Local Plan for Sustainable Development of Sibiu Municipality

38
MUNICIPALITY
STRONG POINTS
• Human resources in Sibiu capable of applying reform to Sibiu education, and change it for the better.
• Impressive school units, with great traditions and well equipped, with exquisite education results (“Gheorghe
Lazăr” College, “Octavian Goga” High school, “Brukenthal” High school).
• Development of the “Sibiu 2000”European programme.
• School partnerships with European schools in programmes such as “Socrates”, “Comenius” etc.
• Teaching in German, a continuation of 15th century traditions, representing a cultural bridge to the prosperity
of Germany.
• Successful functioning of educational models in a multicultural, multiethnic and multicultural community, with
traditional education stretching back over 400 years.
• Openness of the public administration towards education.
• Documentary and information centres (the House of the Teaching Staff, C. D. I. for German education and the
Sibiu University libraries).
• Training centres that facilitate the workplace integration of young graduates (the Romanian-German
Foundation, the County Centre for Labour Force Reconversion).
• Well trained personnel in I. Ş. J., the team having a great number of national and regional trainers.
• Increase in number of the managers’ initiatives and proposals for projects which would lead to co-operations
and foreign financing.
During the previous school year, there were managerial boards and teaching staff committees which did not apply the
school reform, and this caused problems:
WEAK POINTS
Regarding the school unit management:
• The managerial activity centred on the administrative field, detrimental to the quality of teaching (insufficient
number of assistants in classes, obsolete instruments for evaluating the teaching process, perfunctorily
monitoring of teaching obligations).
• Limits to solving of school problems through the elaboration and application of projects and partnerships.
• Many of the curricular projects from the school development plan were not carried out (for example: projects
for prevention of school failure, for training the teaching staff to use the IT equipment, educational
programmes for adults etc.).
• Management of anthropogenic resources is poor in providing effective structures for continuous training of the
teaching staff that would support, encourage and motivate the professional performance (including by
attributing of annual ratings and merit wages).
• Concern for ensuring extra-budgetary material resources is low in the majority of the school units.
• Disobedience of lawful procedures in applying the sanctions stipulated in the Teaching Staff Statute or
granting of merit wages, the ignorant or partial application of School Units Functioning Regulations.
• The lack in transparency of the managerial act induces mistrust in the teaching staff regarding the resolutions
of school units management.
Regarding the application of curriculum and reaching curricular standards:
• The absence, in many schools, of alternative instruction programmes for improvement/recovery leads to
school results below standards and eventually to school failure.
• The absence of personalised intervention programmes for pupils with special educational needs leads to
inadequacy of the instructional offer for these pupils.
• The absence of didactic support materials leads to the presentation of lessons of a stereotypical character,
and to the passive presence of pupils in classes and lack of efficiency in teaching.
• Many optional classes in C.D.Ş. are projected without consulting economic and socio-cultural partners, the
parents and the pupils, giving the impression that only the staff appointment interests were taken into account.
Regarding the relationships with strategic partners:
• The co-operation with economic units is frequently assumed to be superficial, without adapting the instruction