Translating-- 1995 Lithuanian educators visit

Mama worked as a professional translator for the U.S. State Department (and other organizations-- ARAS assignment). Here is her summary of the 1995 educators visit:

Lithuanian Educators Group

March 27 -April 9, 1995

Sponsored by USIA

Arranged by Delphi International

Report prepared by Vaiva R. Vebra
April 20, 1995

A. Summary

The goal of this program was to assist a group of Lithuanian educators who are in the process of implementing a teachers’ resource center network in Lithuania. A five-member U.S.I.A.-sponsored group previously came to the United States in 1993 to explore avenues for teachers’ professional development through teacher-to-teacher activities at the local level, supplemented by workshops and seminars given by invited specialists. Subsequently, five to seven regional teachers’ resource centers were established in Lithuania, the newest on March 10, 1995. The idea of regional , decentralized centers is a topic of some urgency in Lithuania, since all teacher training and in-service training has in the past been centralized at the Teachers’ In-Service Institute in the capital (Vilnius) and state controlled. The five educators in the current group represented the State In-Service Institute, which now professes a desire to assist decentralization through the regional centers (Maryte Speiciene), the new regional teachers’ centers (Lora Juniaviciute, Skaidra Kriukiene and Antanas Bagdonas) and a local education department which is anxious to start a teachers’ center but has not yet done so (Arunas Telksnys). The group came to Washington DC and to Connecticut for two weeks as USIA “voluntary visitors” to meet with such persons inside and outside of the government as could offer insights and assistance.

The five educators included in this program, despite major differences in approach, are allied with principles and policies of education reform pursued by the then-Ministry of Culture and Education beginning in the spring of 1990 when Lithuania declared the reestablishment of its independence. The policies then promulgated, including child-centered, rather than institution-centered education, modernization, humanization and democratization of the schools, seem to be back-pedaled now. However, a new project for general curriculum in all schools was published in late 1994 and is exciting much debate in Lithuania. The authors include many of the so-called “young reformers”—although some are actually elderly—who were swept into office with independence and swept out again as the government changed following elections in 1992. The new regional teacher resource centers have in short order become access points for teachers who are serious about this new curricula. The five members of the U.S.I.A. ‘Lithuanian Educators Group,’ as practicians rather than theoreticians, are among those who will make or break the idea of the democratization of schools. Through the establishment of independent teacher education infrastructures in their home locations, ranging from Lithuania’s capital Vilnius to rural-small town districts such as Utena, they have already granted local teachers the ability to pursue school change on the local level. They were individually chosen to participate in this group.

None of the Group members had visited the U.S. before. They were previously acquainted with each other. The previous group of five had never met prior to their trip, but this group conducted several meetings of their own. The Teachers’ Center of Kedainiai, headed by Lora Juniaviciute, was a catalyst for bringing the group together at the beginning of their travels. Upon their arrival it seemed as though several different agendas were on the table. For Mr. Telksnys, the question was including the feasibility of establishing a center in Utena, despite financial shortfalls and the city council’s misgivings. For the three center directors, the need or lack thereof of a “new bureaucracy”—a centers’ directors’ association was a major issue. Finally, Maryte Speiciene of the State In-Service Institute was interested in all possible means of keeping the Institute a positive force in the establishment and maintenance of a center network, rather than a threat to their independence. This was on everyone’s mind. After all, the independent centers employ two or three people each. The Institute employs about 150 and has highly autocratic traditions in dealing with teachers. At the end of the visit some doubts were resolved. The Group viewed the Institute as a potential partner and conduit for the dissemination of information. They began to view themselves as experts with the tools to build new and democratic structures as individuals and as members of an ad hoc committee. Mr. Telksnys was confident that Utena would have its own teachers’ resource center within the year. Therefore, the group considered the visit a complete success.

The visitors agreed to meet individually with educators in their home locations to share contacts with colleagues they had met in the U.S., to act as a committee in officially requesting the services of Maryte Speiciene at the Institute as a center network liaison, to work as a team in organizing a center “convention,” most likely in the most active center to date—Kedainiai—and to publicize throughout Lithuania the idea of teachers taking the initiative for their own professional development. A long term goal is to legitimize the continuing education provided by the centers by granting them the right to bestow academic “credits” for courses and workshops attended.

These ideas emerged, mostly through group discussions after hours, towards the end of the program. There was a continuing discussion among the visitors of conflict of interest, since the regional centers depend upon government sources for financing. The idea of conflict of interest seemed somewhat new to the visitors. They threshed it out and decided to forge ahead with a variety of models for governance of the centers, just as in the United States.

This visit exceeded the visitors’ initial expectations. It provided a wide palette for their own questions to develop, and the program hosts were responsive to these questions. The visitors left the U.S. with a wealth of information, contacts which they are determined to pursue, and plans laid upon the fundamental principles which Lithuania’s education reform shares with U.S. schools.