinople.ProofoftheLatinoriginofRomanian ChristianityisintheRomanianwordsconnectedwiththe practiceofChristianity,allofwhichhaveaLatinderivation. 'Biserica'(church)isfromtheLatin'basilica','cruce' (cross)isfromtheLatin'crux','aboteza'(tobaptize)is fromtheLatin'baptizare'. Duringthesecondhalfoftheseventhcentury,theBulgars, atribefromCentralAsia,establishedstatessouthofthe Danube,andconqueredtheterritorybetweentheDanubeandthe Tisa.TheBulgarianslosttheiroriginalUngro-Altaiclanguage andwereChristianizedbytwomissionariesfromConstantinople, CyrilandMethodius,between864and870.Disciplesofthesetwo greatmissionariesextendedtheBulgarianChristianChurchto theLatinspeakinglandsoccupiedbytheBulgars.Thismeantthe ordainingofpriestsbyBulgarianbishopswhousedtheOld ChurchSlavicandtheCyrillicalphabet.InRomanian,onlyterms referringtoecclesiastichierarchyinthestrictsenseareof Slavonicoriginandbelongtotheninthcentury,whenthe BulgarssucceededinorganizingtheChristianchurchonRomanian lands.Thisiswhy,inspiteofaLatinfoundation,theRomanian churchisanOrthodox,Constantinople-orientedchurch,instead ofbeingaCatholic,Rome-orientedone.Itisaclearresultof thedualeasternandwesterninfluences,affectingnotonlythe historyoftheRomanianpeople,butalsotheircultureand identity. AftertheformationofthefirstRomanianstatesinthe 14thcentury,thisnewlanguageusedforchurchofficesbecame thelanguageusedinstatedocumentsuntiltheseventeenth century.Romanian,thespokenvernacularusedbythepeople,did notattainthestatusofaliterarylanguageuntilthe eighteenthcentury(Florescu,1999). TheFirstStates TheRomanianslivingnorthoftheDanubeformedtwostates inthe14thcentury:Muntenia,orWallachia,inthesouthand Moldovaintheeast.Transylvania,coveringthenorthwesternand westernpartsoftheareainhabitedbyRomanians,wasorganized induchiesuntilthe11thcenturyADwhenitwasconqueredby HungariansandremainedunderHungariandominationuntilthe 20thcentury(Castellan,1989). TheprincipalitiesWallachiaandMoldovatriedtopreserve theirindependence,but,bythe16thcentury,fellunderthe dominationoftheOttomanEmpire.Althoughtheywerenever

19 Turkishprovinces,theywereunderthecompletecontrolofthe Turks.ThekingswerechangedattheSultan'spleasure,the troopswereforcedtofightfortheTurkishEmpire,andthe annualtributewasanexcessiveandcrushingburden(Durandin, 1994)

Figure2.2.RomanianLands(Pop,1999) OthercountriesandculturesinfluencedRomanianinthe MiddleAges.ThenobilityofMoldovaandWallachiasenttheir sonstostudyinPolandandAustria.DespotVoda,whoruled Moldovabetween1561-1563,foundedacollegewithGerman professorswhereLatinwasthelanguageofinstruction.This collegerepresentsthefirstRomanianinstitutionbasedon WesternEuropeaneducationalstructures.InMoldova,acollege whereLatinwasthelanguageofinstructionopenedin1639;in 1649,acollegewithteachinginGreekandLatinwasestablished inWallachia. ModernRomania Overtime,thepoweroftheOttomanEmpirebegantoweaken. TheRussianEmpireseizedtheopportunityandthusbeganits periodofinfluenceandcontroloverMoldovaandWallachia.The Russianinfluencewasatitshighestpointinthe18thcentury,

20 whentheRussiansestablishedaprotectorateovertheprovinces. ThisprotectoratewouldcometoanendaftertheCrimeanWarin 1856,whentheRussianslostcontroloverMoldovaandWallachia, putunderthecontrolofthewesternEuropeanGreatPowers (Durandin,1995).

Figure2.3.MoldaviaandWallachia(Pop,1999) Thesefavorablepoliticalcircumstancesofthe19thcentury leadtotheunionoftheMoldovaandWallachiaunderColonel AlexandruIoanCuzain1859.CuzahadtoadministertheUnited ProvinceswithtwoParliamentsandtwocabinetssincetheGreat Powersdidnotallowfora'dejure'unionofWallachiaand Moldova.However,in1862,withthehelpofNapoleontheThird, thefinalunionwasaccomplished.Asinglestate,knownas Romania,stillunderthesuzeraintyoftheTurkishEmpire,was setupwiththecapitalatBucharestandoneadministrationand parliament(Bobango,1979). ThepoliticalpartiesdidnotfavorCuza.Theconservatives opposedhimbecausehehadinitiatedandcarriedouttheland reform,whiletheradicalliberalsopposedhimbecauseofthe authoritarianregimehehadinstalledin1864(Otetea,1970). Therefore,in1866,afteramilitaryplot,Cuzawasforcedto abdicate.ThepoliticalpartiesthatforcedCuzatoabdicate broughtaforeignGermanprince,CarolvonHohenzollern Sigmaringen,toruleRomania.Duringhisreign,Romaniagained independencefromtheTurksin1877andextendeditsfrontiers inthesouthfollowingthe1913BalkanWar(Hitchins,1994).

21 AtCarol'sdeathin1914,hisson,FerdinandI,succeeded himtothethrone.In1916,FerdinanddeclaredwaronAustria andadvancedintoTransylvania.Aftertwoyearsofbitterwarin whichtheRomanianarmywasforcedtoretreattoMoldovaand leaveWallachiaundertheenemy'soccupation,Romaniawasunited withtheotherethnic-Romanianterritories:Transylvania, BessarabiaandBukovina.KingFerdinandwascrownedKingof GreaterRomaniain1923(Panaitescu,1990). InterwarRomania

Figure.2.4.InterwarRomania(Pop,1999) AfterthedeathofFerdinand,hissonCarolIIbecameKing in1930.CarolIIdidnotentertaintheideaofdemocracyand decidedtomakehimselfadecisiveforceinnationalaffairs. In1938,heproclaimedaroyaldictatorshipanddissolvedthe politicalparties.Harsheconomicconditionsandmassive unemploymentencouragedextremistpolitics.ManyRomanians joinedtheIronGuard,asuccessfulpoliticalmovementonthe farright,mixingnationalism,elementsofOrthodoxcreed,and anti-Semitism.ExtremelyfewRomaniansjoinedtheRomanian CommunistParty(RCP).Outlawedin1924,theRCP,subordinated

22 totheSovietCommunistPartyandtotheComintern,adoptedthe viewthatconsideredRomaniaamultinationalstateartificially createdbyWesternimperialism,andmilitatedactivelyforthe disbandingofGreaterRomania(Hitchins,1994).In1940,Romania lostBessarabiaandnorthernBukovinatotheSovietUnion, northernTransylvaniatoHungaryandsouthernDobrogeato Bulgaria.Thelossofoverathirdofitsterritoryendedthe dictatorshipofCarolII,whoabdicatedonSeptember6,1940 (Castellan,1989). RomaniaduringWWII GeneralIonAntonescureplacedCarolII,rulingthecountry asamilitarydictator.In1941,hejoinedintheGerman invasionoftheSovietUniontogetbackBessarabiaandnorthern Bukovina,takenbytheSovietsin1940.However,onAugust23, 1944,KingMichael,thesonofCarolII,arrestedAntonescu duringacoupd'etatandestablishedanewgovernmentcommitted totheAlliedwareffortagainstGermany.TheRomaniansoldiers turnedagainsttheGermansandfoughtfortheliberationof Transylvania,HungaryandCzechoslovakia.Beforetheendofthe WWIIinEurope,thewareffortontheAlliedsidecostRomania 170,000deadorwoundedandalmost1billionUSdollars(Candea, 1977). PostWWIIRomania Withlessthan1,000membersin1944,theCommunistParty cametopowerinthespringof1945asaresultofstrong pressurefromtheSovietUnion,whosetroopshadbeenstationed inRomaniasinceAugust1944.OnMarch61945,theSoviets forcedKingMichaeltoacceptagovernmentcontrolledby Communists.Thisnewgovernmentabolishedthelibertyofthe pressandsetuppoliticalcamps(Pop,1999).Theparliamentary electionsof1946gaveabout80%ofthevotetotheCommunists andtheirallies,althoughstrongevidenceexiststhatthe Communistsfalsifiedtheresultsoftheelectionsinorderto obtaintotalcontrolovertheRomanianpoliticalscene (Durandin,1994).Fromthatpointon,Romaniawasplacedbehind theIronCurtain,andtheSovietUniondictatedthehistorical courseofRomaniansuntilthe1990's(Bulei,1996).Asforthe otherterritorieslostin1940,BessarabiabecametheMoldavian SovietSocialistRepublic,northernBukovinabecamepartofthe UkrainianSovietSocialistRepublicandsouthernDobrogea remainedpartofBulgaria. InDecember1989,aseriesofeventsinthecityof Timisoara(NWofRomania)triggeredarevoltthatspreadtomany othercitiesinRomania.TheRomanianRevolutionendedoverfour decadesofharshCommunistruleinRomania.TheCommunist

23 dictatorNicolaeCeausescuwasarrested,triedandexecutedon December25,1989.Romaniabecameademocraticstateonceagain, andfreeelectionswereheldthefollowingyear.Romaniastarted aperiodoftransitionfromaCommunistdictatorshiptoa democracy,fromacentralizedeconomytoafree-marketoriented one,andofpolitical,social,economicandeducationalre- orientationtowardsWesternEurope. TheGlobal-LocalInteractioninEducation TheLexusand/ortheOliveTree Friedman(1999)proposesametaphorfortheinteraction betweentheglobalandthelocalcontexts.WhileinJapan, FriedmanvisitedtheLexusluxurycarfactoryoutsideToyota City,southofTokyo.Severaldetailsimpressedhim.First,the robotsweredoingalltheworkandthehumanbeingswereused mostlyforqualitycontrol.Friedmanwasalsoimpressedbythe degreeofjobaccuracydisplayedbyrobots,andtheplanning, designing,andtechnologynecessarytoreachsuchahighlevel ofaccuracy.Afterthevisit,whileridingthebullettrainback toTokyo,henoticedapieceofnewsinthenewspaper:the AmericanStateDepartmentspokeswomanMargaretD.Tutwilerhad givenacontroversialinterpretationontherightofreturnfor thePalestiniansrefugeestoIsraelandsparkedafurorin MiddleEast,agitatingboththeArabsandtheIsraelis.Onepart oftheworldwasbuildingoneofthegreatestluxurycarswith robots,whiletheotherpartwasstillfightingoverwhoowned whicholivetree.TheLexusandtheolivetreearesymbolsof thepost-ColdWarinternationalsystem.TheLexusisthesymbol forallgrowingglobalmarkets,financialinstitutionsand technologieswithwhichtheworldpursueshigher standardsoflivingtoday.Theolivetreeisassociatedwith everythingthatroots,anchors,identifies,andlocatesahuman being:afamily,acommunity,anation,orareligion.The peopleoftheworldseemtobecaughtinthedilemmaoftwo currentscharacterizedbythesetwosymbolsoftheglobaland thelocal,theLexusandtheolivetree.Onecurrent, representedbytheintentiontobuildabetterLexus,is dedicatedtomodernizing,streamliningandprivatizingeconomies inordertosucceedinthesystemofglobalization.Theother currentisdedicatedtodecidingwhoownswhicholivetree. Friedman(1999)investigatestheinteractionbetweenthe Lexusandtheolivetree,andexemplifiesitsdifferentresults. TherearecircumstanceswhentheLexusliveswiththeolivetree inahealthybalance.SuchisthecaseoftheKayapoIndian VillageofAukre,locatedinaremotecorneroftheBrazilian Amazonrainforest.Inthepast,theKayapohavedefendedthe

24 forestthroughsheerforce.Nowadays,theylearntoprotectit throughallianceswithinternationalscientistsand conservationists.Furthermore,theKayapomenareconstantly watchingabusinesschannelthatcarriestherunningpriceof goldonworldmarkets.Theywanttobesurethattheyare chargingthesmallminers,whomtheyallowedtodigontheedges oftheirrainforest,thegoinginternationalrateforthegold theminersfind.TheKayapousetheseprofitstoprotecttheir lifestyleintheAmazonrainforest.Therearecircumstances whentheolivetreedominatestheLexus.In1994,Norwayhada referendumaboutwhetherornottojointheEuropeanUnion.Many Norwegiansfeltthat,byjoiningtheEuropeanUnion,theywould losetoomuchoftheirownNorwegianidentityandwayoflife, which,thankstotheNorwegianNorthSeaoil,theycouldstill affordtopreserve.SoNorwayvotedagainstjoiningtheEuropean Union.Sometimes,theLexusignorestheolivetree.Thisisthe caseofacomputerpartthathadwrittenonitsbackthat, becausethepartwasmadeinsomanydifferentplaces,the companycouldnotspecifythecountryoforigin. ThisdynamicinteractionbetweentheLexusandtheolive tree,orbetweentheglobalandthelocal,isreflectednotonly inpolitics,,andculture,butalsointheeducational arena.Theresultsoftheglobalinteractingwiththelocalin thefieldofeducationcanbeconceptualizedasacontinuum.At oneextreme,thereistheglobalignoringthelocal,andatthe oppositeend,thereisthelocalrejectingtheglobal.In betweentheseextremes,therearecircumstancesinwhichthe globalandthelocalfindacertainbalance,reflectedin educationchoicesanddirections.Whensuchabalanceoccurs, theglobalcanbeamoreimportantsourceofinfluenceinsome cases;inothercases,themoreinfluentialroleisreservedto thelocalcontext. Torres(1998)recognizestwoprimaryforcesatworkinthe riseofglobalization:globalizationfromabove,aprocessthat primarilyaffectseliteswithinandacrossnationalcontexts, andglobalizationfrombelow,apopularprocessthatprimarily drawsfromtherank-and-fileincivilsociety.Onthecontinuum ofeducationaloutcomesresultingfromtheinteractionbetween theLexusandtheolivetree,orbetweentheglobalandthe local,therewillbeoutcomesresultingfromtop-down educationalinitiatives,alongwithonesresultingfrom approachesthatarebottom-up. Top-DownInitiatives Globalvs.local.Theresultsofeducationalprojectsand initiatives,analyzedthroughthelensesprovidedbythe interactionbetweenglobalizationandlocalcharacteristics,can

25 beplacedonacontinuumdefinedbytwoextremes.Oneextreme occurswhentheglobalignoresthelocal.Thisisthecaseof severalWorldBankeducationalprojects. Believingintheabilityoftechnicalexpertisetoovercome themanyeducationaldevelopmentproblemsconfrontingThird Worldnations,theWorldBank'splanningoftentakesa mechanisticapproachtoeducationalproblems,i.e.theneedto generateadditionalfinancialsupportortheinappropriate natureofthecurriculum.Educationalplannersassumethatthese problemscanberesolvedthroughtheapplicationofapolitical andvalue-freesolutionsderivedfromthesophisticatedmodels groundedinthesocial.Thisstrategyalsominimizes theimportanceoflookingatunderlyingpoliticaldynamics, assumingallthewhilethateducationalproblemsfalloutside thepoliticaldomainandcanberesolvedexclusivelythroughthe applicationoftechnicalmeans.Thiswayofdealingwith educationalproblemsprovideslegitimationforexisting politicalsystemsandsignalsthattherecommendedchangeswill notalterappreciablytheexistingsocial,political,and economicrelationships(Berman,1997). InananalysisofBankplanningdocumentsdealingwith educationalprojectsimplementedinAfrica,Samoff(1993) observestheoverwhelminginfluenceoftheWestern-derived researchparadigminframingthebroadissuesofeducational development.Onlystudiesgroundedintheso-called'appropriate researchmethodologies'havelegitimacywiththeinternational donoragencies.Thesemethodologiescomefromastrong positivistframework,relyheavilyonquantifiabledata,and deriveprimarilyfromasocialbase,especially economics.Atestablehypothesisisaconditionwithoutwhicha researchstudyisfatallyflawed.Manystudiesnotsponsoredby theWorldBankdonotmeasureup,whilethosestudiesemanating fromtheBank'sresearchandplanningofficesmeetallthe acceptedcriteria. However,theattentiongiventoresearchmethodologiesand carefullydesigneddevelopmentplansdoesnotnecessarily guaranteethattheresultantfield-basedprojectswilloperate aspredicted.Beh(1999)analyzesaseriesoffactorsthat influencedtheimplementationofaWorldBanktextbookproject inLiberia.Theproject,partofalargerreforminitiative carriedwithfundingfromtheWorldBank,hadasthecentral purposetheprocurementandsaleof1.9millionlow-costprimary textbooksthatconformtotheLiberianschoolcurriculumata costofU.S.$3.5millionduringthelifeoftheproject.The programhadtwophases.TherewasapilotphasefromJuly1, 1982untilApril1983.Thesecondphaselastedfouryearsand wasaimedatestablishinganongoingtextbookprogrambytheend

26 oftheproject.In1985,theLiberiangovernmentsuspendedthe textbookprojectfundedbytheWorldBankbecauseofaseriesof problemsassociatedwiththelocalcontexttheproject encounteredduringimplementation.OneoftheseBehidentified wasthehighcostoftextbooks.TheBankdidnotdoarealistic evaluationofthecapacityofstudentstopayfortextbooks.The lackofsuchinvestigationthatwouldhaveprovidedsome insightsaboutthestudents'ortheirparents'abilitytopay forthetextbooksresultedinsomeoftheimplementation difficultiestheprojectencountered.Anotherlocalfactorwas theeconomicstagnationofLiberiaatthetimeofthe implementationofWorldBanktextbookproject.Thefluctuations andthedeclineinthepricesofrawmaterials(bauxite,tin, tea,cotton,orcocoa)createdeconomicconstraintsthat affectedLiberia'scapacitytoimplementthetextbookproject. AnotherfactorthatinfluencedtheWorldBanktextbookproject wastheexistenceofacompetingeducationalproject.USAID fundedaparalleltextbookprojectimplementedatthesametime withtheWorldBank'sproject. BehdemonstratesthattheWorldBankdidnottakethese localconditionsintoaccountatthedesignstageofthe project.TheresearchfoundthattheWorldBankprojectlacked contingencyanalysis,aprocessinwhichprojectplanners identify,ontheonehand,theappropriatefitbetweenthe projecttasksandtheenvironmentinwhichtheywillbecarried out,andontheotherhand,theorganizationalstructure, managementprocesses,andvalueorientationsofstaffof implementingagencies. TheWorldBankdidcarryoutamid-wayadjustmentin1985 inresponsetothedifficultiesencounteredbytheWorldBank TextbookProject.Thepriceofthetextbookswasreducedby50 percent,andtheteacher'sguidewasdistributedfreetoall .Moreover,theothertextbookprojectconductedby USAIDwasintegratedwiththeLiberiantextbookandin-service trainingprogramsupervisedbytheWorldBank. Thechangesinimplementationstrategyperformedbythe WorldBankshowthataprojectdoesnotoperateinanempty space.Projectplannersneedtoperformrigorousanalysesthat takeintoconsiderationtheeconomicandfinancialcircumstances ofthecountry.InthecaseoftheWorldBanktextbookproject, Behfoundthatsuchrigorousanalysiswasnotconductedduring thedesignoftheproject.Therefore,theprojectdidnottake intoaccounttheoveralleconomicandfinancialconditionsand prospectsofLiberiatodetermineafitbetweentheproject's tasksandLiberia'seconomicandpoliticalenvironment. Focusingonthedecision-makingprocessesthatcharacterize WorldBankeducationalprograms,Korto(1991)evaluatesanother

27 WorldBankeducationalprojectinLiberia.Heinvestigatesthe decisionprocessoftheScience/TechnologyCenters,amajor componentoftheThirdBank-fundedLiberianEducationalProject thattookplacein1977.Theinvestigationwasconductedfrom threeperspectives. First,hisstudydeterminedanddescribedhowtheBank's basicguidelineswereapplied.Then,theresearchdeterminedhow theproject'soutcomerelatedtohowtheBank'sguidelineswere followed.Afterthat,thestudyanalyzedthenatureoftheBank- borrowerrelationshipanditsimpactonprojectdecisions.The findingsofthestudysupportedtheconclusionthattheScience andTechnologyCentersfailedtoachieveitsplannedobjectives mainlybecauseofinadequatedecisionmakingforitsplanning anddesign.Theprojectdecisionprocessfailedtotakeinto accountLiberia'sinstitutionalandenvironmentalsettings. Consequently,therewasamismatchbetweentheproposedstrategy andthecontextofthelocalsettingsandconditions. KeyaspectsofWorldBankguidelineswerenotapplied duringthedecisionprocess,resultinginapoorlyconceivedand minimallyplanneddevelopmentproject.Theurgencyoftheneed forcapitalresourcesforaddressingnationaldevelopment pressuredthegovernmentofLiberiaintoacceptingamodelof developmentwhichhadtheWorldBank'sstrongsupport,butwhich provedinconsistentwiththecountry'sinstitutionalsettings andcapabilities.ThestudyrecommendsthatboththeWorldBank andtheborrowersmustimprovetheirindividualandcollective rolesinaprojectdecisionprocess. KortoadvisesthattheBankmustrecognizeandguard againstthefactthatitsborrowersarecountriespressedfor investmentcapital,willingtotaketheriskofsuggesting developmentmodelsforwhichtheBankeagerlyprovides resources.Headdsthattheborrowersmustrealizethat developmentisaprocessandthat,inadevelopingsociety,the acceptanceofdevelopmentstrategiesbasedonmodelsthatare moreapplicabletoadvancedsocietiesislikelytoproduce minimalresults.InKorto'sview,thechoiceofdevelopment strategiesmustcorrespondwiththecountry'slevelof institutionaldevelopmentandcapacityifpositiveresultsare expected. Boubekri(1990)identifiesinternalandexternal constraintstothedevelopmentofeducationinanotherAfrican country,Morocco.Thereareindeedendogenoussourcesfor Morocco'sunderdevelopment.Thesourcesofinternalinadequacy aretobefoundwithMorocco’sleaders,whohavenotsucceeded inestablishingandsustainingviableinstitutionsofgovernance andeconomicdevelopment,buthavegeneratedonlycorruptionand mismanagement.Thesourcesoffailurethathaveexternalorigins

28 areassociatedwiththeroleofinternationalagencies, institutionsandexpertsinMorocco’sdevelopment.Because Moroccanleadershipfavorsexpatriateadviceandexpertise,the foreignexpertsdominatetheirlocalcounterpartswiththeir highleveloftrainingandexperience.Furthermore,certain conditionssetbyaidandcreditinstitutionstoincludetheir ownexpertiseinkeypositionsonprojectshavenegatively influencedthedevelopmentoflocalskillsforthefollow-upand propagationofprojectexperience.Theseconditionshave encouragedmostlyunworkableandirrelevantprojects.According toBoubekri,Morocco'sproblemshavebeenresearchedinhighly controllablesituationsthatmadelocallyuntenableassumptions. HestatesthattheproblemofdevelopmentinMoroccoistoo complexandtoocontextuallyspecificforthesimplisticand mechanisticmodelsgenerallyusedbytheWorldBank,addingthat aviabledevelopmentprocesscannotbedetachedfromthe historicalantecedentsofthepeopleandterritoryforwhichit isdesigned.FromBoubekri'spointofview,developmentplanning mustutilizediscerningandmultidisciplinaryproceduresthat wouldexaminetheentireterritorialentityinacomprehensive manner. Theanalysisoftheseprojectsidentifiesaproblemthat allofthemhaveincommon:donoragencies'exaggeratedtrustin thetechnicalaspectsoftheprojectsmadethemignoreorgive littleattentiontointernalpolitical,cultural,andeconomic dynamicsthatplayedalargeroleindeterminingtheproject's successorfailure.Inallthesecases,theglobalcontext, representedbysupranationalinstitutionsliketheWorldBank, chosetodisregardthelocalcontextintheprocessofdesigning andimplementingeducationalprojects.Theresultswereinmany casesdisastrous. Globalmediatedbylocal.Theglobalcontextdoesnothave totakeallthespaceintherelationshipbetweentheglobaland thelocal.Inmanyeducationalinitiativesandprojects,the localmediatestheglobalinwhatiscalled'vernacular globalization'(Appadurai,1996),thenextelementonthe continuum. Lingard(2000)rejectsthemythofthepowerlessstatein thefaceofglobalization.Thenation-statestillhasthepower todomorepoliticallythansimplyfacilitatingeconomic globalization.Furthermore,globalizationanditsspecific manifestationswithinnation-states,localities,andits educationalrestructuringaremorenuancedthanatop-down homogenizationofbothpoliticsandculture.Robertson(1997) notesthatinthecaseoftheinteractionbetweenglobalforces andlocalcultures,globalizationhasseentendenciesforboth culturalhomogenizationandheterogenizationinamutually

29 implicativetensioninwhathecalled'theglocal'cultural space. Reformandrestructuringineducationcannotbeexplained asexclusiveresultsofglobalization.Appadurai(1996)remarks thatthereisatensionbetween'context-productive'(top-down andpolicydriven)and'context-generative'(localized) practices,allnestedwithintheflowofglobalization,in schoolsofrestructurededucationalsystems.Toacknowledge thesenuancedoutcomesofthecollisionofthecontext- productivewithcontextgenerativepracticesandtoreject globalizationasmeaningonlyWesternization,Americanization, andhomogenization,Appaduraidevelopedtheconceptof 'vernacularglobalization'.Context-generativeaccountsrewrite modernitymoreasvernacularglobalizationandlessasa concessiontolarge-scalenationalandinternationalpolicies. Vernacularglobalizationissimilartotheideaof glocalization:thewaylocal,national,andglobal interrelationshipsarebeingreconstituted,butmediatedbythe localandnationalhistoryandthepolitics,aswellasby hybridization. Lingard(2000)illustratesthisnewglobaleducational policyconsensusandvernacularglobalizationatworkwhenhe considerstwoAustralianpolicysettlements,namely,thatof socialdemocraticLaborParty(1983-1996)andthatoftheir successorcoalitions(1996-present).Bothsettlementswere framedbythenewglobaleducationalpolicyconsensus.However, despitetheirbroaddiscursivesimilarity,therewerestill differencesbetweentheirresponses,reflectivebasicallyof partyideologicaldifferencesandtheirdifferingelectoral supportbasis,alltheseindicatingvernacularglobalizationat play. Laborgovernmentswantedtocreateanationallyintegrated educationandtrainingsystemgearedtowardtheproductionofan upwardlyskilledworkforce.Itimplementedequity-focused policies,soughtmorenationalcontrolovertechnicalandadult education,andattemptedtointegrateschoolingandvocational traininginthepost-compulsoryyears.Therewasconsolidation ofthenumberofandveryconsiderableexpansionof universityplaces,resultinginamovefromelitetomass provision.However,theseplacesweretobefundedtoan increasingextentbystudentfees.Untilthattimeeducationhad beenfree.Labor'spolicyregimewasthusahybridmixofsocial justiceconcernsandatighteningoftheeconomy-educationnexus withtheintroductionofuser-payspractices. Thefollowinggovernmentshavekeptthebroadframingof theLaborpartyeducationalpolicysettlement(aspecific manifestationoftheglobaleducationalpolicyconsensus),but

30 reconstituteditthroughtheirparty'sideologicallenses. Equityconcernshavebeenconsiderablydowngraded,whilethe conceptofgroupdisadvantagehasbeenrejectedasthebasisfor equity-focusedpolicyinterventions.Thefeesforstudentsin highereducationhavebeenincreasedanduniversitieshavebeen requiredtogenerateevenmorefundsfromnon-governmental sources. Theglobalcontextandglobaleducationpolicyconvergence haveframedthetwoAustralianeducationalapproaches.However, asthetwoapproachesshow,theapparenteducationalpolicy convergenceacrossnations,facilitatedbygreaterglobal interconnectivityandbyanemergingglobaleducationalpolicy community,ismediated,translated,andredefinedwithin nationalandlocaleducationalstructures(Ball,1998). Bottom-UpProjects Thetwopossibleoutcomesexaminedsofarweretop-down educationalinitiativeswithheavyfinancialandideological externalinfluences.Next,bottom-upeducationalinitiativesin whichthelocalplaysamoresignificantrolewillbe considered. Localmediatedbyglobal.Berman(1997)suggeststhat developingnationsshouldsimplyrefusetoacceptexternal educationassistance,ortobeveryselectiveinwhataidis considered,statingthatexternalaidhasfailedtoimprovethe livesofthemajorityinanyappreciablemanner.Naturally,this courseofactionwoulddemandconsiderablymoremobilizationof localcommunitiestofilltheeducationalvoidthangenerally hasbeenthecase.Insuchcases,thelocalcommunityrecognizes theimportanceandthecharacteristicsoftheglobalcontext. However,itisnotdirectlyinfluencedbyglobalizationthrough aidagenciesandsupranationalorganizationbecausethecentral governmentlackstheresourcesorthecommunitysimplyrefuses toacceptexternalaid.Inthesecases,globalizationis perceivedasanindirectmediatinginfluenceontheeducational directionsandinitiatives.Thispathofthelocalmediatedby globalhasbeenfollowedsuccessfullyinafewlocales,suchas Kenya'sHarambeeschoolsandKeralaSastraSahityaParishad (KSSP)inIndia'sKeralaState. RughandBossert(1998)presentaverydetailedaccountofthe HarambeeSecondarySchoolMovementinKenya.TheHarambeeSchools startedasaspontaneousgrassrootscommunityinitiativetodevelop greateraccesstosecondaryeducationthattheKenyanGovernment couldnotprovide.Afterthecountry'sindependencein1963,the rapidincreaseinprimaryenrollmentscreatedmuchpressureto developthesecondaryschoolsystem.From1963to1973,primary enrolmentsrosefromaround900,000studentstoalmost2million,

31 andthenumberofsecondarystudentsrosefrom20,500toalmost 200,000.Despitethefactthatbetterprofessionaljobswere availablewithEnglishandMathskills,thesesubjectswerenot availableinthetechnicalcurriculumevenforthosewhocouldget toschool.Thedemandforbothpostprimarysecondaryschools, 'secondchance'polytechnicsecondaryschools,andlaterforpost- secondaryinstitutesoftechnology,ledtoanumberofself-help secondaryschoolprojectstoprovide2to4yearsofformal secondaryeducation. Differentgroupsassumedleadershipindifferentphasesofthe project.Thefirstphasewasinitiation,wheremajorleaders(e.g. DistrictEducationOfficer,Chief,CommunityDevelopmentAssistant, Teacher)createdanawarenessofthecommunity’sneedforsecondary schoolfacilitiesthroughdiscussionmeetings.Abroaderleadership definedparticipationcriteriaandfundraisingproceduresduring thesecondphase,organization.Duringimplementation,thethird phaseoftheproject,theleadersoflocalworkgroupstookcharge oftheworkteamsandsustainedtheircommitment. Churchesorotherestablishedgroupswerenormallyselectedto manageHarambeeschoolsandtocontributefinancially,eventhough thegovernmentrequiredtheschoolstobesecularincharacterand studentsnotbeselectedonthebasisofreligiousaffiliation.Most schoolswererarelyinspectedbythegovernmentorprovidedwith supervisionsupportfromthegovernment.Theeverydayfunctioningof theschoolwasleftinthehandsoftheregisteredmanagement committee,representedbytheheadteacherwhoseauthoritywas rarelychallenged. TheHarambeemodelhasbeenextremelysuccessfulinbuilding indigenouscommunityinstitutionstoadvancelocaldevelopmentand ingettinggirlsintoschools.Moreover,itsrecordinexpanding secondaryopportunitiesinruralareasisimpressive.In1969,there were244governmentsecondaryschools,19governmentassisted Harambeeschoolsand244unassistedschools.By1987,therewere 709governmentschools,1,142assistedHarambeeschoolsand741 unassistedHarambeeschoolsallservingnearly480,000students. SomeoftheimportantsuccessesoftheHarambeeschoolsareaccess toeducation,educationforthepoor,educationforthegirls,and localdevelopment.Thesesuccessesaresimilartothegoalsof educationalreformsdirectedbyasupranationalinstitution,the WorldBank(WorldBank,2000).Yet,theHarambeeschoolshavenot receivedthefinancialsupportandeducationalexpertiseofthe WorldBank.TheHarambeeschools'storyiscomplexandisnotan unqualifiedsuccess.TheconclusionistheHarambeeschoolsare indeedtheresultofagrassrootseducationalinitiativethatdoes notignoretheglobalcontextandtriestoofferlocalsolutionsto globalproblems.

32 Zachariah(1989)presentsanotherexampleofagrassroots educationalinitiativeinhisstudyofKeralaSastraSahitya Parishad(KSSP)inIndia'sKeralaState.KeralaSastraSahitya Parishadcanbetranslatedas'KeralaScienceLiterature Society'.Thiseducationalinitiativestartedin1962witha smallgroupofintellectualswhobegananinformaleffortto makescientificbooksavailabletothepeopleofKerala.The booksandperiodicalswerewritteninMalayalam,thelanguageof thestate.InKSSP'sview,promotingsciencemeantpromotingthe physicalandbiologicalsciencesinthe1960'sand1970's.This equatingofsciencewiththephysicalandbiologicalsciences reflectedtheinterestsoftheactiveKSSPmembersatthattime. Theyweremainlyengineersandscientists,collegeteachersand afewpeopleprominentinthesocialservicefield.Although membershipintheorganizationincreasedgradually,itremained arathersmallorganizationuntilabout1973.In1973,KSSP adoptedtheslogan'ScienceforSocialRevolution'.Thatbrought threeimportantchangesinKSSP'sapproachtoscience.Inthe newapproach,scienceisdefinedasaprocessbywhichhuman beingsexploretherelationshipscause-effectinthenaturaland socialworld.Second,theprocessofscienceandtheuseof sciencedependonhumandecisions.Third,thosehumandecisions arenowresultingingravesocialproblemssuchasaccentuated poverty.Suchdecisionsmustbechanged.Todoso,sciencemust servethepeopleandnotjusttheelites.Since1973,KSSPhas maintained,defendedandstrengthenedthisposition.Thenew stancehasincreasedtheorganization'spopularityamongmany ordinarypeopleandhelpedincreaseitsmembership.In1987, KSSPhadapproximately23,000membersandover800localunits. Roughly60%oftheKSSPactiveworkersareteachersinKerala's schoolsandcolleges.Therestofitsmembersarephysical scientists,doctors,engineers,socialscientists,workers, farmers,andtechnicians. ActivitiesofKSSPincludethepublicationofbooksand periodicals,severalnon-formalandformaleducation initiatives,theenvironmentbrigade,theresearchand developmentwing,thehealthbrigade,thestreettheater,and women'sgroups.Intheareaofpublications,KSSPisinvolvedin thepropagationofperiodicalsandbooksmeantforthe popularizationofscience.Italsopublishesbooksforchildren, adults,etc.Non-formaleducationinitiativesarecomprisedof sciencecampaigns,whereanumberofclassesonchosentopics areconductedfromtimetotime. KSSPhasfinancialindependence.Itpaysforallitsown organizationalworkwiththeproceedsfromthesaleofits publications,supplementedbymembershipfeesanddonations collectedonthespotatcertaintypesofmeetingsandmarches.

33 Themainincomeisfromthepublicationoftheirbooks.KSSP doesnotacceptdonationsfromforeignsourcesunderany circumstances.KSSPlongagorecognizedthatacceptanceof externalaidwouldcompromiselocalautonomy,andthattruly meaningfuldevelopmentmustprimarilyentaillocaleffort. People'smovementssuchasthesecancertainlyhaveanimpact, asissuggestedbyKerala'shighrate,someproportion ofwhichcancertainlybeattributedtotheworkofthis independentorganization.KSSPrecognizestheimportanceof development,butattemptstoproposeadifferentapproach.It campaignsforliteracy,forscienceeducation,forrationality andmodernityingeneral.Alltheseareelementsthatcanbe foundintheglobalizationdiscourseatthegloballevel. However,inthecaseofgrassrootseducationalinitiatives,such asKSSPandKenya'sHarambeeschools,thelocalhasamore importantroleintheglobal-localrelationshipwhen implementingtheseeducationaldemands(Zachariah,1989). Localversusglobal.Againstcapitalistglobalizationfrom above,therehasbeenasignificanteruptionofforcesand subculturesofresistancethathaveattemptedtopreserve specificformsofcultureandsocietyagainstglobalizationand homogenization(Kellner,2000).Inthefieldofeducation, globalizationisstronglyrejectedbytheIslamicschoolsofthe MiddleEastinwhichtheteachingofstudentsisexplicitly directedagainstmodernityandglobalinfluences,seenas Westernization,orAmericanization.TheIslamicreligious schools(madrashas)havethrivedinPakistan.Theirnumberis estimatedtobefrom7,000(Barber,2001)to30,000(Time International,2001).Male-onlyschools,madrashasarerunby fundamentalistIslamicgroupsandteachoveramillionPakistani studentsanarrowcurriculumconsistingoftheKoran,the sayingsoftheProphetMuhammad,andtheIslamicShari'alawfor free.MuslimgroupsfrominsideandoutsidePakistanprivately fundtheschools,andthegovernmentdoesnothavemuchpower overthem.ThePakistanigovernmentistryingtobringthe schoolsbackintothemainstreameducationalsystembyoffering moneyandtrainingtotheteacherstogivecoursesinEnglish, computerscience,andeconomics.Inthesereligiousschools,the maintopicofthecurriculumistheJihad,ortheholywar,seen asananti-Westernandanti-Americanbattle(TimeInternational, 2001).ThesuccessoftheIslamicschoolsisexplainedbytwo localcharacteristics:religiousconvictionandpovertyofthe villagelife(Barber,2001).LifeinPakistanisdominatedby religion.Politicians,eventhoseeducatedabroadandliving WesternizedlivescompeteincallingforstricterIslamiclaws. Ruralpovertyistheothermajorinfluence.Poorparentscannot affordtosendtheirchildrentothegovernmentschools;the

34 schoolsarefree,butthecostofbooks,supplies,andclothes isprohibitive.Instead,thesonsaresenttotheIslamic schoolsthatwillnotonlytaketheminforfree,butalso providemealsandclothing.There,thechildrenwillbetaught tobesoldiersforIslam,andtofightagainstAmerica, perceivedasapromoterofglobalizationandofacultural systemthatisshallowandhollowfrominside,unabletobear theloadoflifeforthetimestocome(Barber,2001). ItseemsthatinPakistan,itsgovernmentandleadershave failedtocreateasystemofadequatepubliceducationforits 140millionpeople.Withoutthat,theparentsturntoIslamic schools,which,unlikethegrassrootsprojectsmediatedbythe globalcontext,takeavisibleandexplicitanti-globalization stancebyteachingamixoffundamentalismandintolerance. Atoneendofthecontinuum,thereareeducationalprojects thathavehaddisastrousresultsbecausetheglobaldidnottake intoaccountthelocal.Thisistheotherendofthecontinuum, inwhichtheresultsarealsodisastrous.Theproductofsuch educationalinitiatives,inwhichthelocalnotonlyrefusesto acknowledgebutalsoviolentlytriestofighttheglobal,is morecarnageandconflictaroundtheworld. GlobalContext LocalContext Globalization History,politics, culture,etc. Education RomanianEFL curriculum reform ------Top-Down------ ------Bottom-Up------ Globalvs GlobalandLocalandLocalVs LocalLocalGlobalGlobal Textbook Australian Harambee Islamic project policy schoolsin schoolsin inLiberi a settlement Kenya Pakistan STC KSSPin Centersin Kerala, Liberia India Figure2.5.Global-localinteractionineducation

35 Summary Thepurposeofthischapterhasbeentodeterminetowhat extenttherelationshipbetweentheglobalandthelocal contextshaveinfluencededucationreformandinitiatives. First,thechapterfocusedonglobalizationasthedefining elementoftheglobalcontextandontheinfluenceof globalizationoneducation.Then,thechapterbriefly highlightedimportanteventsinthehistoryofRomaniafora betterunderstandingofthelocalcontext.Finally,thestudy researchedtheinseparablerelationshipbetweentheglobaland thelocalcontextsanditsinfluenceoneducation.Theresult wasamodelforrepresentingeducationreformandinitiatives worldwide. Next,thestudypresentsthemethodsusedtorespondtothe tworesearchquestionsofthisinquiry.

36 CHAPTER3 METHODS Twoimportantnotionsdeterminethemethodofinquiryfor thepresentstudy.First,theEnglishasaForeignLanguage curriculumreformcannotbeanalyzedinisolation,butmustbe viewedinabroadercontext.EFLcurriculumreformispartofa largerefforttoreformtheentireRomanianeducationalsystem. Inaddition,EFLcurriculumreformemergesfromthehistoryof EFLteachingandlearninginRomania.Tounderstandthepresent EFLcurriculumreform,thehistoryofEFLteachingandlearning inRomaniaduringthepastfiftyyearsmustbetakeninto account.Second,theexaminationoftheEFLcurriculumreform inRomaniaisbasedontheinteractionbetweentheglobaland thelocalforcesinthefieldofeducation.Thesetwosourcesof influencearecritical.Theyarethefoundationforthemodelof representationdefinedinChapterTwo,themodelwhichbe ultimatelyusedtorepresenttheRomanianEFLcurriculumreform. Itisimportanttostatethatthisstudyimplementsadocument analysisapproachanditisnotanempiricalstudy. Toaddressthefirstresearchquestionofthestudy,i.e.what theEnglishasaForeignLanguage(EFL)curriculumreformisin Romania,theresearcherhasundertakenthreesteps:toprovidea comprehensivepictureofEFLteachingbeforereform,todiscuss thecurrentEFLcurriculuminthelargercontextofRomanian educationreform,andtodescribetheelementsofnewEFL curriculuminRomania. Toprovidetheessentialbackgroundinformationonpre- reformEFLteachingandlearninginRomania,thestudyemploys ontheonehand,studiesgeneratedbyRomanianEFLeducatorsand researchers,andontheotherhand,studiesonRomanian EducationingeneralandRomanianEFLinparticularpublishedby UNESCO.Then,theEFLcurriculumreformisviewedfromthe perspectiveoftheRomanianeducationreformbyemploying essentialdocumentssuchasRomania:EducationReformProject,a preliminarystudyconductedandpublishedbytheWorldBankin 1992andReformaInvatamintuluiAcum!(ReformofEducation Now!),publishedin1998byAndreiMarga,theRomanianMinister ofEducationatthattime.Thesedocumentsprovideananalysis ofthesituationofRomanianeducationpriortotheeducational reformandsettheframeworkforchangeinRomanianeducation. Afteranexaminationofthestatedtheoreticalframeworkfor educationalchangeinRomania,thereisadiscussionofhowthe frameworkforchangeisoperationalizedthroughtheeducation reformprojectsrecentlyimplementedunderthesupervisionand fundingoftheWorldBank:TheEducationReformProjectandThe

37 ReformofHigherEducationandResearchProject.Thesetwo documentsspellouttheobjectivesforeducationreformin RomaniaandareimportantforthisbecausetheEFLcurriculum reformrepresentstherealizationofoneoftheobjectivesof TheEducationReformProject.BecausethenewEFLcurriculumis basedonthenewRomanianNationalCurriculum,thenextstepis theanalysisoftheframeworkofthenewRomanianNational CurriculumandofthenewEnglishasaForeignLanguage curriculumforprimaryandsecondaryeducationinRomania.The sourcesusedareCurriculumNationalProgrameScolarepentru ClaseleaIII-a–aVII-aLimbiModerneandCurriculumScolar pentruLimbaEnglezaClasaaX-a. Thedetaileddescriptionofthefundamentalelementsofthe newEnglishasaForeignLanguage(EFL)curriculumresultsina comprehensiverepresentationofthenewRomanianEFLcurriculum withthepurposeofaddressingthefirstresearchquestionof thestudy. Thesecondresearchquestionpertainstohowinternational trendsineducation,stemmingfromtheglobalizationmovement, andlocalfactorsmightinfluencetheEFLcurriculumreformin Romania.Here,theresearchproceedsintwophases.First,there isananalysisofthemannerinwhichexternalandinternal sourcesofinfluencecontributedtotheshapingofthegeneral framework,thegoals,andtheobjectivesofthenewEFL curriculuminRomania.Second,theseresultsareappliedwhen theEFLcurriculumreformisrepresentedusingtheglobal-local modelofrepresentationdescribedinChapterTwo. Forthefirstphase,i.e.determiningthesourcesof influence,WorldBankdocumentsoneducation(WorldBank,1999) andEuropeanUniondocumentsonforeignlanguageteachingand learning(VanEk,1998)arecomparedandcontrastedwiththenew RomanianEFLcurriculum.Theresearcheralsoconsidersthe contributionofthelocalfactorstotheshapingofthenewEFL curriculuminRomania.Thelocalcontributionisfoundin studiessuchasReformaInvatamintuluiinAnul2000.Actiuni Majore(TheReformofEducationintheYear2000.Major Actions),publishedbytheRomanianMinistryofEducationin 2000,StrategyandActionintheEducationReforminRomaniaby Korka(2000),AnalizaPoliticiiNationaleinDomeniulEducatiei: Romania(TheAnalysisofNationalPolicyinEducation:Romania) bytheOrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment (2000),andReformasiContinuitateinCurriculumul InvatamintuluiObligatoriu(ReformandContinuityinthe CurriculumforCompulsoryEducation)bytheMinistryof EducationandResearch,ConsiliulNationalPentruCurriculumand CentrulEducatia2000+(2001).Also,theresearcherconsiders variousstudiesandarticlesonRomanianpolitics,culture,and

38 historythatwillprovideadditionalexplanationsregarding educationalchoicespresentintheEFLcurriculumreform. Forthesecondphase,utilizingtheinformationresulting fromthestudyofthesedocuments,theresearcherplacestheEFL curriculumreforminoneofthecategoriesofthemodel representedbyFigure2inChapterTwo.Accordingtothismodel, educationalreformsareresultsoftheinteractionbetweenthe globalandthelocalsourcesofinfluence.Themodel,which illustrateswithexampleshowtheinteractionbetweentheglobal andthelocalaffectsthefieldofeducation,canbeusednot onlyforthisstudy,butalsoforfurtherstudiesthatconsider educationalmovementsandinitiativesinthefieldofeducation orEnglishasaForeignLanguageasresultingfromthecontact betweeninternalandexternalinfluences. Adocumentanalysis,thepresentstudyemploysavarietyof documentsandotherdatatopresentacomprehensivepictureof theEFLcurriculumreforminRomania,ontheonehand,andof sourcesofinfluencethathavecontributedtotheshapingof thisEFLcurriculumreformontheotherhand.Forthisstudy, differentsourcesareconsultedtopresentseveralperspectives andpointsofviewtoassureanunbiasedview.Toensure credibilityofthisresearcheffort,thesameprocedureofusing morethanonesourcetopresentanddepictoneparticular elementofthepictureisutilized.Forexample,whendiscussing therecenteducationreforminRomania,thestudyemploys externalsources,suchasWorldBankdocumentsreferringto educationreforminRomania,OECDstudiesonRomanianeducation reform,etc.,andinternalstudies,suchasvariousanalyses generatedbytheRomanianMinistryofEducation,theRomanian NationalCouncilforCurriculum,andtheRomanianCenter Education2000+.Whenpurelyeducationalsourcesarenotenough, newspaperarticlesandotherstudiescoveringsuchfieldsas politics,history,culture,etcareusedtomakecertainthat thepicturepaintedisascomprehensive,credible,andunbiased aspossible. ChapterFourisdevotedtoansweringthefirstresearch questionbyprovidingacomprehensivepictureoftheEnglishas aForeignLanguagecurriculumreforminthelargercontextof Romanianeducationreform.ChapterFiveaddressesthequestion oftheinteractionbetweenthelocalandtheglobalinthecase ofthenewEnglishasaForeignLanguagecurriculuminRomania. Italsoprovidestheresearcher'sperspectiveontheEFL curriculumreforminRomania,withpossiblesuggestionsand recommendationsforfurtherinquiry.

39 CHAPTERFOUR REFORMINGENGLISHASAFOREIGNLANGUAGE(EFL)CURRICULUMIN ROMANIA:ACOMPREHENSIVEPICTURE Introduction Thischapteranswersthefirstresearchquestionofthe studybyprovidingacomprehensivepictureoftheEnglishasa ForeignLanguagecurriculumreform.Itisdividedintotwo parts:thefirstpartisdedicatedtothedescriptionand analysisofmajorcharacteristicsofEnglishasaForeign LanguageteachinginRomaniainthelargercontextofforeign languageteachingbeforetherecenteducationalreformof Romanianeducation.ThesecondpartdescribestheEFLteaching inRomaniaaftertherecenteducationalreform,withafocuson EFLcurriculumreform. EnglishasaForeignLanguagebetween1945and1989 Historical,Political,andEducationalContext In1945,towardstheendofWorldWarII,Romaniawasa monarchywithademocraticallyelectedparliament.An independentstate,ithadstrongpolitical,economic,and culturaltieswithCentralandWesternEurope.Allthese circumstanceswereabouttochangewhentheRomanianCommunist Partycametopowerinthespringof1945.TheSovietUnion, whosetroopshadbeenstationedinRomaniasinceAugust1944, forcedtheRomanianmonarch,KingMichael,toaccepta governmentcontrolledbyCommunists(Pop,1999).Verysoon,the Communistsbrutallyeliminatedallpoliticaloppositionandtook overtheRomanianpoliticalscene.In1947,theyforcedKing MichaeltoabdicateandtheyproclaimedthePopularRepublicof Romania.WinstonChurchill’sforecastofRomania’spostwar development,whichwas90%Sovietinfluenceand10%others turnedouttobeaccurate(Castellan,1989).Clearlybehindthe IronCurtain,RomaniabecameasatelliteoftheSovietUnion, whichdictatedthehistoricalcourseofRomaniansuntil1989 whenCommunismfellinRomania(Georgescu,1991). DuringtheyearsofCommunistrule,theSoviet-style thinkingparadigm,whichreservedultimateauthoritytothe RomanianCommunistParty,influencedeveryaspectofRomanian life,educationincluded.TheEducationSystemReformActof 1948nationalizedalleducationalinstitutions,bannedall privateschools,adoptedtheMarxist-Leninistprinciplesof educationandadjustedtheeducationalpoliciestochanging requirementsoftheplannedeconomicsystem.Italsoeliminated

40 uncooperativefacultymembersandreorganizedbothsecondaryand highereducationontheSovietmodel(Braham,1972).The subsequenteducationlegislationcontinuedtovieweducationand educationalinstitutionsastoolsforcarryingoutthe directivesoftheCommunistparty. ReportingtoaUNESCOquestionnaireonthestateof Romanianeducationinthe80's,theRomanianMinistrystated thatthemainpurposeofRomanianeducationwasthecreationof thenewman.Romanianeducationatthattimemadesurethat specialistsweretrainedforallaspectsoftheeconomyand sociallife,andthatyoungpeopledevelopedasocialist conscience,awillingnesstowork,andasenseofinternational solidarity(InternationalYearbookofEducation,1980). ImportanceofForeignLanguagesinRomania Malita(1960)statedseveralreasonswhythestudyof foreignlanguageswasimportantandnecessaryforRomanians duringthattime.First,aforeignlanguagewasessentialfor professionaldevelopment.Knowledgeofaforeignlanguage providedaccesstospecializedliteraturesuchasperiodicals andbooks,andfacilitatedparticipationatinternational conferences.Second,asteadyincreaseineconomictradeamong countriesrequiredknowledgeaboutforeigncountriesinorderto satisfyexportrequirements.Therefore,readingknowledgeof foreignpublicationswascritical.Third,becauseofaconstant increaseintourism,manypeopletraveledabroadandmanypeople camefromabroad. Malitaalsoreportedashiftinthepurposeforlearning foreignlanguages.Priortotheemergenceofcommunismin Romania,foreignlanguagesmeantabroadeningofcultural horizons,representedaccesstonewliteratures,andindicateda highintellectualstandard.Therefore,atthebeginningofthe 20thcentury,thoselearningforeignlanguageswereinterested moreinunderstandingforeignliteraturesratherthaninusing thelanguageforpracticalpurposes.Theteachingofforeign languagesinschoolsanduniversitieswasorientedtowardthis goal:thestudentswereexpectedtotranslateelegantlyinand fromforeignlanguages;therewasverylittleinterestinusing foreignlanguagesasmeansfororalcommunication.Butlater, becauseofthechangingdynamicsbetweencountries(moretrade, moretourism),learningforeignlanguagesacquiredapractical andsocialaspect,thefocusbeingplacedoncommunicationamong people(Malita,1960). InRomania,theaimofteachingforeignlanguageswasnot onlytogivestudentssuchpracticalknowledgeofthelanguage aswouldservethemasabasisforconversationandasameans ofgettingaccesstotextswritteninforeignlanguages,but

41 alsotofamiliarizethemwiththeculturalvaluesofthepeoples whoselanguagetheystudied.Asfarascoordinationwithother subjectswasconcerned,throughgrammarandthroughreadingof literature,thestudyofmodernlanguageswascoordinatedwith thatofthemothertongueandwiththatofandworld history.Modernlanguageswerestudiedasbelongingtothegroup ofhumanisticsubjectswithwhichtheyformedawhole(Modern LanguagesatGeneralSchools,1964).Therefore,becauseEFLhas beenpartofthebiggerforeignlanguagecurriculumfromwhich itcannotbeseparated,thediscussionofEFLteachingand learninginRomaniaisconductedwithinthemoregeneral frameworkofteachingforeignlanguagesinRomaniaand acknowledgestheparticularaspectsofRomanianEFLteaching. DuringtheperiodbetweentheendofWWIIandthelate 50's,severalforeignlanguagesweretaughtinRomanianschools. Insecondaryeducation,twomodernlanguageswerecompulsory. Russianwascompulsoryingeneralschoolsuntil1955,andfor thesecondcompulsoryforeignlanguage,thestudentshada choiceamongFrench,English,orGerman(InternationalYearbook ofEducation,1955).Inteachingforeignlanguages,excerpts fromoutstandingclassicalworksintherespectivelanguages wereused(InternationalYearbookofEducation,1958). Thegradewhenstudentsstartedthestudyofforeign languagesvariedovertime.Between1945-1948,thefirstmodern languagewascompulsoryfromthe5thtothe12thgrades,the secondmodernlanguagefromthe8thtothe12th.Between1948- 1956,whentherewereelevenyearsofstudyinsteadoftwelve, thefirstmodernlanguagewascompulsoryfromthe4thtothe 11thyear,andthesecondfromthe8thtothe11th.Between 1956-1963,thefirstmodernlanguagewaslanguagestudiedfrom the5thyearandthesecondmodernlanguagefromthe6th(Modern LanguagesatGeneralSchools,1964).Inthe1970'sand1980's, thetwoforeignlanguageswereintroducedinthefirststageof secondaryeducation,betweengrades5and8(International YearbookofEducation,1980). Thesechangesinallocationreflecteddifferentvalues promotedbythenationalleadershipofthosetimes.Theplaceof foreignlanguagesinRomaniancurriculabetween1945and1989 reproducedthethreemajorperiodsintowhichthistimeinterval canbedivided.Theschoolcurriculumofthefirsthistorical period,the1950's,encouragedthestudyoftheforeign languagesbutemphasizedthestudyofRomanianlanguageand sciences.Duringthesecondperiod,whichencompassedthe 1960's,thelearningofforeignlanguageswasencouragedand stimulatedbyallocatingmorehoursandbyintroducingthefirst foreignlanguageearly,insomecasesduringthe2ndgrade.The curriculumofthethirdperiod,representedbythe1970'sand

42 1980's,minimizedtheimportanceofforeignlanguagesby emphasizingothereducationalareas,e.g.sciencesandRomanian. InordertounderstandRomanianeducationingeneraland thestudyofforeignlanguagesinparticular,onemustreferto thepoliticalandeconomicgoalsofthisperiodofthe1950's. TheCommunistleaderofthattime,GheorgheGheorghiuDej,a rigidStalinist,undertookthecollectivizationofagriculture andstartedheavyindustrializationofRomania.Newfactories werebuiltquicklyasRomaniaattemptedtotransformitselffrom aruralcountryintoanindustrializedone(Castellan,1989).As theCommunistleadershipneededworkersforthenewfactories, theeducationsystememphasizedthestudyofsciencesinorder toprovidethestatewithaskilledworkforce.Itisnot surprisingthat,duringthe1950's,intheRomanianMinistryof Educationmandatorycurriculaandsyllabiforsecondary education,thetime-allocationforRomanianandforsciences showedtheimportanceattachedtothosesubjects.Romanianhad 29.7%andmathhad21.2%ofthetotalteachingtimeavailable (InternationalYearbookofEducation,1955).Duringthe1956- 1957schoolyear,theRomanianMinistryofEducation,inorder toestablishcloserlinksbetweenschoolsandlife,andbetween practiceandproductivework,tookseveralstepstointroduce polytechnicalelementsintogeneraleducationbyallocating hoursinthecurriculumforhandworkandforfarmingforschools whichhadexperimentallandplots(InternationalHandbookof Education,1957).Therefore,in1958,tenyearsafterthefirst educationalinitiativeoftheRomanianCommunistParty,the MinistryofEducationreportedthateducationhadbeeninvested withanewrealisticandscientificcontentwithaviewto providingathoroughgeneralknowledgeandasoundprofessional training.Atthesametime,greateremphasiswasplacedon establishingastrongconnectionbetweeneducationand industrialandagriculturalproduction(InternationalYearbook ofEducation,1958). Theyear1955wasthelastyearwhenRussianwascompulsory asafirstforeignlanguage.Russiancontinuedtobethemain foreignlanguagelistedbyofficialdocuments,butstartedto loseitsprivilegedposition.Onepossibleexplanationcouldbe providedbythepoliticalsituationofthattime.Asmentioned before,theRomanianCommunistleaderDejstartedaheavy industrializationofRomania.Thiseffortcreatedtension betweenhimandtheSovietUnion,whichdesiredtoassign Romaniathemoremodestroleofsupplierofagricultural productsandmaterialsfortheSovietbloccountries.Dej rejectedthisplanthatwouldhavereducedRomaniatoa resource-productionlevelandwouldhavehadanegativeimpact onthestandardoflivingofRomanians.Hethusstarteda

43 processthatwouldtrytoreducetheoverwhelmingdecisionpower oftheSovietUnionoverRomania(Castellan,1989).Perhapsthis educationaldecisionofnotmakingRussiancompulsorywasa reflectionofthatpoliticaldecision. Thesecondhistoricalperiodofthe1960's,which recognizedtheimportanceoflearningandteachingforeign languagesinschools,wasreflectedintheEducationActof 1968.ThiseducationlawbroughtseveralchangesintheRomanian educationalsystem.Qualitystandardsinteachingandresearch werestressed,andcooperationbetweenRomanianandWestern Europeanuniversitieswasinitiated.Therefore,thelearningof foreignlanguageswasofficiallyemphasizedbyincreasingthe numberofforeignclassesinsecondaryschools.Morestudents wereallowedtoentertheuniversitytograduateinforeign languagesandtobecomeforeignlanguageteachers.Overtime, Russiandisappearedalmostentirelyfromschoolsand universities,tobereplacedbyEnglish,French,andGerman (Georgescu,1997). Thisperiodofeffervescenceineducationingeneralandin teachingofmodernlanguagesinschoolsinparticularstartedin the60'sandendedin1971withtheJulyThesesoftheCommunist Party.Althoughthemodernlanguagesstartedtoberecognized fortheirimportance,therewerestillseveralproblemsthat hinderedtheirdevelopment.Demetrescu(1970)calledherfellow Romanianteacherstobemoreinvolvedinpedagogicalresearch, tofindsolutionstolocal,context-specificproblemsnotby merelyapplyingfindingsfrominternationalforeign-language journalswithouttakingintoaccountthelocalconditions.She alsocriticizedthelackofarticlesandpublicationsthatdealt withforeignlanguageteachinginRomania.Thereasonsforthis lackwerefirst,theabsenceofspaceforsuchpublicationsin theproductionplansofpublishinghouses,andsecond,the absenceofspecializedforeign-languagejournalspublishedin Romania.Shenotedthatinmanycasesforeignlanguageteachers hadtheimpressionthattheirresearchandfindingswere irrelevant,andtheywerereluctanttopublishfearingcriticism fromtheircolleagues. BecauseRomaniawasatotalitariancountry,wherethe CommunistpartycontrolledallaspectsofRomanianlife, educationstillsufferedtheinfluenceofCommunistideology. Outof42paperssubmittedforpassingaFrenchteacher qualificationexambetween1962and1969,fourwereaboutusing thestudyofFrenchtofurthertheCommunisteducationof Romanianstudents.Itiscriticaltoreiteratethat,eventhough theendofthe1960'swastheperiodofmaximumideological relaxationinRomania,Communistideologywasanintegralpart ofRomanianeducation.

44 ThethirdhistoricalperiodstartedwhentheCommunist ideologyreclaimeditsabsolutepowerovereducationwiththe EducationLawof1978.Thisactwasalegislativereflexofthe 1971JulyThesesoftheCommunistParty,documentsthatdemanded areturntoarigidideologicalpartylineandreassertedthe leadingroleofthepartyinallaspectsofRomanianlife.In education,thelawof1978representedareturnto totalitarianismandaconsiderabledeclineinthequalityof Romanianeducation.Emphasizingtheintegrationofeducation withproduction,itpurgedthetheoreticalfields,thesocial sciences,andthehumanitiesalmostentirelyfromschool curricula(Constantinescu,1995).Accordingtoareport submittedbytheRomanianMinistryofEducationduringthat period,thecurriculumateachlevelwasintendedtodevelop pupils'knowledgeabouttheCommunistParty,science,technology andculture,andtoinstillcivicandworkingclassattitudes. Inthefirststageofsecond-leveleducation(5thto8thgrade), thecurriculumwasbasedonthesystematicstudyofRomanian, ,history,geography,biology,andphysical education,while,,designtechnology,and(as options)twoforeignlanguageswereintroduced.Practicalwork and,inruralareas,agriculturewerestressed.Thehigh-school curriculummadesurethatstudentsreceivedasoundpolitical, moralandintellectualeducationinaccordancewithsocialist principles(InternationalYearbookofEducation,1980). Asaresultofthesechanges,foreignlanguagessuffereda reductioninthenumberofclassesinthesecondaryschool curriculumandinthenumberofstudentsallowedtograduatein foreignlanguagesinordertobecomeforeignlanguageteachers (Constantinescu,1995).Gradually,foreignlanguageslostmuch oftherecognitiontheyhadgained,alossreflectedin curriculumorganizationandevaluation.Between1985and1986, whentheRomanianMinistryofEducationdidanevaluationof curricula,syllabi,textbooks,andcoursesatalllevelsof education,thefocuswason'hardsciences'suchasmath, physics,chemistry,biology,andinformatics.Regardingother disciplinesoftheRomaniancurriculumforsecondaryschools, theevaluationpaidattentiononlytoRomanianlanguage, history,andgeography(InternationalYearbookofEducation, 1988). TheinfluenceofCommunistideologyonforeignlanguage teachingbecameoverwhelming.Inaguideforsupervisingand controllingforeignlanguageteachers,thesequenceofcriteria forevaluatingforeignlanguageteacherswasasfollows: professionaltraining,politicalandideologicallevel, preparationforclasses,methodologicaldevelopmentofclasses, levelofstudents'knowledge,andexpansionofthelinguistic

45 environment(Platcu,1973).Itisworthyofnotethatthe criterionrepresentedbythepoliticalandideologicallevelof theteacherevaluatedwasnumbertwoonthelist,beforeother criteriarelatedmoretoteachingactivities.Toknowandfollow thepartyandthestatedocumentsandtoparticipateat ideologicalseminarsanddebateswasmoreimportantthantohave agoodknowledgeofthecurriculaandtextbooks,ortomakesure thatstudents'proficiencysatisfiedcurriculumrequirements. ViewsonForeignLanguagesandForeignLanguageAcquisition TheRomanianMinistryofEducationdesignedmandatory curriculaandsyllabiforalleducationalinstitutions,but,at alllevels,teachershadconsiderablelatitudeinregardtothe teachingmethods(InternationalYearbookofEducation,1955). Officialdocumentsonforeignlanguageteachingrevealedthat theMinistryofEducationdidnotimposeaparticularlanguage acquisitiontheory,nordidituselanguageacquisitiontheories asatheoreticalfoundationforitsrecommendedmethodsof teachingforeignlanguages.TheMinistryestablishedgoalsfor modernlanguageteachers,whowerenotonlytogivestudents suchpracticalknowledgeofthelanguageaswouldservethemas abasisforconversationandasmeansofaccesstowritten foreignlanguagetexts,butalsotofamiliarizethemwiththe cultureofthepeoplewhoselanguagetheystudied(Modern LanguagesatGeneralSchools,1964).Teacherscouldusewhatever methodsofteachingtheychoseaslongastheycovered curriculumrequirements.TheMinistryofEducationdecidedwhat wastobetaughtandwhen,leavingtheteacherstodecidehowto presentthematerials. InRomanianforeignlanguagepublications,severalRomanian foreignlanguageteachersandresearchersexpressedtheirviews onforeignlanguageacquisitioninordertogivesubstanceto theircallforinnovationinforeignlanguageteaching.Their viewsreflectaconflictbetweenwhatwascalled'traditional' (emphasisongrammar)and'modern'(audio-lingual). Theproponentsofusingmoreaudio-lingualmethodsin Romanianforeignlanguagedrewonthebehaviorist perspectiveoflanguageacquisition.Platcu(1973)considered languageaphenomenonwithitsownorganizationandfunctioning, acomplexsystemofelementsthatinfluenceeachotherinorder tofulfillauniquefunction:communication.Learningalanguage wasaprocessofforminglanguagebehaviorssincelanguagewas behavior.Duringtheinitialstages,thestudents'attentionwas focusedonmeaningofutterancesandnotonform,whichbecame automaticthroughrepetitionandnotthroughexplanationof abstractlanguagerules.Consequently,Platcu(1973)considered asinefficienttheteachingofforeignlanguagesthroughrules

46 explanationandtranslation,andsetnewprinciples:priorityof theoralaspectoflanguage,selectionoflanguagebasedon frequencyandproductivity,andcreationoflanguagereflexes andautomaticity.Basedonthecurriculum,textbook,and proficiencyleveloftheclass,theteachercoulddecidethe structureofeachlesson.Acceptingthepriorityoftheoral aspectoflanguage,theforeignlanguagelessonhadtoreflect thenaturalorderoflanguagehabitformation:listening, speaking,reading,andwriting.Thestudentswouldlearnto listentowhattheyheard,tocorrectlypronouncewhatthey heard,toreadwhattheyheard,andtowritewhattheylistened to,pronounced,andread. Itisnoteworthytomentionherethattosupporthis argumentPlatcu(1973)employedandcitedSkinner'stheorieson conditioningandformingbehaviors.Chiosa(1970)discusses anothercorollaryofthebehavioristtheory,i.e.contrastive analysis.Contrastiveanalysisestablishedthedifferences betweenthenativelanguageandtheforeignlanguagetobe learned.Thesystematicdifferencesbetweenthetwolanguages wereusedintextbooksandexerciseswiththepurposeof preventingandeliminatinglanguageinterference(Chiosa,1970). Interestinglyenough,inthesamearticle,Chiosamentionedthat thetheoryandthepracticeofforeignlanguageteachingare basedonclearerconceptsregardingthetheoryoflanguageand makeuseofthefindingsofferedbydescriptiveandcontrastive linguistics.Toher,themethodologyofteachingforeign languagesacknowledgestheideathatcommunicationisbasedon theSaussuriannotionsoflanguage(langue)asasystemand speaking(parole)asrealizationofthissystem.Theapplication ofthisconceptoflangue-paroletothestudyoffirstlanguage acquisitionleadstoabetterunderstandingoflanguage mechanisms,whichimplycompetence,theinternalgrammarand performance,thecreativecapacitytogenerateandunderstand newutterancesbasedonthegoverningrulesofalanguage (Chomsky,1964). Descriptiveandcontrastivelinguisticscomefromtwo oppositeviewsonlanguageacquisition:descriptivelinguistics isbasedoncognitivelanguageacquisitiontheories,whereas contrastivelinguisticsisbasedonthebehavioristtheoryon languageacquisition.Inspiteofthesharpdifferencesbetween thetwotheoreticalmodelsoflanguageacquisition,i.e. cognitiveandbehaviorist,Chiosadidnotfocusonthe theoreticalunderpinnings,butratheronthepracticaluseof thefindingsderivedfromthosetwoopposinglanguage acquisitionframeworks.Theemphasiswasonmethodratherthan worryingabouttheoreticalpreamble.Eventoday,thisseemsto havebeenacharacteristicofforeignlanguageteachingin

47 Romania,wherethefocusisonmethod,notonthelanguage theorythatisatthebasisofaparticularmethod.Onecan identifyhereatraditionofadaptation,oftakingideasfrom theWesterntheoriesonlanguageandadapting,or'localizing' theminaccordancewiththeneedsofthelocalcontext. Curriculum TheRomaniancurriculumforforeignlanguageteachingin general,andforEnglishasaforeignlanguageinparticular, definedthegeneralaimsforforeignlanguagelearning, establishedthenumberofforeignlanguageclassesperweek,and recommendedgeneralteacherguidelinestobefollowedduringa foreignlanguageclass. ThepurposeofforeignlanguageteachinginRomaniawas limitednotonlytogivingstudentssuchpracticalknowledgeof thelanguagetobeusedasabasisforconversationandasa meansofdocumentation.Foreignlanguageteachingaspiredto acquaintRomanianforeignlanguagestudentswiththecultural valuesofthepeopleswhoselanguagetheystudied(Modern languagesatgeneralschools,1964).Therefore,theteachingof foreignlanguagesinRomanianschoolshadasgoalstocreatethe foreignlanguagestudentwhocouldstartspeakingassoonandas correctlyaspossible,whowereabletocommunicateonvarious topics,andwhocouldaskandanswerquestionsquicklyand fluently(Macareanu,1970). IntheparticularcaseofEnglishasaForeignLanguage teachinginRomania,thecurriculumrecommendedthestudyof BritishEnglish(Malita,1960).ThestudyofBritishEnglishin schoolsanduniversitiesdidnotmeantheneglectofother variationsoftheEnglishlanguage,especiallyAmericanEnglish. However,theemphasiswasontheBritishvarietyofEnglishand agoodcommandofBritishEnglishwasconsideredessentialfor theeventuallearningofAmericanidiomsandexpressionsfrom movies,forexample(Malita,1960). Thedistributionofforeignlanguageclassesfluctuated duringtheperiodbetween1945and1989.Table1illustratesthe distributionofmodernlanguageclassesfor1964(Modern languagesatgeneralschools,1964),whereRussian,English,and Frenchwerethefirstcompulsorylanguageandthesecond compulsorylanguagewasachoicebetweentheselanguagesand German.Theaveragepercentageforthetotaltimeallocatedto foreignlanguageinstructionwas12.5%.Incomparison,Romanian comprised29.7%andmath21.2%ofthetotaltimeavailable (InternationalYearbookofEducation,1955).Table2illustrates thefluctuationandchangeregardingmodernlanguageteachingin Romaniabetween1945and1963(Modernlanguagesatgeneral schools,1964).

48 Table1 NumberofForeignLanguageHours/Week GradeFirstcompulsorySecondcompulsoryAll languagehours/weeklanguagehours/weekhours 5 3 0 28 6 3 0 30 7 3 0 30 8 3 0 35 9 3 2 35 10 3 3 36 11 3 3 36 12 3 2 36 Table2 ForeignLanguageTeachinginRomaniabetween1945and1963 Period ForeignLanguageStatus 1945-1948 Firstmodernlanguagecompulsory fromgrade5tograde12,second languagefromgrade8tograde12. 1948-1956 Firstlanguagecompulsoryfrom grade4tograde11,andthe secondfromgrade8to11.This period'seducationalcyclewas11 yearsinsteadof12. 1956-1963 Firstlanguagestudiedfromgrade 5,secondfromgrade6. Thecurriculumalsoadvisedforeignlanguageteacherson howtheyshouldallocatetheirtimeinordertocoveralesson. Asanexample,generally,betweenthefifthandtheeighth gradesthecurriculumforforeignlanguageteachingallocated threeclassesorhoursofinstructionperlesson.Thenewtext wasdividedintotwoparts.Thefirstclasswasassignedforthe comprehensivestudyofthefirstpartofthenewtext.The teacherpresentedthenewvocabularyandgrammar,andafterwards thestudentsreadthenewtext.Thesecondclasswasdedicatedto thecomprehensivestudyofthesecondpartofthenewtext,

49 whilethethirdclasswasforgrammarexercisesandconversation (Macareanu,1970). Withthegrowinginfluenceoftheaudio-lingualmethodin the1970's,thislessonstructureofforeignlanguagecurriculum cameunderscrutiny.Demetrescu(1970)identifiedanumberof characteristicsofcurriculaandtextbooksinamethodological paperontheimportanceofusingstructureexercisesinforming languagebehaviorsfor9thand10thyearstudents(1stand2nd yearofFrench).First,therewasareducednumberof introductoryorallessonsforbeginners,onlythreeclasses. Second,Demetrescuconsideredthatthewrittenlanguagewas introducedtoosoon.Also,thereweretoomanydescriptiveand narrativetexts,combinedwithalackofvisualmeansthatwould havestimulatedconversationinthecontemporaryspokenformof theforeignlanguagestudied. Inspiteofthecriticismagainstthe'traditionalmethod' expressedbyforeignlanguageteacherswhoadoptedtheaudio- lingualapproach,theRomanianforeignlanguagecurriculum continuedtohighlighttheimportanceofthewrittenaspectof theforeignlanguagestudied.Thereasonsweremany.First, literarytextsinaforeignlanguagewereregardedasthemost importantmeanstointroduceRomanianforeignlanguagestudents tothecultureofotherpeoples(Modernlanguagesatgeneral schools,1964).Inaddition,Chiosa(1970)statedthatthestudy ofaforeignlanguageinRomaniastartedwiththecurrentsystem ofthatlanguage,reflectedinthestandardliterarylanguagein ordertoequipstudentswiththemostaptinstrumentof communication.Theobvioussourceofliterarylanguagebeing literarytexts,thatcanbeoneexplanationwhyforeignlanguage curriculumemphasizedreadinginaforeignlanguagethroughthe studyofforeignlanguageliterature. Anotherexplanationwhyreadingwasconsideredsuchan importantskillintheforeignlanguagecurriculumisprovided byMalita(1960).ForMalita,thenewaudio-lingualapproaches toforeignlanguagelearning,whichconsideredlanguageasbeing primarilyaninstrumentforcommunication,madethelearningof aforeignlanguagefaster,moreefficient,andmorepopular amongpeople.Thenewmethodsalsoencouragedtheemergenceof textbooksbasedonfundamentalstructuresandbasicvocabulary. However,forMalita,notallideasthatcamewiththenew methodsshouldbeadoptedindiscriminately.Forexample,inthe UnitedStates,Malitaconsideredthatthefundamentalfocusfor foreignlanguagelearningwasontheoralaspect,soUScitizens couldcarryconversationswherevertheytraveledforbusinessor tourism.Readinginaforeignlanguagehadasecondary importancebecauseofculturalreasons,theUSbeingaself- sustainingculture,andoftechnicalreasons,theUShavingat

50 itsdisposalhugetranslationcapabilities.Inthecaseof Romania,thesituationwasdifferent.Asmallcountry,Romania hadtofamiliarizeitselfwiththetechnologicalandscientific advancesveryquicklyinordertomakesteadyprogressinits development.Becauseoflackoffundsforthetranslationofthe enormousvolumeofforeignpublications,Romaniaandits educationalsystemhadtoemphasizetheskillofreadingina foreignlanguagesothatRomaniancitizenswouldbeuptodate withthelatestadvancesreportedintechnicalandscientific literature.Therefore,Malitacriticizedthosewhoconsidered speakinginaforeignlanguageasthesupremegoalofforeign languageinstruction,andrecommendedabalancedsolutionfor smallandmediumcountries.Forthesecountries,Malita suggestedthattheabilitytodecodeatextinaforeign languageshouldbeslightlymoreemphasizedintheinstructional process. Anotherjustificationfortheemphasisplacedonreadingin theforeignlanguagecanfinditsrootsinthepolitical situationofthetime.RomaniawasaCommunistcountryruledby atotalitarianregime.Thereweremanyrestrictionsplacedon itscitizens,whowerenotallowedtotravelfreelyfromone countrytoanother.Whenapplyingforapassport,Romanian citizenshadtoprovideseriousreasonsforwhytheywantedto travelabroad,alongwithrecommendationsfromtheCommunist party.Oncetheirapplicationwasapprovedandtheirpassport issued,theycouldnotkeepitathome.Thepassporthadtobe returnedtothepoliceheadquartersimmediatelyafterthey returnedtoRomaniafromtheirtrip(Croghan,1980).Itwas obviousthatthegovernmentwantedtokeepitscitizensunder strongcontrolbynotallowingthemtotravelfreely.Therefore, asaneducationalconsequencefortheforeignlanguage curriculum,thepoliticalconditionsatthattimedidnotfavor astrongemphasisonusinglanguageasatoolfororal communication. Syllabiandmethods Thecurriculumguidelinesforforeignlanguageteaching wereoperationalizedinforeignlanguagesyllabi,whichwere drawnupbytheMinistryofEducation.Thesesyllabiprescribed foreachclassthelessoncontentandthenumberofhours allottedtoeachchapter.AccordingtotheRomanianMinistryof Education,thesyllabiledtotheassurancethattherewasa closeconnectionbetweentheoreticalknowledgeandpractical lifesinceanimportantplacewasreservedforthespoken languageandthecustomaryvocabulary.Grammarwastaughtin relationtothetextstudied,whileliteratureinaforeign

51 languageintroducedRomanianstudentstothecultureofother peoples(Modernlanguagesatgeneralschools,1964). Itisinterestingtonotethat,inspiteofthefactthat spokenlanguagewasassignedanimportantplace,theRomanian foreignlanguagecurriculumrequiredthatreadinghadtobe introducedtoforeignlanguagestudentsassoonaspossible (Macareanu,1970),forsometeacherstoosoon(Demetrescu, 1970).Also,themethodsuggestedbytheofficialRomanian MinistryofEducationrecommendationsforforeignlanguage teachingwasmixed:itwasamethodthatwasbothdirectand grammatical.Forbeginningforeignlanguagestudentsthestudy oflanguagestartedwithanemphasisontheoralaspectofthe language.Studentswereencouragedtolistenandtospeakinthe newlanguage.Then,theclassmovedtoreadingandwritingin theforeignlanguagestudied.Therefore,themethodusedwas directatfirst,tobecomemoreandmoregrammaticalafterwards. Inotherwords,themodernmethod,whichwasmoreaudio-lingual, ledtothetraditionalapproach,whichwasmoregrammaticalin nature. Inthemoregrammaticallyfocused,ortraditionalclass, theforeignlanguagelessonhadthreestages:theintroduction ofnewwords,thereadingandcomprehensionofthenewtext,and grammarexercisesandtranslation.Althoughvisualmaterials wereusedduringteaching,themainfocuswasthecomprehension ofthewrittentext(Malita,1960).Therewerealsothree momentsintheforeignlanguageclassthatusedthedirect methodwithaudio-lingualinfluences.First,thenewvocabulary wasintroducedthroughmodelsandstructureexercisesandwas decodedwithouttranslationthroughintuition,repetition,and conversation.Then,studentsreadthetext,followedby questionsthattestedtheglobalmeaning.Thethirdclasswas dedicatedtosituationalconversation.Thetextwasviewedasa pretextfordialogueandoraluseoflanguage,notapurposein itself,asitwasperceivedinamoretraditionalforeign languageclass(Platcu,1973). Grammarteachingwasalsodifferentinthetraditionaland modernapproaches.Inthemoretraditionalclasses,grammarwas taughtasfollowing:first,therulewaspresentedinthe students'nativelanguage,exampleswereprovided,andthen, exercisesweredone.Studentshadtomemorizethegrammatical rules.Inmodernclasses,thegrammarstructurewaspresentedin variouscontextsafterwhichtheteacherorthestudents analyzedthecomponentsusingtheforeignlanguage.Then, studentsusedthenewvocabularyandstructuresinstructure exercises(Platcu,1973). Eventhoughtherewerenomandatorymethodstobeusedwhen teachingforeignlanguagesinRomania,therewerecurriculum

52 guidelinesthathadtobefollowed.Therefore,evenwhenthe foreignlanguageteachersdecidedtousetheaudio-lingual method,theyhadtoadapttheirmethodologytofitthe curriculumguidelines,which,asmentionedbefore,slightlymore emphasizedreadingandwritinginaforeignlanguage.Macareanu (1970)adaptedanewmethodforteachingFrench,audiolingual innature.Heincludedwritingthenewwordsontheboard, contrarytoindicationsstatedwithintheoriginalguidelinesof thatnewmethod.Moreover,duringthesecondclass,inorderto followthecurriculumrequirementsoftheRomanianMinistryof Education,theforeignlanguagestudentswereintroducedto readingthenewtext,again,contrarytooriginalmethod guidelines,whichrecommendedintroductionofreadingaslateas possible.Macareanusuggestedthatthemethodofusingdialogue couldbeusedinRomania,adaptedtothecurriculaand textbooks.However,headded,teachersshouldnotapplythe methodindiscriminately.Thedialoguewasconsideredusefulwhen itfulfilledallrequirementsestablishedbythecurriculum. Becausenotalltextscouldbemodifiedasdialogues,narrative textsweretobeintroducedtostudentsthroughnarration,which wasanothersignofadaptation. Othercircumstancesofmixedmethodthatwereinaccordance withcurriculumrequirementsandmethodologicalrecommendations oftheRomanianministryofEducationwereofferedbyPlatcu (1973).Heconsideredthatthatlearningalanguagewasa processofforminglanguagebehaviors,sincelanguagewas behavior.Duringtheinitialstages,thestudents'attentionwas focusedonthemeaningofutterancesandnotonform,which becameautomaticthroughrepetitionandnotthroughexplanation ofabstractlanguagerules.Consequently,modernforeign languageteachingconsideredasinefficienttheteachingof foreignlanguagesthroughrulesexplanationandtranslation. However,heallowedtheuseoftranslationfordecodingnew vocabulary,whenothermeansdidnotexist,andforchecking readingcomprehension,whentheteachercoulduseselective translations.Nonetheless,themainmeansforcheckingreading comprehensionwasstillthedialoguebasedonthetext(Platcu, 1973).Thesecircumstancesinwhichtranslationwasallowedin anaudio-lingualforeignlanguageclassofferanotherexampleof whatwasmeantbythemixedmethodrecommendedbytheRomanian MinistryofEducation. Evaluation Thestudents'workwasassessedannuallyonthebasisof thegradesreceivedduringtheyear.Thegradeswerefrom1to 10,10beingthehighestand5thepassinggrade(Modern languagesatgeneralschools,1964).

53 Textbooks Foreachforeignlanguagetherewasonlyoneprescribed textbookperacademicyear.Theseprescribedtextbookswere providedtostudentsfreeofcharge.Thetextbookswerecompiled aftertheholdingofacompetitiveexaminationamongthemost deservingoftheteachersandwereapprovedbytheMinistry's educationalandteachingpublications'office(Modernlanguages atgeneralschools,1964). Teachers TeacherswhotaughtforeignlanguagesinRomaniawere Romanianandheldthelegallyrequiredqualificationstoteach modernlanguages.Citizensofthecountrieswhoselanguagewas taughtdidnotassistRomanianforeignlanguageteachers.The prospectiveteachersofmodernlanguageswerenotrequiredto spendaperiodinacountrywherethelanguagetheywereto teachwasspoken.Nonetheless,theRomanianstateoffered teachersscholarshipsfortripsabroadandforattending internationalseminarsandspecialcourses.Therewerealso coursesandseminarsheldinRomania,towhichspecialistsfrom USSR,France,England,andtheGermanDemocraticRepublicwere invited(Modernlanguagesatgeneralschools,1964). Platcu(1973)reportedsomeoftheproblemsrelatedto foreignlanguageteachingstaff.First,atthebeginningofthe 70's,therewasashortageinteachersqualifiedtoteach foreignlanguagesandtoooftensubstituteswhowerenot familiarwiththeforeignlanguagetheytaughthadbeenused. However,thatproblemwastobesolvedinthefollowingtwoor threeyearsbyincreasingthenumberofforeignlanguage studentsinuniversitiestobecomeforeignlanguageteachers. Anotherproblemwastheinadequatetrainingofferedby universitiestoprospectiveforeignlanguageteachers.Platcu (1973)reportedthat,outoftwelveforeignlanguageteachers whohadjustgraduatedfromtheuniversity,onlyoneknewhowto operateatapeplayer.OnelastproblemdescribedbyPlatcuwas thatthebusyscheduleforbothstudentsandteachersnegatively affectedthequalityofteaching. Summary Tosummarize,therearefourmajorcharacteristicsofpre- reformEFLteachinginRomania.Thefirstcharacteristicwas determinedbytheplaceofEFLwithinRomanianeducation.Inthe Romaniancurriculum,EnglishasaForeignLanguage(EFL)was assimilatedintothebroadercategoryofmodernlanguages. Modernlanguageswerestudiedincoordinationwiththestudyof Romanianandwiththatofgeographyandworldhistory.Theywere thoughttobelongtothegroupofhumanisticsubjectswithwhich

54 theyformedawhole(ModernLanguagesatGeneralSchools,1964). Therefore,theRomanianeducationalsystemdidnotextensively particularizethegoals,curriculum,syllabi,andmethodsofEFL teachingandlearninginRomania,butrathercreatedgoals, curriculum,syllabi,andmethodsapplicabletoallmodern languagespresentintheRomaniancurriculum. Thesecondcharacteristicwasthevariationofimportance assignedtoforeignlanguagesbetween1948and1989,as reflectedinthethreemajorperiodsinwhichthisintervalcan bedivided.Duringthefirstperiod,representedbythe1950's, thestudyofforeignlanguageswasencouraged,butnotas emphasizedasthestudyofRomanianormath.Thesecondperiod ofthe1960'srepresentedapositivetimeforforeignlanguage learninginRomaniabyallocatingmorehoursofFLstudyandby introducingthefirstforeignlanguageasearlyasthesecond grade.Thethirdperiod,encompassingthe1970'sand1980's witnessedareturntoemphasizingsciencesandRomanianatthe expenseofforeignlanguageeducation. TheforeignlanguagesstudiedinRomaniabetween1948and 1989wereRussian,English,French,andGerman.Itisimportant tonotethatuntil1955Russianwascompulsoryasafirst foreignlanguage,butstartedtoloseitsprivilegedposition, possiblybecauseoftheeffortofRomanianCommuniststoreduce theoverwhelmingdecisionpoweroftheSovietsoverRomania (Castellan,1989).Thegoalsofforeignlanguageteachingwere togivestudentsgoodconversationandreadingskills,andto familiarizethemwiththeculturalvaluesofthepeopleswhose languagetheystudied(ModernLanguagesatGeneralSchools, 1964). ThethirdfeatureofRomanianforeignlanguageeducation wastheoverwhelminginfluenceoftheRomanianpolitical backgroundandoftheCommunistideologyontheRomanian educationalplanninganddeliverybetween1948and1989.One areawashourallocation.Forexample,inthe1950s,whenthe countrystartedaprogramoffastindustrialization,the Romanianeducationstressedtheimportanceofsciencesatthe recommendationoftheCommunistleadershipwhoneededskilled workersforthenewfactories.Asaresult,thestudyof Romanianandmathtook50.9%ofthetotaltimeavailable (InternationalYearbookofEducation,1955).Anotherarea affectedbytheCommunistideologywasthecontentofforeign languageclasses.Outof42paperssubmittedforpassinga Frenchteacherqualificationexam,fourwereaboutusingthe studyofFrenchtofurthertheCommunisteducationofRomanian students(Demetrescu,1970). ThefourthcharacteristicofEFLeducationinthelarger contextofRomanianmodernlanguageeducationwasthetradition

55 ofadaptation,oflocalizingglobaltrendsineducation.There aretwoareasthatillustratethistraditionofadaptation:the foreignlanguageacquisitiontheoriesonRomanianforeign languageeducationandthemethodologyofRomaniaforeign languageeducation.Intheareaoftheinfluenceofforeign languageacquisitiontheoriesonforeignlanguageeducationin Romania,Chiosa(1970)providedaverysuggestiveexamplewhen sherecommendedtheuseofbothcontrastivelinguisticsand descriptivelinguisticsinRomanianforeignlanguageteaching. Contrastivelinguisticsanddescriptivelinguisticscomefrom twoopposingtheoreticalviewsonlanguageacquisition.However, Chiosadidnotfocusonthefundamentaltheoreticaldifferences betweenthetwoopposingviewsonlanguageacquisition, preferringtoemphasizetheuseoftheirfindingsinthecontext offoreignlanguageeducationinRomania.Anotherexampleof thistraditionofadaptationatworkwasfoundinthe methodologyofRomanianforeignlanguageeducation.Themethod recommendedbytheMinistryofEducationwasmixed.Forthe beginningstudents,thestudyoflanguageemphasizedtheoral aspect,encouragingstudentstolistenandtospeakinthenew language.Then,astheclassprogressed,readingandwriting weretheskillsemphasizedinforeignlanguageeducation.The mixedmethodrecommendedwasdirectatfirstandbecamemoreand moregrammaticalafterwards(ModernLanguagesatGeneral Schools,1964).Oneexplanationforthisinterestingitinerary fromamoderntoamoreclassicalapproachinforeignlanguage teaching,whichemphasizedtheskillofreadinginaforeign languagewasofferedbyMalita(1960).Malitarecognizedthat soundnessofmanyprinciplesofnewaudio-lingualapproaches, buthedisagreedwiththeideathatreadinginaforeign languagehadasecondaryimportance.Lackingfundsfor translationofthegreatnumberofforeignpublications,Romania hadtoemphasizetheskillofreadinginaforeignlanguage. ThatiswhyMalitasuggestedthatsmallandmediumcountries adapttheaudio-lingualapproachestotheirlocalconditions.In thecaseofRomania,adaptationrequiredaninstructional foreignlanguagesettingthatplacedanemphasisontheability toreadatextinaforeignlanguage. TheSituationofEFLTeachingandLearningafter1989 PoliticalContext InDecember1989,whenpeopleinthecityofTimisoara(NW ofRomania)riotedagainsttheCommunistregime,thepolice respondedwithextremeviolence.Thattriggeredarevoltthat spreadtomanyothercitiesinRomaniaandendedoverfour decadesofharshCommunistruleinRomania.Thecollapseofthe

56 CommunistregimeinRomaniaprovidedastarkcontrasttothe eventselsewhereintheregion,whereotherCommunistregimes werefalling.InRomania,thefightingbetweenarmedforces,the killingofciviliansandtheexecutionofthecountry's CommunistdictatorNicolaeCeausescupaintedapicturedifferent fromtheswiftandbloodlessvelvetrevolutionof Czechoslovakia,forexample. TheviolenceofDecember1989continuedthroughRomania's immediatehistory.InMarch1990,ethnictensionsbetween RomaniansandHungariansledtoprotestsandriotsinthecity ofTirguMures.InMay1990,thenewlyelectedRomanian president,IonIliescu,aformermemberoftheCommunist nomeklatura,calledupontheminersfromtheJiuValleyto descendonBucharesttocrushpro-democracyandanti-Iliescu demonstrations.InSeptember1991,Iliescucalledtheminersto Bucharestonceagainandusedthemtoforcetheremovalofthe PrimeMinisterPetreRoman,whosepushforeconomicreformdid notagreewithIliescu's(Rady,1992).Theminerstriedto descendonBucharesttwicein1999tovoiceoppositiontothe governmentpolicy.Thepolicecrushedtheminers'riotsand theirleader,MironCozma,wasarrested. Thepaceofeconomicreformisanothernegative characteristicofRomania'stransitionfromaCommunistsociety toademocraticone.AlthoughthemajorityofstatesinCentral andEasternEuropehaveexperiencedperiodsofhesitationin theirprogress,Romaniatoooftenstandsoutasaconstant laggardinthereformprocess(RomaniaandBulgaria:Those South-Easternlaggards,1996).Thisisduenottotheabsenceof effortstopursueeconomicandpoliticalreform,butmoreto insufficientpoliticalwillandflawedimplementationthat underminedmanyoftheseefforts.OnlyslowlyhasRomaniabeen comingtotermswiththerequirements,challengesand implicationsoftransition. Thenegativenoteofviolenceandslownessinimplementing reforms,whichmarkedRomania'shistoryafter1989,cannotbe denied.However,therehavebeenpositivesignsthatallwasnot lostforRomania.Thepresidentialandparliamentaryelectionin November1996wassuchasign.TheNovemberelectionsprovided strongevidencethatdemocracyhadtakenrootinthecountry. ThevictoryofEmilConstantinescuinthepresidentialelection andtheDemocraticConventionofRomanialedtothefirst peacefulanddemocratictransferofpowerinRomaniasince beforeWorldWarII. ForRomaniaandforotherCentralandEasternEuropean countries,theprocessoftransitionhasbeenoneofthemost challengingprojectsincontemporaryhistory.Onthepolitical level,Romaniahasbeenseekingtotransformtherestrictive

57 systemoftheone-partystateintoademocraticandpluralist one.Additionally,Romaniahasbeenpromotingthe'Western' normsregardinghumanandminorityrightsandparticipationin EuropeanandEuro-Atlanticstructures.Intheeconomicsarena, thetransitionprocesshasbeenfocusingonthecreationofa fullyfunctioningandcompetitivemarketbyprivatization, decollectivizationofagriculture,andtheexposureofthe domesticeconomytointernationalcompetition.Thesocial dimensionoftransitionhasbeenmanifestedintheattemptsto replacetheideologicallyandpoliticallydeterminedsocial structureofCommunistRomaniawithastructurebasedonmerit, non-discrimination,andequalopportunity.Therefore,the changesresultingfromthetransitionprocesswillleadtoa radicaltransformationofpoliticalandsociallifeinRomania andinotherCentralandEasternEuropeancountriesaffectedby thisprocess(PhinnemoreandLight,2001). FirstStepsinEducationReforminRomaniaafter1989 Thechangesresultingfromthetransitionprocesscannotbe limitedonlytopolitical,economic,andsocialtransformations. Educationwasoneoftheveryfirstsectorsthatexperiencedthe effortstowardschangeandreformshortlyafterthefallofthe Communistregime.MerritandCoombs(1977)identifyseveral varietiesofeducationalreformsfromtheperspectiveofpolicy change.Educationalreformcanbeconductedtocorrectabuses, enhanceefficiency,improveeffectiveness,reformthepolicy process,accommodatenewgroups,andreformulategoals. Immediatelyafter1989,thefirstreformactionswereconducted tocorrecttheabusesoftheCommunistregime.Inthedays before1989Romanianhighereducationwasahighlystructured andcentrallyplannedsystem.Highschoolgraduateswere channeledintothedesireddisciplinesattheuniversitiesand technicalinstitutesasdictatedbytheMinistryofLaborand Industry.Upongraduation,theywouldimmediatelybeassigned jobs.After1989,universitystudentsbecamethecenterofthe educationalprocess,nottheMinistryofEducation.Universities startedtoofferdegreesindisciplinesthathadbeenhighly restrictedorforbiddenundertheCommunistregime,e.g.,social sciences.Universitiesalsoincreasedavailabilityofthosenew high-demandareasofstudy,suchaslaworbusinessthatseemto holdoutpromiseforhighearningsinaneconomymovingtoward free-marketprinciples(Cristea&Gilder,1997). TheseeffortsofchangeinRomanianeducationweremostly unorganizedandconductedwithoutaclearformulationofgoals. Thenexteducationreformeffortsthatfollowedthecorrection ofabusesoftheformerregimecanbedefinedmoreasa systematicreformulationofgoalsineducation.Reformulating

58 goalsmeanschangingthevaluestaughtintheeducational process,thatis,inthecaseofRomania,ashiftfroma Communist,totalitariansocietytoademocraticone. RomanianEducationalSysteminthe90's Beforethemoreorganizedreformprojects,theRomania educationalsystemhadtracesofEighteenthcenturyromanticism, ofNineteenthCenturypositivism,ofEasternEuropeansocialism, andoftheunorganizedeffortsofchangingandreformcarriedon after1989(Marga,1998a).Theexistingeducationalsystem focusedonpassingoninformation,notoncreationofknowledge. Studentshadtomemorizeandreproduceinformation,ratherthan touseit.Thesystem,centralist(decisionsweretakenonlyby highrankingmanagers)andegalitarian(individualachievements receivedmostlytokenrecognition)vieweddevelopmentassimple expansion:increasedvolumeofinformation,moreclasses,more exams,etc. DesiredEducationalGoals Marga(1998b)indicatedthetypeofeducationRomania shouldhaveinplaceafterthecompletionofthereform processes.Inhisopinion,Romanianeededaneducationsystem thatfocusedonvalues.Thelistofvaluesthatwerefundamental forthenewRomanianeducationalsystemincludedpunctuality, veracity,respectforothers,andreceptivitytoevidence. Becauseofthenewsocial,political,andeconomicsystemof Romania,MargaaddedthatRomanianeducationhadthedutyof focusingonskillsthatwouldenablestudentstofunctionina systembasedonfreedomandwhichrequiredinitiative,focus, effort,andabilitytocompete.SuchskillsmentionedbyMarga weretheskillofabstracting,theskillofexpressingideasand oftestingsolutions,theskillofteamworking,andtheskill ofdebating. RecentReformProjects Inordertoachievethesegoals,thereformmovement generatedtwomajorreformprojectsinRomanianeducation:the EducationReformProjectandtheReformofHigherEducationand ResearchProject. TheRomanianMinistryofEducationandResearchcoordinated theEducationReformProject,withatotalcostofUS$73.5 millionofwhichUS$50millioncomesfromaWorldBankloan. TheprojecthadbeenineffectsinceOctober1994andendedin September2001.Theproposedprojectwasaimedatsupportingthe Government’sstrategytoreformbasicandsecondaryeducation. Thereweretwoobjectivestobeaccomplishedbytheproject. First,itintendedtoupdateandimprovethequalityofbasic

59 andsecondaryeducationbyimprovingcurriculumandteacher training,assessmentandexaminations,andtextbookquality. Second,itplannedtodevelopandintroducemeasuresthatwould increaseefficiencyinmanagementofpublicresourcesfor education(EducationReformProject). TheReformofHigherEducationandResearchProjectalso coordinatedbytheRomaniaMinistryofEducationandResearch costUS$84million,ofwhichUS$50millionrepresentsaWorld BankLoan.TheprojectstartedinJanuary1997andwascompleted onJanuary30,2002.Ithadthreeobjectives.First,it developedprogramsatundergraduateandgraduatelevelas requiredbythetransitiontoamarketeconomy.Second,it developedpostgraduateeducationandresearchtrainingtosupply theacademicstaffandhighlyqualifiedprofessionalswith advancedtraininginthenewfieldsdemandedbythetransition toamarketeconomy.Then,itimprovedtheabilityofhigher educationcouncilsandindividualinstitutionstoputinto practicetheirresponsibilitiesinthereformstrategy(Reform ofHigherEducationandResearchProject). ZiadAlahdad,theChiefoftheWorldBankofficein Romania,notedseveralsuccessesofRomanianeducationreform effortssupportedbytheWorldBankinhisaddressofa conferenceorganizedontheoccasionoftheclosureofthe EducationReformProject.AccordingtoAlahdad(2002),the qualityofeducationinRomaniaimprovedsignificantly.Before theeducationreform,Romanianeducationwasbasedonahighly centralizedsystem,whichhadastandardizedcurriculum,a singletextbookpersubject,andineffectivestudentevaluation practices.Theeducationsystemthatreplacedthissystem throughreformwascharacterizedbyaflexiblecurriculum framework,alternativetextbooks,andamodernevaluation system.Thereformprocessestablishedamethodologyfor developingandassessingoccupationalstandardsandalso developedasetofcomprehensivestandards.Therewerealso notableimprovementsintheareaofteachertraining,financing andmanagement.Moreover,Alahdadnoticedthat,eventhoughthe EducationReformProjectwasimplementedduringthemandateof severaleducationministers,eachofthemsupportedtheproject andcontributedsignificantlytoitscontinuity. AsmentionedbeforetheEducationReformProjecthadtwo objectives.Thefirstobjectivewastoimprovethequalityof basicandsecondaryeducationandthesecondonewastoimprove educationfinancingandmanagement.Severalactivitieswere carriedoutfortheachievementofthesetwoobjectivesofthe project.Thequalityofbasicandsecondaryeducationwastobe improvedthroughchangesincurriculumdevelopment,teacher training,assessmentandexamination,textbookdesign,

60 occupationalandassessmentstandards.Theeducationfinancing andmanagementcomponentintroducedmeanstoincreaseefficiency intheuseofeducationresources,introducedautonomyinthe managementofresources,anddiversifiedsourcesoffinancing foreducation. TheNewEFLCurriculum TheCommonEuropeanFrameworkForModernLanguages.Two elementsinfluencedthecreationofthenewEnglishasaForeign LanguagecurriculumtobeusedbytheRomanianeducational system.ThefirstonewastheCommonEuropeanFrameworkof ReferenceforLanguagesandthesecondonewasthenewRomanian NationalCurriculum. TheCommonEuropeanFrameworkofReferenceforLanguages wasthecreationoftheCouncilofEurope.Anorganizationof representativesof21westernEuropeanstates,TheCouncilof Europewasfoundedin1949byBelgium,Denmark,France,Ireland, Italy,Luxembourg,theNetherlands,Norway,Sweden,andthe UnitedKingdomforthepurposeofpromotingEuropean cooperation,protectinghumanrights,andfosteringsocialand economicprogress.Ithascreatedandadministeredarangeof organizationsconcernedwithsuchmattersaslaw,crime,and localgovernment,andincludingtheCouncilforCulturalCo- operation,whichhasbeenresponsibleforaseriesof initiativesonsecondlanguageteachingthroughoutthe1970s- 80s,culminatingwiththeCommonEuropeanofReferencefor Languages(McArthur,1992). In1971,theBritishappliedlinguistJohnL.Trim(1978) initiatedaseriesofprojects,knownastheCouncilofEurope LanguagesProjects,withthescopeofimprovingthelearningand teachingofEuropeanlanguages.Theseprojectsconcentrated initiallyonananalysisoftheneedsofadultlearners,the resultsbecomingthecontentofsyllabusesintendedtoserveas basesforaEurope-widescheme.Learnerswereseenasneedingto beabletoexpressthemselvesintermsofcertainnotionsand functions.Thedescriptionofthenotionsandfunctionswas undertakenforvariouslanguages.Tables3and4illustrate thesedescriptionsforEnglishbyVanEk,publishedin1975and extendedinthebookThresholdLevelEnglish(VanEkand Alexander,1980). Thethresholdlevelsfortheprojectswerenotasyllabus ormethodologyperse,butastatementofcontentforacourse design.Asetofprincipleswereproposed,inwhichlanguage teachingshouldcenteronthelearner,nottheteacher,be relevanttothelearner'slife,notremoteacademicgoals,be partofpermanenteducation,sothatlearningcanbefosteredat anytime,bebasedasfaraspossibleonparticipatory

61 democracy,andbecommunicative,sothatthelanguageislearned sociallyratherthanalone,andgearedtolearning-by-doing. Table3 NotionsandExemplificationinEnglish Notion ExemplificationinEnglish Existence Thereis… There'sn Isthere? Toexist Motion Tomove Table4 FunctionsandExemplificationinEnglish Function ExemplificationinEnglish Emotionalattitudes Thisisverynice/pleasant! Moralattitudes:apologizing Iamverysorry! Pleaseforgiveme! TheCommonEuropeanFrameworkofReferenceforLanguages (2001),basedonThresholdLevels,proposedacommonbasisfor thedevelopmentoflanguagesyllabi,curriculumguidelines, assessment,andtextbooksacrossEurope.Itaddressedthe questionsofwhatlanguagelearnershavetodoinordertousea languageforcommunicationandwhatknowledgeandskillsthey havetodevelopsoastobeabletoacteffectively.In addition,theCommonEuropeanFrameworkcoveredthecultural contextinwhichlanguagewassetanddefinedlevelsof proficiency,allowinglearners’progresstobemeasuredateach stageoflearningandonalife-longbasis.Byovercomingthe barrierstocommunicationamongprofessionalsworkinginthe fieldofmodernlanguagesduetothedifferenteducational systemsinEurope,theCommonEuropeanFrameworkofferedan invaluabletoolforeducationaladministrators,course designers,teachers,andteachertrainerstoreflectontheir currentpractice,tocoordinateeffortsandtomakesurethat theymeettherealneedsofthelearners. TheapproachadoptedincreatingtheCommonEuropean Frameworkwasactionoriented,meaningthatitviewedusersand learnersofalanguagefirstandforemostassocialagents, membersofsocietywhohadtaskstoaccomplishinagivensetof

62 circumstances,inaspecificenvironmentandwithinaparticular fieldofaction.Consequently,accordingtotheframework,any formoflanguageuseandlearningcomprisedtheactions performedbypersonswho,asindividualsandassocialagents, developedarangeofcompetences(generalandcommunicative languagecompetences).Invariouscontextsundervarious conditionsandundervariousconstraints,theywoulddrawonthe availablecompetencestoengageinlanguageactivitiesinvolving languageprocessestoproduceorreceivetextsinrelationto themesinspecificdomains.Theywouldalsoactivatethose strategieswhichseemedmostappropriateforcarryingoutthe taskstobeaccomplished.Themonitoringoftheseactionsbythe participantsleadtothereinforcementormodificationoftheir competences(CommonEuropeanFrameworkofReferencefor Languages:Learning,Teaching,Assessment,2001). WhiletheCommonEuropeanFrameworkwasanon-language specifictool,itincludedaseriesofspecificationsof learningobjectiveswhichsetoutindetailwhatusersofa specificlanguageweremostlikelytowishorneedtobeableto dointhecommunicativesituationsinwhichtheyweretotake part,andconsequentlywhattheyhadtoknowandtheskillsthey hadtodevelopinordertobeabletocommunicateeffectivelyin thosesituations.TheThresholdLevelwasthecentralelement thataimedtoidentifytheminimallinguisticmeansthatwere necessaryforalearnertodealindependentlywiththemore predictabletransactionalandinteractionalsituationsofdaily lifeasavisitorortemporaryresident.Amoreelementary learningobjective,knownasWaystage,wasdevelopedtodeal withthemosturgentsurvivalrequirements.Also,aVantage Levelwasproducedasanobjectiveforlearnerswhohadreached ThresholdLevelintheirchosenlanguageandwishedtogo further.Thislevelmeantnotsomuchdoingcompletelynew thingsasneedingtodotheminamoreadequateway,for example,withagreaterrangeofvocabulary,morefluencyand accuracytodealwiththecomplexitiesofdailylife.Asingle modelhasbeenusedforthesethreesuccessivelevels,which allowedforaflexibleapproachtoadaptingthemtospecific learningcontextsandrequirements.Forexample,extrastages canbeintroducedtocreatesmallermoreachievablestepsto assistmotivation,andtheelementscanbesupplementedor reducedtomeetspecificneeds.Theseconceptualtoolshavebeen instrumentalinplanningandimplementinglanguageteaching basedondesirable,appropriateandfeasibleobjectives. Specificationshavebeendevelopedtodateforalmostthirty nationalorregionallanguages,andothersareinpreparation (Shiels,2001).

63 ThepositionoftheFrameworkregardinglanguage acquisition,learning,andteachingwasneutral.TheFramework aimedtobenotonlycomprehensive,transparentandcoherent, butalsoopen,dynamic,andnon-dogmatic.Forthatreason,the Frameworkdidnotrecommendanytheoreticalframeworkon languageacquisitionanditsrelationtolanguagelearning,nor diditexemplifyanyoneparticularapproachtolanguage teachingtotheexclusionofallothers.TheCommonEuropean Frameworkvieweditselfasencouragingallthoseinvolvedin languageteachingandlearningtostateexplicitlyand transparentlytheirowntheoreticalfoundationandpractical procedures.TheFrameworksetoutparameters,categories, criteriaandscaleswhichmaypossiblystimulateusersto considerawiderrangeofoptionsortocriticallyexaminethe assumptionsofthetraditioninwhichtheywereworking.The textoftheFrameworkdidnotconsidersuchassumptionswrong, butsuggestedthatallthoseresponsibleforplanninginthe fieldofmodernlanguagescouldbenefitfromare-examinationof theoryandpracticeinwhichtheycouldtakeintoaccount decisionsotherlanguagepractitionerstookinotherEuropean countries(CommonEuropeanFrameworkofReferenceforLanguages: Learning,Teaching,Assessment,2001). Adescriptivedocument,theCommonEuropeanFrameworkof ReferenceforLanguagesdidnotprovidepolicyguidelines.It aimedtoencouragereflectionandcommunicationaboutall aspectsoflanguagelearning,teachingandassessmentandit providedacommonbasisandlanguagefortheelaborationof curricula,syllabuses,textbooks,examinationsandteacher trainingprogramsacrossEurope.TheFrameworkproposedto facilitatecoherenceandtransparencyinthedescriptionof objectives,contentandmethodssothatallthepartners involvedinmodernlanguageteachingcouldreflectonandco- ordinatetheireffortsintheinterestsoflearners.Asitalso providedobjectivecriteriafordescribinglanguageproficiency, theFrameworkservedasacalibrationinstrumentforthe equationofexaminationsandqualifications. TheNationalCurriculum.Curriculumdevelopmentwasthe firstactivitymentionedinthereformprojectforraising qualityofbasicandprimaryeducation.Thereformproject statedthatitwouldassistinthepreparationand implementationofnewcurriculaforbasicandsecondary education,grades1through12. AccordingtothenewRomaniaNationalCurriculum,the educationalprocessisdividedintothreecurriculumcycles:the basicknowledgeacquisitioncyclefromtosecond grade,thedevelopmentcyclefromthethirdgradetothesixth grade,andtheobservationandorientationcyclefromthe

64 seventhgradethroughtheninthgradeandon.Thestructureof thenewRomanianNationalCurriculumisthesameforall curricularcyclesandconsistsofthefollowingelements: attainmenttargets,referenceobjects,learningactivities, syllabi,andcurricularstandardofperformance(Curriculum NationalProgrameScolarepentruClaseleaIII-a-aVII-aLimbi Moderne,1999). Attainmenttargetsaregeneralobjectivesfocusingonthe formationofspecificabilitiesandattitudesandarefollowed throughoutseveralyearsofinstruction.Referenceobjectives specifytheexpectedresultsofinstructionandfollowthe progressofacquiringinformationandabilitiesfromoneyearof instructiontothenext.Thecurriculumoffersatleastone exampleoflearningactivitiesforeachreferenceobjective.The learningactivitiesexamplesstartfromrealexperiencesof studentsandareintegratedintoteachingstrategiesthat reflecteddifferentlearningcontexts. Thesyllabiaremeansthroughwhichtheattainmenttargets andthereferenceobjectivesareachieved.Theunitsofsyllabi areorganizedbythemesorbyareasofstudy.Thecurricular standardsofperformanceareevaluationcriteriaforthe learningprocess.Theyrepresentsynthesizeddefinitions,and areabletoindicatethedegreetowhichstudentsachieve curriculumobjectives.Thesestandardsrepresenttheconnection betweencurriculumandevaluation.Theyareusedincreatingthe levelsofperformanceandthenecessaryitemsforevaluation processes(CurriculumNationalProgrameScolarepentruClaselea III-a-aVII-aLimbiModerne,1999). TheStructureoftheNewEFLCurriculum.TheEnglishasa ForeignLanguageCurriculum(EFL)forcompulsoryeducation (grades1to9)isalsostructuredontheframeworkforthe RomanianNationalCurriculum.Otherfactorsthatinfluencedthe formanddesignofthenewEFLcurriculumweretheimportance placedontheroleofobjectivesincurriculumdesign,the necessityofmappingaunitedsetofattainmenttargetsand referencegoalsfromtheperspectiveofacommunicative- functionalmodelofteachingandlearningmodernlanguages,the necessitytorelatethesyllabustothecommunicativeneedsof students,andtheguaranteeingofaseamlessprogressionfrom onecurriculumcycletothenext(CurriculumNationalPrograme ScolarepentruClaseleaIII-a–aVIII-aLimbiModerne,1999). TheEnglishasaForeignLanguageCurriculumforGrades3 to9.Aspreviouslymentioned,thenewEFLcurriculumforgrades 3to9followsthestructureofthenewRomanianNational Curriculum.Thestructureofthenewcurriculumcontainsthe attainmenttargets,referenceobjectives,examplesoflearning activities,syllabi,sub-dividedinthemes,communicative

65 functions,andelementsforcommunicationbuilding,and curricularstandardsofperformance. Theattainmenttargetsaretobefollowedduringthewhole instructionalperiodbetweengrades3and9.Thefirst attainmenttargetisthedevelopmentoftheabilityto understandoralmessages,thesecondthedevelopmentofthe abilityoforalexpression,thethirdthedevelopmentofthe abilitytounderstandwrittenmessages,thefourththe developmentoftheabilityofwrittenexpression,andthefifth thedevelopmentofculturalrepresentationsandofaninterest forthestudyofEnglishlanguageandAnglo-Saxoncivilization. Ithasalreadybeenpointedoutthattheattainmenttargets mentionedabovearetobefollowedduringtheentire instructionalcyclebetweenthirdandninthgrade.Itwouldbe beneficialfortheunderstandingofthenewEFLcurriculumto takeonegradeandseehowtheattainmentstargetsare operationalized.Forexample,forthethirdgrade,thereare fourreferenceobjectivesforthefirstattainmenttarget,the developmentoftheabilitytounderstandoralmessages.They statethat,attheendofthethirdgrade,thestudentshouldbe abletorecognizesoundsspecifictoEnglish,toidentifywords andphrasesinspeech,toreactverballyandnon-verballytoan oralmessage,andtounderstandtheglobalmeaningofasimple enunciation.Then,thecurriculummentionsseveralexamplesof learningactivitiesthatwouldhelptheachievementofthose referenceobjectives,suchasidentificationexercises, discriminationexercises,respondingtocommandsexercises, answeringtoquestionsexercises,true/falseexercises. Thesyllabusforthethirdgrade,likeallEFLcurricula forgrades3to9,isdividedintothreeparts:themes, communicativefunctions,andelementsforcommunication building.Thethemesforthethirdgradeincludethefamily (familymembers,professions,etc.),thehome(rooms, furniture),theschool,theweather,animals,etc.The communicativefunctionsaregroupedbythemeandaretobe developedprogressivelyaccordingtotheleveloflexicaland grammaticalproficiency.Theyarenottobetreatedexplicitly, butrather,presentedinsituationalcontexts.Suchexamplesof communicativefunctionsare:greetingsandrespondingto greetings,introducingsomeoneandbeingintroducedtosomeone, givingandaskingforinformationanddirections,expressing likesanddislikes,expressinggratitudeandrespondingto expressinggratitude,andformulatingrequests.Thecurriculum focusesontwoelementsintheareaofbuildingcommunication. Thefirstoneisgrammarandthesecondvocabulary.Theauthors oftheEFLcurriculumspecifythatthegrammaticalcategories listedinthecurriculumbelongtothespecializedlanguageand

66 thattheterminologyisnottobetaughtexplicitly.The grammaticalcategoriestobepresentedduringthirdgradeare nouns,definiteandindefinitearticles,subjectpronouns, adjectives,numeralsfrom1to12,verbsinthepresenttense andpresenttenseprogressive,adverbs,prepositions,and conjunctions.Thevocabularyattheendofthirdgradeshouldbe between150and200lexicalunits,wordsandphrasesneededfor effectivecommunication. TheEFLcurriculumforthegrades3to9doesnotinclude anystandardsofperformanceforgrade3,thestandardsbeing designedfromgrade4on.Thecurriculumforgrade4statesthat forthefirstattainmenttarget,thedevelopmentoftheability tounderstandoralmessages,thestandardofperformanceisto understandtheglobalmeaningofanoralshorttext.Forthe developmentoftheabilityoforalexpression,therearetwo standards:toreproduceashortmessageandtoproduceashort message.Forthedevelopmentoftheabilitytounderstand writtenmessages,thecurriculumalsomentionstwostandards:to readaknowntextandtogettheglobalmeaningofatextread silently.Thedevelopmentoftheabilityofwrittenexpression hasonestandard:towriteashortstatementbasedonanimage oraverbalprompt. TheEnglishasaForeignLanguageCurriculumforGrades10 to12.Forthe10th,11thand12thgradesthecurriculumdesign startedfromtworeferencepoints:thecurriculumfortheninth grade,whichhasastructureidenticaltotheRomanianNational Curriculum(attainmenttargets,referencegoals,learning activities,syllabi,andcurricularstandardsofperformance) andtheCommonEuropeanFrameworkforModernLanguagespublished bytheCouncilofEuropein1998.Fromthisperspective,theEFL curriculumisexpectedtobuildcommunicativecompetenciesbased onknowledgeacquiredinpreviouscurriculumcyclesandderived fromalargeEuropeanconsensus(CurriculumScolarpentruLimba EnglezaClasaaX-a,1999). ThestructureofthisEFLcurriculumforthe10th,11thand 12thgradeincludesgeneralcompetencies,valuesandattitudes, specificcompetencies,andmethodologicalsuggestions.General competenciesaredefinedasstructuresofknowledgeandhabits formedduringhighschool.Anexampleofsuchgeneral competenciesistheunderstandingoforalandwrittenmessages invariouscommunicationsituations.Thevaluesandattitudes aretobeformedduringhighschool.Anexamplewouldbe awarenessofculturalstereotypesandfightagainstcultural stereotypes.Thespecificcompetenciesarederivedfromgeneral competenciesandareformedduringoneacademicyearand correlatedwiththeunitsofsyllabi.Thiscorrelation constitutestheaxisofthenewcurriculum,stressingits

67 pragmaticdimension.Itbecomesapparentnotonlywhatis learnedbutalsowhythesyllabiarestudied.Anexampleofsuch specificcompetencyisidentificationofdetailsinauthentic texts.Themethodologicalsuggestionsareofferedassupportfor theinstructionalprocess.Forexample,during10th,11thand 12thgrade,itisrecommendedtheusingofthefollowing communicativefunctionsoflanguage:expressingopinions, expressingsatisfaction,expressingagreementanddisagreement, offeringinformation,etc. Fourgeneralcompetenciesaretobefollowedduringthe entireinstructionalphasebetweengrades10and12.Thefirst oneistheunderstandingoforalandwrittenmessagesinvarious communicationsituations.Thesecondgeneralcompetencyisthe productionoforalandwrittenmassagesadequatetocontext.The thirdoneistheinteractioninoralandwrittencommunication, whilethefourthoneisthetransferandmediationoforaland writtenmessagesinvariouscommunicationsituations. Thevaluesandattitudesaretobefollowed,justlikethe generalcompetencies,duringthe10th,11th,and12thgrade.The valuesandattitudeslistedintheEFLcurriculuminclude awarenessofthecontributionoftheEnglishlanguageto contemporaryculture,criticalreferencetoBritishandAmerican civilization,acceptanceofdifferences,awarenessofcultural stereotypes,developmentofcritical,reflexiveandindependent thinkingthroughthestudyofvarioustextsinEnglish,and manifestationofflexibilityduringtheexchangeofideasin variouscommunicationsituations. Thespecificcompetencies,derivedfromgeneral competenciesaretobeformedduringoneacademicyear.For example,forthefirstgeneralcompetency,understandingoforal andwrittenmessagesinvariouscommunicationsituations,the EFLcurriculumforthe10thgradespecifiesthreespecific competencies:identificationofmainideasinaclearly structuredcomplexoralmessageonaspecifictopic,selection ofinformationfromvarioussourcesforcompletionofatask, andidentificationofdetailsinauthentictexts.Thesyllabi associatedtothosespecificcompetenciescompriseoforal presentations,interviews,oralreports,culturalcomments, literarytexts,narrativeanddescriptiveparagraphsandtexts, debates,etc. Themethodologicalsuggestionscoverthreeareas:themes, elementsforbuildingcommunication,andcommunicativelanguage functions.Thecurriculumforgrade10suggeststhefollowing themes:contemporaryaspects,suchaseducation,environment, society,andculture,life,suchaslifestylesandsocial behavior,elementsofEnglishandAmericancultureand civilization,andfictionandnon-fictionEnglishtexts.The

68 elementsforbuildingcommunicationarecommonforgrades10to 12.Thecurriculumrecommendsthefollowing:thenoun,the adjective,verbtensessuchaspastperfect/pastperfect continuous,futureperfect/futureperfectcontinuous, subjunctive,etc.,theadverb,definiteandindefinitearticles, idioms,conditionals,etc.During10th,11thand12thgrade,The EFLcurriculumsuggeststheusingofthefollowingcommunicative functionsoflanguage:expressingopinions,expressing satisfaction,expressingagreement/disagreement,offering information,givingadvice,accepting/refusinginvitations, expressingsurprise/doubt/curiosity/sympathy,persuasion, logicalorganizationofanargument,logicalorganizationof discourse,andconductingadebate. Evaluation Therehavebeenseveralessentialchangesinthefieldof evaluationduetothereformprocessinRomanianeducation.One importantchangeisthesignificantvalueattributedbythe Romanianeducationreformtodefiningstudents'standardsof performanceandencouragingstandardizedtesting.Thestandards ofperformanceareconsideredhelpfultoteacherswhenthey evaluatetheirstudentsbecausethesestandardsprovideacommon setofcriteriaforassessment.Standardizedtestsarealso thoughttobeuseful.Thesetestscouldbediagnosticand administeredatthebeginningofinstruction.Theresultswould helpteacherstoadapttheirteachingmethodsandtechniquesto theproficiencylevelofeachclassandwoulddirecttheir attentiontocorrectinggapsintheproficiencylevelofeach classtheyteach.Thepresenceofthesestandardsofperformance andstandardizedtestsatthenationallevelwouldallow relevantstatisticalcomparisonsamongschoolsandgeographical regions,andwouldenableteacherstofollowtheindividual progressoftheirstudentsoverextendedperiodsoftime (ReviewsofNationalPoliciesofEducation:Romania,2000). Korka(2000)hasanalyzedtwootheraspectsof modernizationofschoolevaluationandexamination.Thefirst aspectisaqualitativeoneandinvolvesreplacingtheprimary educationgradingfroma1to10scalewithqualitative evaluationbasedondescriptorsofperformance.Thesecondone isaquantitativeoneandentailsorganizingtheschoolyearin twosemestersinsteadofthetraditionalthreeterms. Evaluationbyassigninggradesfrom1to10hasbeenbased moreonteacher’sexperienceandperceptionratherthanclear, relevantandunitarycriteria.Thisaspecthasgeneratedapush formorestandardizedevaluationofknowledge,whichwas discussedpreviously,andforasubstitutionoftraditional1-10 gradingwithperformancedescriptors.Theperformance

69 descriptorsforprimaryeducation,thattheNationalServiceof EvaluationandExamination-anadvisoryinstitutionofthe MinistryofEducation-hasdevelopedinagreementwiththenew curriculummadeitpossibletoreplacegradeswithperformance descriptors.Thisaimstochangeasubjectiveassessmentofthe studentwithamuchmoreobjectiveone,whichalsotakesinto accounttheevolutionofthestudent’sattitudetowardsevery subjectduringtheentiresemesterandnotjustafragmented checkingofknowledge.Thisnewevaluationsysteminvolvesa shiftinattentionfromgettinghighgradesformemorizingand reproducingknowledgetoaselectiveacquisitionofknowledge withaviewtodevelopingvariousskillsandabilitiesselected accordingtocyclesandcurricularareas. Organizingtheschoolyearintwosemesterscanlowerthe frequencyofreviewcheckingtargetedatthequantityofstored knowledge.Shortevaluationscarriedoutduringeachsemester aremaintained,yettheyarecompletedbythethree-weekend-of- termevaluations.Theaimofthelatteristofindoutevery student’sprogressinthelearningprocessofeachsubject. Textbooks DuringtheCommunistyearsandthetimebeforethemore recenteducationreformprojects,therewasonlyonestate-run publishinghousethatwasauthorizedtopublishschooltextbooks inRomania.ThissituationchangedaftertheWorldBankandthe GovernmentofRomaniastartedtheEducationReformProject.One oftheobjectivesofthethiseducationreformeffortwastoput anendtothemonopolyoftheDidacticandPedagogicState PublishingHouseandtostimulatethecreationofaprivate sectorforthepublishingofschooltextbooks.Thetotalsum allocatedforthetextbookcomponentoftheEducationReform ProjectwasUSD39.3million,whichwasusedtoreform250 textbooktitles,representing50%ofthetotalnumberof textbooks.Nowthepublishinghousescompetefortheeditingof maximumthreetextbooksperschoolsubject.Then,theyare selectedbytheNationalCouncilforTextbookApproval,which hasevaluationpanelsforeachsubject.Then,theselected textbooksarepresentedtoteachersduringexhibitsorganizedby thelocalbranchesoftheMinistryofEducation,theteachers selectingoneofthethreeapprovedtextbooks.Afterthe teachersdecidewhattextbooktouse,thetextbooksareordered throughtheMinistryofEducation. AsaresultoftheEducationReformProject,Romaniahas developedafunctionalindustryintheareaoftextbook publishing.Thestate-runDidacticandPedagogicPublishing Housewasnotfavoredbyitsmonopolyanylonger,havingto

70 competewiththenewprivatepublishinghouses(Reviewsof NationalPoliciesofEducation:Romania,2000). Teachers Forprimaryeducation,theteachersreceivetheirtraining inpedagogichighschoolsoruniversitycolleges.Inthecaseof universitycolleges,thelengthofstudyistwoyearsfor pedagogichighschoolgraduatesandthreeyearsforotherhigh schoolgraduates.Primaryschoolteachersareresponsiblefor teachingallsubjectsexceptformusic,foreignlanguages, physicaleducation,andreligion.Onlysecondaryschoolteachers canteachthesesubjects.Inordertobeasecondaryschool teacher,thecandidateshavetoattendafour-yearcollegeor university(ReviewsofNationalPoliciesofEducation:Romania, 2000). Theeducationreformhasimpactedteachertrainingattwo levels.Thefirstoneistheinitialteachertraining,where studentsatRomanianuniversitiespreparetobeteachers,while thesecondlevelisthein-serviceteachertraining.Inthearea oftheinitialteachertraining,thecollegesanduniversities havehadtoadapttheircurriculumtoincludethenewtrendsand practicesrepresentedbytheframeworkofthenewRomanian NationalCurriculumforprimaryandsecondaryeducation.Thenew programofstudyforthemethodologicaltrainingofthefuture educators,carriedoutintheDepartmentforTeacherTrainingof theuniversity,hastwocomponents.Thefirstoneisa compulsorycurriculumwithsubjectssuchasof Education,,SubjectTeachingMethodology,andTeaching Practice.Thesecondcomponentisanoptionalcurriculum,which includesatleasttwosubjectschosenbythestudentfromthe followinglist:SchoolandVocationalGuidance,School Management,EducationSociology,EducationalPolicies,and InterculturalEducation.Intheareaofin-servicetraining,the educationreformhastwoobjectives.Thefirstoneistotrain in-serviceteacherstounderstand,adoptandapplythenew elementsintheNationalCurriculum,andtoadapttheteaching technologyandevaluationtothenewrequirementsstartingwith theschoolyear1998/1999.Thesecondoneistoexpandthein- serviceteachertrainingcapacity.Forthispurpose,aNational CouncilforTeacherTraininghasbeensetup.Itsactivities benefitfromconsultancyandtechnicalassistanceprovidedby theEducationalCenteroftheUSA.Keyinstitutionsinvolvedin continuoustrainingprogramsaretheTeachers’Housesinevery county.Theyworkwiththeschoolinspectorates,theregional centers,thelocaluniversities,non-governmentalorganizations andindependentexpertstocovertheneedforcontinuous trainingbyorganizingcascadetrainingprogramsthat

71 disseminatenewknowledgewithintheentirecounty.The teachers’housesalsoprovideaframeworkforconceiving, exploring,andgeneralizingnewteachingsolutionsforthe teaching-learningprocess,evaluation,andexamination(Korka, 2000). IntheareaofEnglishasaForeignLanguage,theBritish CouncilhasinvestedimportantfinancialresourcesinEFL teachertraining.InaprivateconversationwithOctavian Patrascu,whoisamodernlanguageteachingexpertwiththe Romania'sNationalCurriculumCenterandamemberofRomania's NationalCommitteeforEFL,helistedseveralinitiatives conductedundertheauspicesoftheBritishCouncilbetween1991 and2002.Thefirstonementionedwasaten-weektraining sessionforEFLcountysupervisorsinPlymouth,UnitedKingdom, between1991and1994.Then,teachertrainers,onepercounty, weretrainedthroughcoursesinRomaniaandtheUKbetween1992 and1995.Duringthesameperiod,theBritishCounciltrained sixteentextbookauthorsfortenweeksintheUK.Theseries textbookPathwaytoEnglishwasaresultofthattraining sessionoftheBritishCouncil.Also,from1994to2002,the BritishCouncilhadorganizedtheEnglishLanguageTeaching (ELT)conferencesforprimary,secondary,andtertiary education.Andfinally,in1998,itattemptedtoconnectthe EnglishexaminationofthebaccalaureatewiththeCommon EuropeanFrameworkforLanguages(O.Patrascu,personal communication,October13,2002). CharacteristicsoftheNewEFLCurriculum First,thenewEFLcurriculumisadirectresultofthe Romanianeducationreformmovements,reflectingthenew political,social,andeconomicorientationofRomania.Itis basedonnewvaluesandanewideology(Marga,1998a),oriented towardEuropeanintegration. Second,thetheoreticalframeworkofthenewEFLcurriculum isthecommunicative-functionalmodeloflearningandteaching. Thismodel,inspiredbytheCommonEuropeanFrameworkisthe basisfortheattainmenttargetsandreferenceobjectivesfor allmodernlanguagesstudiedinRomania. Third,fromastructuralpointofview,thenewEFL curriculumcanbedividedintotwo.Forthegrades3to9,the curriculumisbasedonthenewRomanianNationalCurriculumand incorporatesattainmenttargets,referenceobjectives,examples oflearningactivities,syllabi,andcurricularstandardsof performance.Forthegrades10to12,thecurriculumisbasedon previousforeignlanguageknowledgeofstudentsresultingfrom applyingtheEFLcurriculumfromgrades3to9andtheCouncil ofEurope'sCommonEuropeanFrameworkforModernLanguages.It

72 comprisesgeneralcompetencies,valuesandattitudes,specific competencies,andmethodologicalsuggestions. Fourth,thereisevidenceofcontinuingthetraditionof adaptationinforeignlanguagelearningandteaching.Although themodelonwhichthenewEFLcurriculumisbasedis communicative-functional,theexplicitteachingofgrammaris stillplayinganimportantroleasaresultofthepre-reform Romanianforeignlanguageteachingandlearningbackground.The adaptationofglobaltrendstolocalpre-existentconditionsis moreevidentwhentheanalysismovesfromtheEFLcurriculumto EFLtextbooksbasedonthenewEFLcurriculum. Summary Thischapterhasprovidedacomprehensivepictureofthe EnglishasaForeignLanguageteachingbeforeandafterthe reform.ThechapterfirstpresentedthesituationofEFLin Romaniapriortotherecenteducationalchange,andthenfocused ontheEFLcurriculumreforminRomaniaasaresultofthe Romanianeducationreformefforts.Consequently,thischapter hasansweredthefirstresearchquestionofthestudy,whichwas whatEFLreformisinRomania.Thefollowingchapterisdirected toansweringthesecondresearchquestionofthestudy,how internationaltrendsineducation,stemmingfromthe globalizationmovement,andlocalfactorsmightinfluencethe EFLcurriculumreforminRomania.

73 CHAPTER5 THEGLOBALANDTHELOCALINTHENEWROMANIANEFLCURRICULUM Introduction Thepurposeofthischapteristwofold.First,itaddresses thesecondresearchquestionofthestudy,whichishow internationaltrendsineducation,stemmingfromthe globalizationmovement,andlocalfactorsmightinfluencethe EFLcurriculumreforminRomania.Second,itincludesthe conclusionsofthestudyalongwithpossibledirectionsfor furtherresearch. Toaddressthesecondresearchquestion,thechapteris organizedinthreeparts.First,itdescribesthemodelfor representingeducationreformsandinitiativesasaresultof theinteractionbetweentheglobalandthelocalforces.Then, theglobalandthelocalinfluencesonEFLcurriculumreformare identifiedinordertosituatethatparticularreformmovement underoneofthefourcategoriesoftherepresentationmodel. Thelastsectionofthechapterisdedicatedtothepresentation anddiscussionoftheconclusionsofthestudy,whichalso includedpossibledirectionsforfutureresearchthatwould focusonEFLcurriculumreforminRomanianeducation. TheGlobal-LocalInteractioninEducation Thepurposeofthischapteristoanalyzehowtheglobal forces,inconjunctionwiththelocalcontextinfluencedthe EnglishasaForeignLanguagecurriculumreforminRomania.The dynamicinteractionbetweentheglobalandthelocalin politics,economics,culture,historyandeducationhasbeen examinedinthesecondchapterofthisstudy.Theresultsofthe globalizationmovementinteractingwiththelocalcontextinthe fieldofeducationhavebeenconceptualizedasacontinuumwith fourdistinctcategories:globalversuslocal,globalandlocal, localandglobal,andlocalversusglobal.Tounderstandwhere theEFLcurriculumshouldberepresented,itisbeneficialto restatethefourcategoriesoftherepresentationmodel. Inthecategoryofglobalversuslocal,thisstudyhas examinedseveralWorldBankeducationalprojects.TheWorld Bank'sbeliefthattechnicalexpertiseandapoliticalsolutions couldovercomemanydevelopmentproblemsinThirdWorld countriesledtoastrategyofignoringthelocalcontextwhen implementingWorldBank-fundededucationalreforms(Berman, 1997).Asaconsequence,manyoftheseprojectshavefallen shortofdeliveringthepromisedresults.Onesuchprojectis

74 thetextbookprojectinLiberiasuspendedbythegovernment becauseofaseriesofproblemsderivedfromthelocalcontext. TheBankdidnotrealisticallyevaluatetheabilityofLiberian studentstopayfortextbooks,whichweretooexpensiveforsome studentsandparents.AnotherlocalfactorignoredbytheWorld BankwastheeconomicstagnationofLiberiaatthetimewhenthe projectwasimplemented,thusmakingtheimplementationmore difficultforagovernmentdealingwitheconomicconstraints. Also,theexistenceofaparalleltextbookprojectfundedby USAIDandputintopracticeatthesametimeasthatofthe WorldBankcreatedproblemsforthetextbookprojectofthe latter.Theanalysisofsucheducationalinitiativesrevealed thatdonoragenciesignoredorpaidlittleattentiontolocal context,whichlaterplayedalargeroleinaproject'ssuccess orcollapse.Inthesecases,theglobalhasoverruledthelocal. Thesecondcategoryonthecontinuumisglobalandlocal. Inthisrepresentation,theglobalforcesaremediatedbythe localcontextinwhatAppadurai(1996)calledvernacular globalization.InAppadurai'sview,atensionexistsinschools ofrestructurededucationalsystemsbetweentop-downand localizedpractices,allnestedwithintheflowof globalization.Theoutcomeofthesecollisionsbetweenglobal andlocaleducationalpracticesisvernacularglobalization,in whichthelocal,representedbynationalhistoryandpolitics mediatedglobalization.Lingard(2000)offeredanexampleof vernacularglobalizationinhisstudywhereheanalyzedtwo Australianpolicysettlementsineducationgeneratedbytwo ideologicallyopposedparties.Lingardnoticedthat,inspiteof thefactthatbothsettlementswereframedbythenewglobal educationalpolicyconsensus,therewerestilldifferences betweenthetwo,causedbydifferentpartybeliefsanddifferent electoralsupportbasis.ThisexampleofAustralianeducation reinforcedwhatBallnoticedin1998,thatthepolicy convergenceacrossnationsineducationismediated,translated, andredefinedwithinnationalandlocaleducationalstructures. Inthecaseofthethirdcategoryonthecontinuum, representedbythelocalandtheglobal,thelocalcommunity recognizestheimportanceoftheglobalcontextbutitisnot influencedbyglobalaidagenciesandsupranational organizationsbecauseeitherthegovernmentlackstheresources orthecommunitysimplyrefusestoacceptexternalaid.This courseofthelocalmediatedbyglobalhasbeensuccessfully followedbyKenyawithitsHarambeeschoolsandbyIndiawith itsKeralaSastraSahityaParishad(KSSP).Botheducational projectsrecognizetheimportanceofdevelopmentandcampaigned forliteracy,forscienceeducation,forrationalityand modernityingeneral,whicharealsokeyelementsinthe

75 globalizationdiscourse.Thedifferenceisthatthelocal contexthasamoreimportantroleintheglobal-local interactionwhenimplementingtheseeducationalmandates (Zachariah,1989). Thelastcategoryonthecontinuum,localversusglobal,is theresponseagainsttop-downglobalization.Inthefieldof education,thisresistanceagainstglobalizationhastakenthe shapeoftheIslamicschoolsoftheMiddleEast.Theteachingof thestudentsintheseschoolshasbeenexplicitlydirected againstmodernityandglobalinfluences,seenasWesternization orAmericanization.ForexampletheIslamicreligiousschools (madrashas)ofPakistantakethechildrenofthepoor,provide themwithfreeeducation,meals,andclothing,andteachthemto besoldiersofIslamandfightagainstglobalizationand America.IntheviewsoftheIslamicschools,Americaisthe promoterofaculturalsystemthatisshallowandhollowfrom inside,unabletobeartheloadoflifeforthefuturetimes (Barber,2001).Figure2inChapter2hasillustratedthemodel ofrepresentationintheformofachartofglobalandlocal interactionsinthefieldofeducation. Next,followingthediscussionoftheglobal-local representationmodelusedfordenotingeducationalinitiatives, theRomanianEnglishasaForeignLanguagecurriculumreformis analyzedfromtheperspectiveoftheglobalandthelocal influences.Thepreviouschapterofferedacomprehensivepicture ontheEFLteachinginRomaniapriorandafterthereform movement.Thischaptermovesawayfromdescriptionandfocuses moreoninterpretationwiththepurposeofsituatingtheEFL curriculumreformunderoneofthefourcategoriesofthe representationmodel. InfluencesontheRomanianEFLCurriculumReform AccordingtoGinsburgetal.(1990),somecomparative educationspecialistsconsidereducationalsystemscompletely autonomoussystemsorrelativelyautonomoussystems,documenting acertaindegreeofeducation’sautonomy.However,political, economic,andculturalforcesshouldbeincorporatedinmodels utilizedtoexplaineducationalreformmovementstobetter representthem.Theseinfluentialforcescouldhaveexternaland internalsources,boththeglobalandthelocalundisputedly shapingthedirectionsandtheresultsofreformsineducation. GlobalInfluences Atleastthreeglobalsourcesplayanimportantroleinthe reformofEnglishasaForeignLanguagelearningandteachingin Romania.ThefirstsourceistheWorldBank,whichexercises

76 financialandideologicalpressureontheRomanianeducation reform.ThesecondsourceistheEuropeanUnion,which influencesthedesignofthenewRomanianEFLcurriculumthrough theCommonEuropeanFrameworkforLanguages.Thethirdsourceof influenceistheBritishCouncil,whichfundsEFLteacher trainingprogramsandEFLconferences. TheWorldBank.AspreviouslystatedinChapter4,the EnglishasaForeignLanguagecurriculumreformisadirect resultoftheEducationReformproject,coordinatedbythe RomanianMinistryofEducationandResearch.TheEducation ReformProjectintendedtoaccomplishtwoobjectives:toupdate andimprovethequalityofbasicandsecondaryeducationandto increaseefficiencyinthemanagementofpublicresourcesfor education.Inordertoincreasethequalityofprimaryand secondaryeducation,thereformprojectfocusedonimproving curriculumandteachertraining,assessmentandexaminations, andtextbookquality.Second,itplannedtodevelopand introducemeasuresthatwouldincreaseefficiencyinmanagement ofpublicresourcesforeducation.Theprojectheavilyreliedon externalfinancialsources:itstotalcostwasUS$73.5million ofwhichUS$50millioncamefromaWorldBankloan(Education ReformProject). ItisthenapparentfromChapter4'sdescriptionofrecent educationreformprojectsthattheWorldBankhasbeenan importantplayerintheRomanianeducationreform.WorldBank loanswerethemainsourceoffundingforcarryingoutthe projectofchangingtheRomanianeducationsystem.Therefore,it isnotsurprisingtonoticethatthedirectionsandtheproposed outcomesofRomanianeducationreformaresimilarandalmost congruentwiththepolicydirectionsineducationoftheWorld Bank.Severalcommonpointscometolightwhencomparingthe frameworkofRomanianeducationreform(Marga,1998a)withthe educationstrategysectorpolicyoftheBank(WorldBank,1998). Bothdocumentsstresstheimportanceofbasiceducationandput astrongemphasisonearlyinterventionssuchasearlychild developmentandschoolhealthprograms.Theybothinsiston adoptinginnovativedeliverymethodsineducationthrough distanceeducation,openlearningandtheuseofnew technologies.Also,bothWorldBankandtheRomanianMinistryof Educationrecognizetheimportanceofasystemicreformthat wouldpromotestandards,reformthecurriculum,emphasize assessment,encouragegovernanceanddecentralization,and supportinvestmentineducation. AccordingtotheWorldBank(1998),educationisperceived asaveryimportantfactorinimprovingpeoples’livesand reducingpovertybyhelpingpeopletobecomemoreproductiveand earnmore(educationasaninvestment,strengtheningpeoples’

77 skillsandabilities),byimprovinghealthandnutrition,by enrichinglivesdirectly,e.g.thepleasureofintelligent thoughtandthesenseofempowermentithelpedgive,andby promotingsocialdevelopmentthroughstrengtheningsocial cohesionandgivingmorepeoplebetteropportunities.Education thuscontributes,withinthecontextofasoundmacro-economical developmentandpoliticalenvironment,totheentiresociety’s growthanddevelopment,whichinturnraisesincomesforall (WorldBank,1998).Thisideaofconsideringeducationextremely importantandindirectrelationshipwiththeeconomicsituation ofacountryisalsopresentintheRomanianeducationalreform movementandconstitutesproofoftheWorldBank'sstrong influenceonRomanianeducation.Itisexplicitlystatedbythe RomanianMinisterofEducationthatRomaniaisadmittedlyoneof thepoorestcountriesinEuropeandthattheeducationalsystem hasbeenpartlyresponsibleforthestatusquoofRomanian society.Inhisopinion,educationalonecandramaticallychange theeconomicstatusandthewelfareofapeople(Marga,1998a) TheWorldBank'sinfluenceontheRomanianeducationreform ingeneralandontheEFLcurriculumreforminparticularis obvious.TheRomanianeducationreforminitiativehasbeen framedandfundedbytheWorldBank,andtheEFLcurriculum reformisadirectresultoftheEducationReformproject conductedundertheauspicesoftheWorldBank. TheEuropeanUnion.IftheWorldBankcontributedtothe shapingofthegeneraldirectionoftheeducationreformin Romania,theEuropeanUnionhasdecidedlyinfluencedthe structureofthenewEnglishasaForeignLanguagecurriculum. Chapter4presentedindetailthenewEFLcurriculumforgrade3 andforgrade10.Thetwoexamplesofcurriculumreflectthe stronginfluencethattheCommonEuropeanFrameworkhashadon RomanianEFLcurriculumdesign. Forthe3rdgradeEFLcurriculum,thereareseveralaspects thatpointoutthetremendousinfluenceoftheCommonEuropean Frameworkonitsdesign.Thefirstexamplecanbefoundinthe introductorynotesfortheEFLcurriculumcycleofgrades3 through9.Chapter4reviewedtheseintroductorynotes.Inthem itisacknowledgedthatthecommunicative-functionalmodelof teachingandlearningmodernlanguagesandthenecessityto relatethesyllabustothecommunicativeneedsofstudentsare theelementsthatshapedthenewEFLcurriculum.Itisthen interestingtonotethattheseelementsarealsokeyprinciples fortheCommonEuropeanFramework.AccordingtotheCommon EuropeanFramework,languageteachingshouldbecommunicative, shouldcenteronthelearner,nottheteacher,andshouldbe relevanttothelearner'slife(TheCommonEuropeanFrameworkof ReferenceforLanguages,2001).

78 Otherexamplesofcommonelementsbecomemoreobviouswhen thefocusmovesfromdescribing,whichwasdoneinChapter4,to comparinghowthispivotalconceptofcommunicationis operationalizedinthetwodocuments.TheCommonEuropean Frameworkdefinescommunicativelanguagecompetenceashaving threecomponents:linguisticcompetences,sociolingusitic competences,andpragmaticcompetences.Underthecategoryof linguisticcompetences,theCommonFrameworklistedlexical, grammatical,semantic,phonological,orthographic,andorthoepic (pronunciation)competences.Therefore,itisnotsurprisingto notethatthegrammaticalandlexicalcompetencesarepresented ascrucialelementsforbuildingcommunicativecompetencefor theRomanianEFLcurriculumforgrade3,giventherecognized influenceoftheFrameworkontheRomanianEFLcurriculum. Thecurriculumforgrade10,alsopresentedanddiscussed inChapter5,indicatesthedeepinfluenceoftheEUthroughthe CommonEuropeanFrameworkforLanguages.First,asstatedin Chapter4,theforewordtothecurriculumforgrade10 explicitlyaffirmsthattheCommonEuropeanframeworkisthe fundamentalelementthatinspiredtheEFLcurriculumdesignfor grades10,11,and12.Asaresult,theEFLcurriculumforgrade 10emphasizedthenotionofcompetencesthatispivotalforthe structureoftheCommonEuropeanFramework.TheFrameworkstates thatanyformoflanguageuseandlearningencompassesthe actionsperformedbypersonswhodeveloparangeofgeneraland communicativelanguagecompetences.Invariouscontextsunder variousconditionsandundervariousconstraints,theywould drawontheavailablecompetencestoengageinlanguage activitiesinvolvinglanguageprocessestoproduceorreceive textsinrelationtothemesinspecificdomains.The comprehensivedescriptionofthestructureRomanianEFL curriculumforgrade10providedinChapter4confirmsthatthe EFLcurriculumreflectsandbuildsuponthenotionofcompetence asconceptualizedbytheCommonEuropeanFrameworkandadapted tothespecificconditionsoftheRomanianEFLenvironment. Therefore,theinfluenceoftheFrameworkonRomanianEFL curriculumcanbefeltnotonlyattheconceptualizationstage, butalsoattheoperationalone,too. TheBritishCouncil.TheWorldBankhasdirectedthe Romanianeducationreformtowardsthereformofthecurriculum, whichincludedthecreationofanewEFLcurriculum.Thenew RomanianEFLcurriculumhasbeenbuildaroundtheCommon EuropeanFrameworkforLanguagesoftheEuropeanUnion.These twoexternalpressureshavebeenpresentatthelevelof initiationandcreationofthenewEFLcurriculum.Asnotedin Chapter4,theinfluenceoftheBritishCouncilontheRomanian EFLcurriculumhasbeenfeltmoreatthelevelofcurriculum

79 implementationandhashadfourmajordirections.Thefirstone isteachertraining.Between1991and1994theBritishCouncil organizedten-weeksessionsforEFLcountysupervisorsand coursesforteachertrainersbetween1992and1995.Thesecond istrainingforEFLtextbookauthors.ThethirdisEFL conferencesforprimary,secondary,andtertiaryeducation.The fourthisconnectingtheevaluationcomponentoftheRomanian EFLcurriculumtoEuropeanevaluationstandardsbyattemptingto linktheEnglishexaminationcomponentoftheRomanian baccalaureatewiththeCommonEuropeanFrameworkforLanguages. LocalInfluences Asrevealedbythemodelofinterpretationpresentedin Chapter2andbrieflyrevisitedatthebeginningofthis chapter,thelocalbackgroundplaysanimportantrolein determiningthedirectionandtheoutcomeofeducationreforms. InthecaseofRomania,thisstudyselectedfourlocalsources ofinfluencethatplayedanimportantroleindecidingthe courseofeducationreformingeneral,andoftheEnglishasa ForeignLanguagecurriculumreforminparticular.Thesefour elementsassociatedwithandderivedfromthelocalcontextare historical,cultural,educational,andpolitical. Historyandculture.ThestudyofthehistoryofRomania showsthatthegeographicalpositionofthecountryinfluenced itshistoryandculture.AsmentionedinChapter2,inthepast, Romaniahadbeenunderthepoliticalandculturalinfluenceof powerfulWesternandCentralEuropeannationssuchasPoland, Austria,France,andHungary.Nevertheless,Romaniahadhad othersourcesofinfluencethatleftamarkonitshistoryand culture.TheTurkishEmpirehadhadRomaniaunderitsdominance forthreecenturies.RussiaandGreece,countriesofEastern Orthodoxfaithhadalsoexercisedagreatdealofinfluenceover Romaniainthedistantandrecentpast.Romaniahadhadto resolveadilemmathatdefinedtheverycoreofitscultural identity:isRomaniaatthegatesofEurope,isitatthegates ofAsia,orboth?TheWestversusEastdilemmaseemstohave producedacountrythathasstruggledtoaffirmitsEuropean identityandtoconvinceEuropethatRomaniansareEuropean, too.ThisstrongaffinitytoEuropeanditsvaluesisnota recentphenomenon,butrathercomesfromalongtraditionof tryingtomoveRomaniaculturallyclosertoEurope.Suchefforts havebeenverywelldocumentedinthehistoryofRomanian education.Forexample,inthe15thand16thcentury,the nobilityoftheRomaniankingdomsofMoldovaandMunteniasent theirsonstostudyinPolandandAustria.DespotVoda,who ruledMoldovabetween1561-1563,foundedacollegewithGerman professorswhereLatinwasthelanguageofinstruction,the firsteffortforaninstitutionbasedonWesternEuropean

80 educationalstructures.AcollegewhereLatinwasthelanguage ofinstructionopenedinMoldovain1639.Acollegewith teachinginGreekandLatinwasestablishedinMunteniain1649 (Georgescu,1991).Theanalysisoftheeducationalcontextof the19thcenturyrevealsthattherewasnohomogenous developmentofRomanianeducationandidentifiestwomajor influencesonthestructureandcontentofeducation.In Romanian-speakingprovincesofTransylvania,BanatandBukovina, therewasastrongGerman,AustrianandHungarianinfluencedue tothedirectpoliticaldependenceofthesehistoricalprovinces oftheAustrianEmpireandlaterontheAustro-HungarianEmpire. Ontheotherhand,therewasastrongFrenchinfluenceinthe RomanianprincipalitiesofMoldovaandMunteniathatwasthe outcomeofstudyvisitstoFrance(Georgescu,1997).Theseare onlyseveralexamplesfromaverylonglistofconstantattempts tosynchronizetheRomanianeducationandculturetoEuropean educationandcultureinordertoaffirmtheidentityof RomaniansasEuropeans.Thesesynchronizationefforts,whichare tobefoundnotonlyineducation,butalsoinpolitics,, andliterature,seemtoindicatethatRomanianshaveconsidered themselvesfirstandforemostEuropeaninspiteofa geographicalpositionthatmighthavesuggestedotherwise. Anotherhistoricalfactorthatmustbeaccountedinthe East/WestdilemmaisthefactthatRomaniansalwaysregardthe Eastwithsuspicion.TheEastisfromwherethedevastating hordesofTartarsandtheOttomanEmpirecameinthe15th,16th, and17thcentury,fromwheretheRussianEmpiretriedtostretch itsdominanceovertheRomanianprovincesinthe18thand19th century,andfromwheretheSovietUnioncametodominatethe destinyofRomaniaforagoodpartofthe20thcentury.Onthe otherhand,theWestandWesternEuropehavebeenconsidereda modeltobecopiedandfollowed,asourceofknowledgeand civilization.Asaresult,mostlyeverythingthatcomesfromthe Westisacceptedandembraced,andmostlyeverythingthatcomes fromtheEastiscriticizedandrejected. ThisstrugglebetweenEastandWestisreflectedinthe culturalcharacteristicsoftheRomanianpeopleaswell.Zait (2002)triestoanalyzetheRomanianculturethroughthe perspectiveofindividualistandcollectivistcultural dimensionsfirstdefinedbyHofstede(1986).Individualist culturesassumethatanypersonlooksprimarilyaftertheirown interestandtheinterestoftheirimmediatefamily.Collective culturesassumethatanypersonthroughbirthandpossiblelater eventsbelongstoaparticulargroupfromwhichtheycannot detachthemselves.Thisparticulargroupprotectstheinterests ofitsmembers,butinturnexpectstheirpermanentloyalty. Zait(2002)concludesthat,initially,theRomanianculturecan

81 beplacedunderthecategoryrepresentedbycollectivist cultures.However,heremarksthatRomaniancultureisnot purelycollectivistandthatthereareindicationsthatthere arestrongindividualistictraitspresent.Thiscanalsobea resultoftheEast/WestdilemmaofRomania.Inthecaseof Romanianculture,theEastcontributestothecollectivist dimensionandtheWesttotheindividualistone. Pre-existingconditionsineducation.Afterthereviewof globalfactorsofinfluence,itisobvioustheoverwhelming influenceofexternalsourcesnotonlyontheRomanian educationalreformmovementingeneral,butalsoonthenew RomanianEFLcurriculum.Asalreadymentioned,thenewEFL curriculumovertlystatedthattheCommonEuropeanFrameworkfor Languageswasitsguidingsourceofreference.Themanypoints thatthetwodocuments,theCommonEuropeanFrameworkandthe newRomanianEFLcurriculumhaveincommonhavebeendiscussed previouslywhentheinfluenceoftheEuropeanUnionasaglobal sourceofinfluencewasexamined.However,thenewEFL curriculumhasnotverbatimincludedtheprinciplesofthe Framework,butratherfilteredthemthroughthepre-existing localEFLconditions.Forexample,accordingtotheCommon EuropeanFramework,communicativelanguagecompetencehasthree components:linguistic,socio-linguistic,andpragmatic competences.Thelinguisticcompetencesarecomprisedof lexical,grammatical,semantic,phonological,orthographic,and orthoepic(pronunciation)competences.Interestinglyenough,not allcompetenceshavebeengivenequalvalueinthenewRomanian EFLcurriculum.AsseenintheEFLcurriculumforgrade3 presentedinChapter4,thegrammaticalandlexicalcompetences havebeenselectedandpresentedascrucialelementsfor buildingcommunicativecompetence.Theothercompetencesare alsoaddressed,butnotasdirectlyasthegrammaticaland lexicalone.ThisisnotsurprisingiftheRomanianEFLcontext isfactoredin.ThestudyofpastEFLteachingandlearningin Romaniahasrevealedthatforthebeginningstudents,thestudy oflanguagefocusedontheoralaspect.Studentswereencouraged tolistenandtospeakinthenewlanguage.Then,astheclass progressed,readingandwritingweretheskillsemphasizedin foreignlanguageeducation.Themixedmethodrecommendedwas directatfirstandbecamemoreandmoregrammaticalafterwards (ModernLanguagesatGeneralSchools,1964).Stronggrammarand readingskillswerethemarkofEFLeducationbeforereform. Therefore,theCommonEuropeanFrameworkhasbeeninasense moreadaptedthanadoptedtothelocalneedofEFLteachingand learninginexistencebeforetheimplementationofthenew curriculum,leadingtoareaffirmationoftheimportanceof grammarandreading.Thetraditionofadaptation,noticedin

82 Chapter4asacharacteristicofpre-reformEFLteachingand learninginRomaniacontinuesthroughthisnewEFLcurriculum basedontheinterpretationoftheCommonEuropeanFramework throughthelocalEFLconditions. Politicalsituation.Until1989,Romaniawasatotalitarian countryunderthepoliticalandeconomicinfluenceoftheSoviet Union.TherevolutionthathappenedinDecember1989brought forthadramatictransformation.Nolongeracountryunderthe SovietUnion'sthumb,Romaniabecameaparliamentarydemocracy, strivingtobecomeamemberofNATOandtheEuropeanUnion.One ofthesegoals,theNATOmembership,hasalreadybeenachieved inNovember2002,whentheNATOalliancedecidedtoinvite Romaniatojoin.ThemembershipintheEuropeanUnionisgoing totakelongertoobtain.TheEuropeanUnionproposed2007asa verystronglypossibleyearforRomania'sacceptanceinEU. Thesetwogoalshavehadagreatdealofinfluenceonthelocal decisionmaking,regardlessofthepoliticalpartiesthathave beeninpowerinRomania.Allmajorpoliticalandeconomic decisionshavebeenmadetakingintoaccountthefactthatthe goalisintegrationintoEuro-Atlanticstructures,inawaya 'returntoEurope'afteralongandforcedabsence.Negotiations betweenRomaniaandEUofficialsstartedimmediatelyafter December1989andinspiteoftheslownessoftheprocess,there hasbeensignificantprogress.Tounderlinetheimportanceof theprocessofEuropeanintegration,theRomaniangovernment createdacabinetpostandaministryforEuropeanintegration. ThejoboftheministerforEuropeanintegrationistomakesure thatRomaniacomplieswithallthenecessarypolitical, economic,legislative,educational,etc.changesthatneedtobe undertakeninordertobecomeafullmemberoftheEuropean Union.Therefore,itisnotsurprisingthattheRomanian governmentacceptedtheWorldBankloanandtheWorldBank educationreformframeworkwhenreformingitsowneducational systemandthattheframeworkforthenewEFLcurriculumisthe CommonEuropeanFrameworkforLanguagesgeneratedbyEU. InterpretationandRepresentationoftheEFLCurriculumReform AfterthedescriptionofthenewRomanianEFLcurriculumin Chapter4andaftertheexaminationoftheglobalandlocal sourcesthatinfluencedthecreationofthenewcurriculum,one possibleinterpretationemerges.TheEFLcurriculumreform,at thedocumentlevelofanalysis,canberepresentedasresulting fromaconvergenceoftheglobalforceswiththelocalcontext. Thefactthattherehasbeenstrongsupportforreformderived fromastrongdesiretointegrateRomaniaintotheEuropean unionleadstotheconclusionthattheglobalismorepowerful thanthelocalinsettingthedirectionofeducationreformin

83 Romania,asreflectedintheofficialdocumentsonRomanian educationreform. TheEFLcurriculumreformthenfallsunderthesecond categoryoftherepresentationmodel.Itisatop-down,global- andlocaleducationinitiative.Figure2presentedinChapter2 representedtheinterpretationmodelwithRomaniaEFLcurriculum reformnotlistedunderanycategory.Figure3placesthenew EnglishasaForeignLanguagecurriculumundertheappropriate category. GlobalContext LocalContext Globalization History,politics, culture,etc. Education ------Top-Down------ ------Bottom-Up------ Globalvs GlobalandLocalandLocalVs LocalLocalGlobalGlobal Textbook Australian Harambee Islamic projectin education schoolsin Schoolsin Liberia policy Kenya Pakistan STCin NewEFL KSSPin Liberia curriculum Kerala, inRomania India Figure5.1RepresentationofRomanianEFLcurriculuminthe modelofglobal-localinteractionineducation DirectionsforFurtherResearch Thepresentstudyhasfocusedontheinteractionofthe globalforceswiththelocalcontextasreflectedineducation reformsandinitiatives.Consequently,thedirectionsfor furtherresearchpointtowardthetwoelementsofthe relationship,theglobalandthelocal.

84 Global InChapter2variouseducationreformsandprojectshave beenanalyzedfromtheperspectiveofthesymbioticrelationship betweenglobalforcesandlocalenvironments.Theanalysis generatedamodelofrepresentationwithfourcategoriesunder whicheducationreformscouldbeplaced.Furtherresearchin educationcanutilizethismodelofrepresentationwhen examiningvariouspastandcurrenteducationinitiatives.Such researchcanberegionalandcouldbeexemplifiedbyafuture cross-countrystudyofEnglishasaForeignLanguageteaching andlearninginEasternEurope.SuchstudycanfocusonEnglish asaForeignLanguagereformsimplementedinEasternEuropeand onsimilaritiesanddifferencesamongtheseprojects.The representationmodelillustratedinChapter2wouldthenbeused whendiscussingEFLreforminEasternEurope. Futureresearchcanprogressfromregionaltoglobaland analyzeEnglishasForeignLanguageinitiativesthathavebeen implementedorareintheprocessofimplementationalloverthe world.Upontheanalysis,theresearchwouldattempttoplace themunderoneofthecategoriesoftherepresentationmodel proposedinChapter2.Itisimportanttomentionthatthis modelisnotrigid.Othercategoriescanandshouldbeaddedfor betterrepresentingeducationreformingeneralandEFLreform inparticular.Forexample,thereisastrongpossibilitythat futureresearchcanrevealanidealsituationwherethelocal andtheglobalareequallyinfluentialindevelopingeducational projects.Therelationshipbetweentheglobalandthelocalis verycomplexandinconstantchange.Therefore,the representationmodelpresentedinthisstudyisnotandcannot befinalandcomplete.Itisratherpartofaboundlessprocess inwhichtherelationshipbetweentheglobalandthelocalis examinedandnewelementsandinterpretationsareconstantly added. Local Themainfocusofthisstudyhasbeentheexaminationof theEnglishasaForeignLanguagecurriculumreforminthe largercontextofRomanianeducationreform.Theinvestigation ofthenewRomanianEFLcurriculumconcentratedonthe pertainingdocumentsgeneratedbytheRomanianMinistryof Education.However,furtherresearchatthelocallevelis neededforamorecomprehensivepictureofEFLteachingand learninginRomania.TheEFLcurriculumreformcanbedescribed asanimportantlinkinRomanianEFL.Otherlinksrelatetoit anditisnecessary,therefore,toinvestigatethemaswell.One exampleofsuchalinkisthenewEFLtextbooksbasedonthenew EFLcurriculumandusedinRomanianclassrooms.Itisworth

85 investigatingtheprocessthroughwhichnewEFLtextbooksare selectedandutilizedinthe.Asdiscussedinthe previouschapter,thepublishinghousescompetefortheediting ofmaximumthreetextbooksperschoolsubject.Then,the evaluationpanelsoftheNationalCouncilforTextbookApproval selectthem.Theselectedtextbooksarethenpresentedto teachersduringexhibitsorganizedbythelocalbranchesofthe MinistryofEducation.Theteachersselectoneofthethree approvedtextbooks.Aftertheteachersdecidewhattextbookto use,thetextbooksareorderedthroughtheMinistryof Education.Attheevaluationpanelselectionlevel,2002wasa yearfullofcontroversy.ThedailyRomaniannewspaperZiua reportedon9May2002thefinalresultsofatextbookselection byacommitteefortextbookevaluationestablishedbythe currentMinisterofEducationEcaterinaAndronescu. Thetencommitteemembersgavetextbookprojectssubmitted forselectiongradesontwocriteria,contentandprice.Forthe finalevaluation,thecontentrepresented60%andtheprice40%. Themaximumscoreforbothcategorieswas10andtheminimum scorewas1.Herearesomeofthegradesoncontentreceivedby severalpublishinghousesontheirproposedEFLtextbook projectsforgrade3.Oxfordreceivedgradesfrom1to4, Longman1to5,Cambridge1and2,MacMillanRomania1to3.Out of30publishinghousesthatsubmittedtextbookprojects,the winnerswereonlythosethatwereownedbyafinancial contributortothepartythatiscurrentlyinpower.Afterthis evaluation,intenselycriticizedbytheRomanianmedia, prestigiouspublishinghouseshavebeentemporarilyeliminated fromtheRomaniantextbookmarket.TheprimeministerofRomania supportedthedecisionsoftheMinistryofEducationandadded thatsuchactionsweremeanttomakethetextbooksaffordable forparentsandstudentssothatallstudentscouldhaveequal accesstoeducation(Ziua,18May2002).TheRomanianpresident commentedthatthedecisionwasinfluencedmostlybypriceand thattherejectedpublishinghouseshadexcellentcontent(Ziua, 27May2002).TheformerMinisterofEducation,AndreiMarga pointedoutthatthecompetitionforselectingtextbookswas openandfreeduringhistenure.Hecriticizedasharmfulfor thequalityofeducationinRomaniaandagainsttheRomanian educationreformobjectivesthedecisiontobringcostand politicsintheprocessoftextbookselection(Evenimentul Zilei,24May2002).Atfirstglance,thelocalcontextseemsto haveastrongersayintheprocessoftextbookselection.Itis interestingtofurtherinvestigatethisaspecttoseewhatthe responseoftheglobalcontextisontheprocessoftextbook selectioninRomania.

86 Anotherexampleworthinvestigatingistherelationship betweenthenewcurriculumandtheEFLformativeandsummative testing.OctavianPatrascu,amodernlanguageteachingexpert withtheRomania'sNationalCurriculumCenterandamemberof theRomania'sNationalCommitteeforEFLexaminestheguidelines formodernlanguagetestingforthe2003RomanianBaccalaureate exam(O.Patrascu,personalcommunication,October5,2002). Basedonhiscomparisonbetweentheseguidelinesandthe RomanianCurriculumforforeignlanguages,hefindsoutthat guidelinesforEnglish,French,Italian,andSpanishcontradict andworkagainsttheRomanianNationalCurriculum.These Baccalaureateguidelinesarenotincorrelationwiththe NationalCurriculumandviolatefundamentaleducational principlesoftheeducationalpolicyoftheRomanianMinistryof Education.Theirimplementationwillcreateconfusioninthe Romanianeducationalsystemduetothediscrepanciesbetween theseguidelinesandthecurriculum,forcingteacherstoteach fortheandignoretheNationalCurriculum.The communicative-functionalmodelofteachingwillbeignored becauseofthewaytheguidelinesarestructured.Thestructure fortheEFLguidelinesforthebaccalaureateexamisthe following:vocabularyandsemantics,grammar,textsandthemes, andattitudesandvalues.Thisstructurecontradictsthe structureoftheEFLcurriculumandisveryclosetothe traditionalgrammar-focusedmethodofteachingandlearning English.Thiscriticalpointofthediscrepancybetweenwhatis supposedtobetaughtintheEFLclassroomandwhatissupposed tobetestedneedsfurtherinvestigationandleadstoanother themeofinquirythatfocusesmoreontheRomanianEFLteachers. Additionalresearchisrequiredtoexplorewhattheirrolewas inthecreationandimplementationofthenewEFLcurriculum, whattheprocessiswhentheyselecttheirtextbooks,whattheir inputisregardingEFLtesting.Thelistcanandshould continue.TheRomanianEFLteachers'beliefsandattitudesmust beexaminedaswellbecauseEFLteachersaresocrucialforthe successorfailureofeducationalprojects.Thefigurebelow illustratestheselinksandthepositionofthenewRomanianEFL curriculumonthecontinuumrepresentedbytheRomanianEFL teachingandlearning.Asresearchprogresses,newelementsare addedtoit.

87 NewEFL Testing Education TheNew NewEFL Reform EFL Textbooks Project Curriculum EFL Teachers' Beliefs Figure5.2.FurtherdirectionsforEFLresearchinRomania Summary Tosummarize,therearetwomajorareasinwhichfurther researchisneeded.Thefirstareaisglobal.Assuggested, futurestudiesareneededtoanalyzethesituationofEnglishas aForeignLanguageteachingandlearninginEasternEurope.The perspectiveoftherepresentationmodelpresentedinthisstudy isrecommendedtoprovidecoherencetothisbodyofresearch. Futureresearchcanestablishhowlocalfactors,suchas history,politics,educationalsystems,andglobalfactors,such astheWorldBank,theEuropeanUnion,theBritishCouncil,etc. exercisedtheirinfluenceontheEFLcurriculumreformin EasternEurope.Thefocusoninquirycanthenmovetoanalyzing EnglishasaForeignLanguagecurriculumprojectsacrossthe globe.Localandglobalfactorswouldbeanalyzedtoestablish howandtowhatdegreetheyinfluencedtheprocessandthe resultofreformingEFLcurriculaworldwide.Again,thisstudy's modelofrepresentation,basedontheglobal-localinteraction, isoffered. Furtherresearchisneedednotonlyatthegloballevelof EnglishasForeignLanguageteachingandlearning,butalsoat thelocallevel.Futurestudiesshouldtakeintoaccountthe relationshipbetweenthenewEFLcurriculumandother constituentelementsoftheEnglishasaForeignLanguage education.Intheareaofsummativetesting,previously mentionedwasthediscrepancybetweentheguidelinesforEFL testingfortheRomanianBaccalaureateexamandtheRomanianEFL curriculum.Furtherresearchmightenquireaboutthecausesfor thesediscrepanciesandinvestigatewhetherotherdiscrepancies canbefoundatthelevelofformativetesting.Other interestingquestionscanbeaskedregardingthenewEFL textbooks.Thisstudybrieflypresentedthenegativeimpactof localpoliticsontheselectionprocessofEFLtextbooks.Future studiescantakethisfurtherandinquirehowtheimpactof

88 localpoliticswillaffectlong-termeducationaldecisions,how thequalityofEFLtextbookswillbeinfluencedbydecision factorsnotdirectlyrelatedtoeducation,andtowhatdegree thenewEFLtextbookswillreflectthenewEFLcurriculum.Other areasthatneedextensiveinvestigationareEFLteachersand students.WhatareEFLteachers'attitudestowardthenew curriculum?Aretheyfamiliarwiththenewcommunicative- functionalmodelthatisthebasisforthenewEFLcurriculum? Isthenewcurriculumreflectedintheirsyllabi?AreEFL studentsawareofthenewcurriculum?Whataretheirattitudes towardsit?Thesearesomeofthequestionsthatneedtobe addressedinthefutureinthestudiesinvestigatingtheEFL situationinRomania. FinalRemarks Thecentralthemeofthestudyhasbeentherelationship betweentheglobalandthelocalineducation.Amodelof representationthatreflectedthesymbioticnatureofthelink betweenexternalandinternalinfluenceshasbeencreated.Then, aneducationalproject,theEnglishasaForeignLanguage curriculumreforminRomaniahasbeenexaminedandinterpreted throughthetheoreticalframeworkoftherepresentationmodel firstshowninChapter2.Asmentionedbefore,thismodelof representationmustnotbeseenasanirrevocableexplanationof theeducationreformsfromtheperspectiveoftheglobalandthe local.Itismoreaperfectiblemodelratherthanbeingperfect andfinal.Themodelprovidesafoundationforfurtherinquiry. Moreresearchisneededintheareaofeducationtakinginto accountthecomplexrelationshipbetweentheglobalinfluences andlocalcontexts.Theeducationspecialistsneedthatfora betterunderstandingofwhereeducationalreformscomefrom,how theyareimplemented,andwhysomesucceedandsomedonot.

89 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alahdad,Z.(2002).EducationReforminRomania:Successes andchallenges[Online].Availableat: http://www.worldbank.org.ro/ECA/Romania.nsf/a36e960c0660388 485256a0700025572/54225ba30b0ac556c2256ba5002ea234?OpenDocu ment AndreiMargadespreMinisterulEducatiei:Incompetenta, clientelism,vederianacronice(2002,May24).Evenimentul Zilei.RetrievedMay25,2002,fromhttp://www.expres.ro. Appadurai,A.(1996).Modernityatlarge:cultural dimensionsofglobalization.Minneapolis:Universityof MinnesotaPress. Apple,M.W.(2000).Betweenneoliberalismand neoconservatism:educationandconservatisminaglobal context.InBurbules,N.C.&Torres,C.A.(eds.)., Globalizationandeducation:criticalperspectives.London: Routledge. Arnove,R.&Torres,C.A.(eds.)(1999).Comparative education:thedialecticoftheglobalandthelocal. Lahman,MD:RowmanandLittlefield. Ball,S.(1998).Bigpolicies/smallworld:anintroduction tointernationalperspectivesineducationalpolicy. ComparativeEducation,34,no.2. Barber,B.R.(1995).JihadvsMcWorld.NewYork:Times Books. Barber,B.(2001).Pakistan'sJihadhatcheries.Worldand I,XVI,12. Basdevant,D.(1965).Againsttideandtempest:thestory ofRumania.NewYork:RobertSpellerandSons. Beh,S.N.(1999).Astudyoffactorsinfluencingthe implementationoftheWorldBankTextbookProjectin Liberia(1982-1985).BostonUniversity. Berman,E.H.(1997).Theroleoffoundations,bilateral, andinternationalorganizationsinthediffusionofthe modernschool.InCummings,W.K.&McGinn,N.F.(eds.), Internationalhandbooksofeducationanddevelopment:

90 preparingschools,students,andnationsforthetwenty- firstcentury.NewYork:Pergamon. Blackmore,J.(2000).Hangingontotheedge:anAustralian casestudyofwomen,universities,andglobalization.In Stromquist,N.P.&Monkman,K.(eds.),Globalizationand education:Integrationandcontestationacrosscultures. Lanham:Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers,Inc. Bobango,G.J.(1979).TheemergenceoftheRomanian nationalstate.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress. Boubekri,M.(1990).Theinternationalfinancialcrisisof the1980sanditsimpactoneducationalreforminMorocco, withahistoryofMoroccaneducationandpolicy recommendations.TheUniversityofMichigan. Braham,R.L.(1972).EducationinRomania:Adecadeof change.ERICDocumentsReproductionService:ED065419. Bulei,I.(1996).Scurtaistoriearomanilor.Bucuresti: EdituraMeronia. Burbules,N.C.&Torres,C.A.(2000).Globalizationand education:anintroduction.InBurbules,N.C.&Torres,C. A.(eds.).,Globalizationandeducation:Critical perspectives.London:Routledge. Capella,J.R.(2000).Globalization,afadingcitizenship. InBurbules,N.C.&Torres,C.A.(eds.).,Globalizationand education:Criticalperspectives.London:Routledge. Candea,V.(1977).AnoutlineofRomanianhistory. Bucharest:Meridiane. Castellan,G.(1989).AhistoryoftheRomanians.NewYork: ColumbiaUniversityPress. Chiosa,C.G.(1970).Ligvisticaaplicatasicontributiaei lamodernizareapredariilimbilorstraine.InLimbile straineinscoala.Bucuresti:SocietateadeStiinte FilologicedinRepublicaSocialistaRomania. Chomsky,N.(1959).ReviewofB.F.Skinner'sverbal behavior.Language,v.35,p.26-58.

91 Constantinescu,R.(1995).Romanianhighereducationduring thetransitionperiod.HigherEducationinEurope,XX,3. Cristea,L.&Gilder,E.(1997).Socialimplicationsofthe opportunitiesforRomanianhighereducationintheNew WorldOrder.HigherEducationinEurope,XXII,2. Croghan,M.J.(1980).IdeologicalTraininginCommunist Education:ACaseStudyofRomania.Washington:University PressofAmerica. CurriculumNationalProgrameScolarepentruClaseleaIII-a –aVII-aLimbiModerne(1999).Bucuresti:Cicero. CurriculumScolarpentruLimbaEnglezaClasaaX-a(1999). Bucuresti:Cicero. Davies,S.&Guppy,N.(1997).Globalizationandeducation reformsinAnglo-Americandemocracies.Comparative EducationReview,41,4. Demetrescu,V.(1970).Lucrareacutemademetodica predariilimbilorstraine.InLimbilestraineinscoala. Bucuresti:SocietateadeStiinteFilologicedinRepublica SocialistaRomania. Durandin,C.(1994).Histoiredelanationroumaine. Bruxelles:EditionsComplexe. Durandin,C.(1995).Histoirederoumains.Paris:Fayard. EducationReformProject.RetrievedMay25,2001fromthe WorldWideWeb: http://www.worldbank.org.ro/eng/projects/hi_edu_res.shtml. Florescu,R.R.(1999).EssaysonRomanianhistory.Iasi: TheCenterforRomanianStudies. Forter,N.L.,RostovskyD.B.(1971).TheRomanian handbook.NewYork:ArnoPress. Friedman,T.(1999).TheLexusandtheolivetree.New York:Farrar,Straus,Giroux. Georgescu,V.(1991).TheRomanians.Columbus:Ohio UniversityPress.

92 Georgescu,A.D.(1997).SecondaryeducationinRomania. GuidetosecondaryeducationinEurope.ERICDocuments ReproductionServices:ED417466. Ginsburg,M.B.,Cooper,S.,Raghu,R.&Zegarra,H.(1990). Nationalandworldsystemsexplanationsofeducational reform.ComparativeEducationalReview,34,474-499. Giurascu,C.G.(Ed.).(1971).Istoriainvatamintuluidin Romania.Bucuresti:Edituradidacticasipedagogica. Giurascu,C.G.(Ed.).(1974).Chronologicalhistoryof Romania.Bucuresti:EdituraEnciclopedicaRomana. Giurascu,C.G.&Giurascu,D.C.(1975).Istoriaromanilor dincelemaivechitimpuripinaastazi.Bucuresti: Albatros. Held,D.(ed.)(1991).Politicaltheorytoday.Stanford: StanfordUniversityPress. Hitchins,K.(1994).Rumania,1866-1947.Oxford:Claredon Press;NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. Hofstede,G.(1986).Culturaldifferencesinteachingand learning.InternationalJournalofInterculturalRelations, 10,301-320. Inkeles,A.,Sirowy,L.(1984).Convergentanddivergent trendsinnationaleducationalsystems.InInkeles A.&Sirowy,L.(Eds.).,Currentissuesandresearchin macrosociology.Leiden:E.J.Brill. InternationalYearbookofEducation(1955).Paris:UNESCO. InternationalYearbookofEducation(1957).Paris:UNESCO. InternationalYearbookofEducation(1958).Paris:UNESCO. InternationalYearbookofEducation(1964).Paris:UNESCO. InternationalYearbookofEducation(1980).Paris:UNESCO. InternationalYearbookofEducation(1988).Paris:UNESCO. Iorga,N.(1925).AhistoryofRoumania.Land,people, civilization.London:T.F.UnwinLtd.

93 Kellner,D.(2000).Globalizationandnewsocialmovements: lessonsforcriticaltheoryandpedagogy.InBurbules,N. C.&Torres,C.A.(eds.).,Globalizationandeducation: Criticalperspectives.London:Routledge. Korka,M.(2000).StrategyandactionintheEducation ReforminRomania.Bucharest. Korto,J.D.Z.(1991).Analysisofapolicyformulation processforexternalaidtoeducation:Thecaseofthe WorldBankandLiberia.TheCatholicUniversityofAmerica. Lingard,B.(2000).Itisanditisn't:vernacular globalization,educationalpolicy,andrestructuring.In Burbules,N.C.&Torres,C.A.(eds.).,Globalizationand education:Criticalperspectives.London:Routledge. Lucescu,P.(1999).Bilantulpresedintelui.Monitorulde Iasi.RetrievedNovember24,1999,from http://www.monitorul.ro/features.html. Luke,A.&Luke,C.(2000).Asituatedperspectiveon culturalglobalization.InBurbules,N.C.&Torres,C.A. (eds.).,Globalizationandeducation:Critical perspectives.London:Routledge. Macareanu,I.(1970).Posibilitatiledeautilizainscoala cuceririlelingvisticiiaplicateinconditiileactualelor programesimanuale.InLimbilestraineinscoala. Bucuresti:SocietateadeStiinteFilologicedinRepublica SocialistaRomania. Malita,T.(1969).Punctedereperininsusirealimbilor straine.Bucuresti:EdituraStiintifica. ManualecudoliupentruAbramburica(2002,May27).Ziua. RetrievedMay30,2002,fromhttp://www.ziua.net. Manualeproaste,ieftine,siinliteraPSD:Abramburicaare minaliberadelaNastase(2002,May18).Ziua.Retrieved May19,2002,fromhttp://www.ziua.net. Marga,A.(1998a).Reformainvatamintuluiacum!Bucuresti: EdituraScoalaRomaneasca.

94 Marga,A.(1998b).ReformaInvatamintuluiSiProvocarile NouluiSecol.Romania:ColegiulNouaEuropa. McArthur,T.(ed.)(1992).TheOxfordCompaniontothe EnglishLanguage.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. McGinn,N.F.(1997).Supranationalorganizationsandtheir impactonnation-statesandthemodernschool.InCummings, W.K.&McGinn,N.F.(eds.),Internationalhandbooksof educationanddevelopment:preparingschools,students,and nationsforthetwenty-firstcentury.NewYork:Pergamon. Merrit,L.R.,&Coombs,F.S.(1977).Politicsand educationalreform.ComparativeEducationalReview,21. MinistryofEducationandResearch,ConsiliulNational PentruCurriculumandCentrulEducatia2000+(2001). Reformasicontinuitateincurriculumulinvatamintului obligatoriu.Bucuresti. Moghadam,V.(1999).Genderandtheglobaleconomy.In Ferree,M.,Lorber,J.andHess,B.(eds.),Revisioning gender.ThousandsOaks,CA:Sage. Morrow,R.A.&Torres,C.A.(2000).Thestate, globalization,andeducationalpolicy.InBurbules,N. C.&Torres,C.A.(eds.).,Globalizationandeducation: Criticalperspectives.London:Routledge. NationalCommissiononExcellenceinEducation(1983).A nationatrisk:theImperativeforeducationalreform:a reporttotheNationandtheSecretaryofEducation,United StatesDepartmentofEducation.Washington,D.C.:The Commission. NorthAmericaFreeTradeAgreement(1994).Washington,DC: U.S.G.P. OrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment (2000).AnalizaPoliticiiNationaleinDomeniulEducatiei: Romania(TheAnalysisofNationalPolicyinEducation: Romania).Romania. Otetea,A.(1970).ThehistoryoftheRomanianpeople. Bucharest:ScientificPublishingHouse.

95 Panaitescu,P.P.(1990).Istoriaromanilor.Bucuresti: EdituraDidacticasiPedagogica. Phinnemore,D.&Light,D.(ed.)(2001).Post-Communist Romania:comingtotermswithtransition.Houndmills, Basingstoke,Hampshire;NewYork,N.Y.Palgrave. Platcu,E.(1973).Informare,control,indrumarein predarealimbilorstraine.Tirgoviste:ColectiaInsemnari Pedagogice. Polverejan,S.(1968).Contributiistatisticeprivind scolileromanestidinTransilvaniainadouajumatatea secoluluialXIX-lea.Cumidava,2. Pop,I.A.(1999).RomaniansandRomania:Abriefhistory. NwYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress. PublicCitizens&FriendsofEarth(2001).NAFTAChapter11 investor-to-statecases:bankruptingdemocracy.Retrived January24,2002,from http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACF186.PDF Rea-Dickins,P.&Germaine,K.(1998).Managingevaluation inlanguageteaching:buildingbridges.NewYork:Longman. Rady,M.(1992).RomaniainTurmoil—AContemporaryHistory. London:I.B.Tauris. ReviewsofNationalPoliciesofEducation(2000).Romania. ReformofHigherEducationandResearchProject.Retrieved May25,2001fromtheWorldWideWeb: http://www.worldbank.org.ro/eng/projects/education.shtml Robertson,R.(1997).Socialtheory,culturalrelativity andtheproblemofglobality.InKing,A.D.(ed.), Culture,globalizationandtheworld-system:contemporary conditionsfortherepresentationofidentity.Minneapolis: UniversityofMinnesotaPress. RomaniaandBulgaria:ThoseSouth-Easternlaggards.(1996 October19).TheEconomist,50–5. Rugh,A.&Bossert,H.(1998).TheHarambeeSecondary SchoolMovementinKenya.InInvolvingCommunities:

96 ParticipationintheDeliveryofEducationPrograms. WashingtonDC:CreativeAssociates/USAID. Samoff,J.(1993).Thereconstructionofschoolingin Africa.ComparativeEducation,37,2. Saussure,F.de(1967).Coursdelinguistiquegenerale. Paris:Payot. Shiels,J.(2001).TheModernLanguagesProjectsofthe CouncilofEuropeandthedevelopmentoflanguagepolicy. ELCInformationBulletin7-April2001.RetrievedMay24, 2002,fromhttp://www.fu- berlin.de/elc/bulletin/7/en/contents.html Simmons,J.(1983).Reformingeducationandsociety:the enduringquest.InJ.Simmons(Ed.),Betterschools: internationallessonsforreform.NewYork:Praeger. Stromquist,N.P.&Monkman,K.(2000).Definingglobalization andassessingitsimplicationsonknowledgeandeducation. InStromquist,N.P.&Monkman,K.(eds.),Globalizationand education:Integrationandcontestationacrosscultures. Lanham:Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers,Inc. TheCommonEuropeanFrameworkofReferenceforLanguages (2001).CouncilofEurope.London:CambridgeUniversity Press. ThreeR'sandrevenge:PakistanifundamentalistIslamic schoolsrallyyoungboysintoananti-Westernfrenzy-for free(2001).TimeInternational,158,16. Torres,C.A.(1998).Education,democracyand multiculturalism:dilemmasofcitizenshipina multiculturalsociety.Landham,MD:RowmanandLittlefield. Trim,J.L.M.(1978).SomePossibleLinesofDevelopment ofanOverallStructureforaEuropeanUnitCreditScheme forForeignLanguageLearningbyAdults.CouncilofEurope. VanEk,J.A.&Alexander,L.G.(1980).ThresholdLevel English:InaEuropeanUnit/CreditSystemforModern LanguageLearningbyAdults.NewYork:PergamonPress. VanEk,J.A.van(1998).Threshold1990.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.

97 Wallerstein,I.(1979).Thecapitalistworld-economy. Paris:CambridgeUniversitypressandEditionsdelaMaison desSciencesdel'Homme. WorldBank(1992).Romania:EducationReformProject.Found inERIC,documentnumberED371988. WorldBank(1999).Educationsectorstrategy.Washington, DC:TheWorldBank. Wolfensohn,J.D.(2001).Respondingtothechallengesof globalization.RetrievedJanuary24,2002,from http://www.worldbank.org. Zachariah,M.(1989).People'smovementsandreformof formaleducation;reflectionsonKeralaSastraSahitya Parishad(KSSP)inIndia.CanadianandInternational Education,18,1. Zait,D.(2002).Dilemaegoismului.Intreindividualismsi colectvism.MonitoruldeIasi.RetrievedOctober10,2002, fromhttp://www.monitorul.com.

98 BIOGRAPHICALSKETCH FlorinM.MihaireceivedhisBachelorofArtsdegree inEnglishandRomaniafromAl.I.CuzaUniversityinIasi, Romaniain1992.Aftergraduation,heworkedforthree yearsasanEnglishinstructorforseveralprivateEnglish schools.In1995,hecametotheUnitedStatestopursuea Master'sdegreeinMultilingual/MulticulturalEducationat FloridaStateUniversityinTallahassee,Florida.Inthe fallof1997,twomajoreventshappenedinhislife:he receivedhisMaster'sdegreefromFSUandonNovember2, 1997hemarriedCristinaMoisii.Aftergettinghisdegree, hedecidedtopursueadoctoratein Multilingual/MulticulturalEducationatFloridaState University.WhileatFSU,heworkedasagraduateteaching assistantfortheDepartmentofCurriculumandInstruction between1998-2001,asaninstructorattheCenterfor IntensiveEnglishStudies(CIES)inTallahassee,Florida starting2000,andasTestingCoordinatoratCIESstarting 2002.InMarch2003healsostartedworkingforthe2003 SummerReadingProfessionalDevelopmentProgramofferedby theFloridaStateUniversityCollegeofEducationandthe FloridaDepartmentofEducationJustRead,Florida!Office.

99