(VIDEO) Minister Rončević on Interview: The system does not prepare people for the future. And that's terrifying for the country.

Minister for Education, Science and Youth Borut Rončević defended his rapid reforms aimed at restructuring education and upbringing systems during an interview with Alexander Rant. He emphasized that the current system fails to prepare citizens for the future, calling it “grozljivo za državo” (“dangerous for the country”). Rončević argued that knowledge, evaluation, work ethics, and teacher autonomy should once again be placed at the center of the educational framework. He clarified that while the eight-year curriculum is one of ten starting points, it is not the core of the changes. He sharply distinguished between teachers and school administrators, accusing the pedagogical establishment of protecting monopolies and lacking responses to declining PISA results. Rončević announced plans for ten expert discussions by year’s end, legislative changes regarding higher education and science, continued activity on social media platforms, and the relocation of the ministry to Nova Mesto. He stressed that the current system does not adequately equip people for the future, which he described as alarming for the nation. The appointment as minister was unexpected for Rončević himself. Politically inactive until now, he has been active in academia as a university professor and researcher. For seven years, he served as a dean, though he had other plans, including a potential move to Asia. This plan was somewhat overshadowed by his new role. He emphasized that no one fully understands the entire system, hence the need for a “very strong, highly experienced team” consisting of two state secretaries and seven general directors. He expressed pride in assembling such a competent group. Rončević has extensive experience within the higher education and science sectors. He noted that his professional journey in this field spans over four decades, beginning from December 1, 1990, when he had no employment in the system. He acknowledged learning much about challenges and strengths across different levels of education through parliamentary hearings, particularly observing the concerns of opposition members. He stated that criticism of reform foundations is not widespread but primarily comes from major media outlets. Initially, his mandate faced scrutiny based on “exactly three educators”: a syndicalist, a representative of the Slovenian School Office, and a professor from Ljubljana’s Faculty of Education. As reform proposals emerged, the critique expanded, focusing on the defense of ideological and institutional monopolies linked to progressive pedagogy and permissive upbringing, which he claims contribute to poor literacy and functional illiteracy. He described school administrators, parents, and teachers as often enthusiastic about the foundations, though they did not present the reforms themselves but rather the premises upon which they rest. According to him, people tend to express agreement more easily than disagreement. An analysis using artificial intelligence suggested that public discourse in mainstream media is one-sided, while social media platforms show a more varied, even slightly biased, discussion. Rončević denied that his reaction to the situation was impulsive. He explained that shortly after taking office, he learned that PISA results would be very poor. Although he did not have specific figures or comparisons, the information reached him clearly: the results were bad. Therefore, the ideas behind the proposed actions did not emerge overnight or within two months. He pointed out that some of the foundations presented, excluding the eight-year curriculum, were actually rooted in coalition agreements, which resulted from long-term considerations by individuals who deeply understand Slovenia's education system and similar systems abroad. His primary principle is that knowledge must remain central, not cost. Thus, he questions the fear expressed by former system leaders: “How can one be afraid as an educator that evaluation will regain its place? How can one be afraid that we will promote work ethics? How can one be afraid that teachers will become more autonomous in their work?”