Education reforms in Russia: patterns, results, lessons. Education reform in Russia: problems and prospects Educational reform

In the autumn session, the State Duma intends to consider and adopt the government bill No. 121965-6 “On education in Russian Federation”, designed to ensure the creation of legal conditions for the renewal and development of the Russian education system in accordance with the modern needs of a person, society and the state, and aimed, according to its developers, at expanding the educational opportunities of citizens. The document went through many years of revision, extensive public discussion, hundreds of edits and three revisions.

Even at the stage of preparing the initial text of the bill, the developers proclaimed at least three goals that should be achieved as a result of the reform of Russian education. The first goal is to increase the availability of education, the second is to suppress various extortions from parents and students in the framework of obtaining public, free education, and, finally, the third is to adjust the educational system to the needs of the economy and increase the prestige of working specialties. How exactly the state plans to achieve these goals is still unclear, but, judging by the text of the final version of the bill, the state will not succeed this time either. But first things first.

Availability of education

In accordance with the norms of the draft law, the Russian Federation guarantees general accessibility and free of charge, in accordance with federal state educational standards, preschool, primary general, basic general and secondary general education, secondary vocational education, as well as free higher education on a competitive basis, if education at this level is obtained for the first time . While offering essentially nothing new in relation to the accessibility of preschool, school and secondary vocational education, the legislative amendments pay great attention to the accessibility of higher education.

The most noticeable aspirations of the state in this part in relation to beneficiaries. Thus, the draft law seriously revises the current system of benefits for various categories of citizens for out-of-competition admission to state and municipal educational institutions of higher professional education. In fact, all currently known benefits are being canceled and replaced by so-called pre-emptive rights.

These rights include the right to admission to higher education, but not full-fledged, but undergraduate programs, the right to admission to the preparatory departments of educational institutions of higher education, as well as the priority right to enroll subject to successful completion of entrance examinations and other things being equal. conditions.

At the same time, it is also planned to change the norm for the minimum number of students enrolled in educational programs of higher education at the expense of the federal budget. According to the amendments, at the expense of federal budget allocations, education in state-accredited educational programs of higher education will be financed for at least eight hundred students per every ten thousand people aged 17 to 30 years.

Now this figure is at least 170 students for every 10,000 people living in the Russian Federation. This standard was set for the total population of Russia and does not depend now, for example, on the age of public sector students. In other words, everyone can study at the budgetary department - if there is a desire. Now it is proposed to exclude persons over 30 from the number of state employees.

According to the authors of the amendments, this will in no way violate anyone's rights, since the main influx of applicants to educational institutions of higher professional education for places financed from the federal budget is made up of people aged 17-30. No matter how hard it is to guess, the authors of the amendments are cunning. So, taking into account the unfavorable demographic situation in the country, there can be no doubt that the main influx of students entering educational institutions will remain the same.

Meanwhile, the number of this age group will decrease year by year, as the people in the country continue to age. According to Rosstat, the population aged 17-30 in 2011 was 31.145 million people, in 2013 it will be 29.281 million people, and in 2016 - already 25.561 million people. Hence, the savings in budgetary funds will be a colossal amount.

By the way, it has already been calculated that the exclusion of citizens over 30 from state-funded places will lead to savings in the federal budget in 2015 in the amount of 32,462 million rubles, and in 2016 - 41,890 million rubles. It is proposed to spend the saved funds, among other things, on state support and the development of a system of private institutions that provide paid educational services to the population.

Free education and suppression of monetary extortions

Currently, the law on education states that state and municipal educational institutions have the right to provide the population, enterprises, institutions and organizations only additional educational services for a fee. Such services, in particular, include training in additional educational programs, teaching special courses and cycles of disciplines, tutoring, classes with students in-depth study of subjects and other services. That is, only those services that are not provided for by the relevant educational programs and federal state educational standards can now be paid.

The document prepared by the government directly establishes that all organizations engaged in educational activities have the right to carry out educational activities at the expense of individuals and legal entities under contracts for the provision of paid educational services.

Paid educational services according to the future law represent the implementation of educational activities for the implementation of educational programs, part of the educational program, on the instructions and at the expense of an individual or legal entity-customer on the basis of an agreement on the provision of paid educational services.

True, the document contains a clause stating that paid educational services cannot be provided instead of educational activities, the financial support of which is carried out at the expense of the budgetary allocations of the federal budget, the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local budgets. Otherwise, the funds earned through such activities are returned to the persons who paid for such educational activities. However, given the inconsistency of requirements for the level of knowledge of school graduates, the lack of organization of control over compliance with curricula, as well as the lack of uniform requirements for the organization educational process, in practice this restriction will not work.

Schools, as before, will impose paid services on children and their parents, only now on completely legal grounds. The need to prepare children for the unified state exams will only exacerbate this practice. By the way, donations, gifts and other charity will not go anywhere, since the future law treats charitable assistance as one of the main sources of income for public and private educational institutions. And this applies to both general education institutions and higher education institutions.

The norms of the draft law devoted to educational lending serve as a kind of legal guarantee for ensuring the rights to receive paid educational services. According to the document, educational loans are provided by banks and other credit organizations to citizens who have entered an educational organization to study in the relevant educational programs, and are targeted.

At the same time, state support for educational lending to citizens enrolled in basic professional educational programs is proclaimed. According to the future law, the approximate conditions, amounts and procedure for providing state support for educational lending will be determined by the Government of the Russian Federation.

Educational loans can be used to pay for tuition at an educational organization in the amount of the cost of education, as well as to pay for accommodation, meals, purchase of educational and scientific literature and other household needs during the period of study. In accordance with this, both the main educational loan and the accompanying loan will be imposed on students.

This is another Western practice fostered by domestic legislators, for the sake of which the previously existing system of institute education was put under the knife, when university graduates were guaranteed (compulsorily) temporary employment at a particular enterprise in order to gain work experience and experience.

Now, graduates will have to report not to the production that paid for the training, but to the credit institution that issued the interest-bearing target loan. And regardless of whether a graduate who graduated from a university can find a job or not. By the way, graduates of reformed educational institutions may also face significant difficulties in finding a job.

Education and production

Officially, one of the reasons that prompted the legislators to reform education is the inadequacy of the structure of modern vocational education to the market demand for specialists. In particular, Dmitry Medvedev repeatedly noted that the market is already oversaturated with lawyers and economists, while there is a catastrophic shortage of representatives of working specialties in Russia. The prepared draft law solves this problem, however, in a very original way. In particular, in the course of the reform, vocational schools will be abolished and the number of higher educational institutions will be significantly reduced.

As an innovative alternative to the existing system of secondary and higher educational institutions, the bill establishes the following levels of vocational education: secondary vocational education; higher education - bachelor's degree; higher education - specialty, magistracy. At the same time, the training of highly qualified personnel, which will include scientists, is preserved. Primary vocational education is excluded from the system.

Instead, it is proposed to provide training for some of the professions that currently require initial vocational education within the framework of the secondary vocational education system. For these purposes, an educational program of secondary vocational education will be introduced - the training of skilled workers. The workers themselves are planned to be trained in colleges and institutes, which will train skilled workers and employees and train mid-level specialists.

As for universities, they are also planned to be reformed in the near future. At the same time, it will be possible to receive a full-fledged higher education as such in institutions that will be given the status of a “federal university” and a “national research university”. The vast majority of current universities will be stripped of their status and either transferred to institutions or completely eliminated. In turn, the institutes will train highly qualified workers without any experience and practical skills obtained at the place of work, and undereducated specialists - bachelors.

Thus, in order to eliminate the disproportion between the structure of vocational education and the modern demands of the domestic economy, it is proposed to do the unthinkable, namely, to destroy the entire system of training skilled workers to the ground. Why this is necessary is still unclear, especially since the system of vocational schools and technical schools created directly in production and on the direct order of enterprises has already managed to prove its viability over many years. The future system, cut off from production and based only on the commercial interest of the participants, if it is capable of anything, is to increase the number of unemployed in the country.

Russia, having become one with the democratic states after the collapse of the USSR and the formation of new states of the USSR (CIS), signed bilateral agreements with other states. The Federal Program for the Development of Education was adopted, approved by the Federal Law of April 10, 2000 No. 51-FZ. The main objective of this program is to improve the state and social protection of the two subjects of the process of education and training.

The Russian Federation has duly signed and ratified the Lisbon Recognition Convention (Diploma Supplement). According to Article 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, “The generally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation are integral part its legal system. If an international treaty of the Russian Federation establishes other rules than those provided for by law, then the rules of the international treaty shall apply.

Currently, the educational policy of Russia is actively developing. Its general principles are defined in the current legislation of the Russian Federation.

The Russian Federation joined the Bologna process on September 19, 2003 in Berlin during the summit of European ministers of education.

A full-fledged entry into the Bologna process required our country (as well as the previously joined countries0) to reform the education system in general and higher professional education in particular. The reform provides, first of all, the development of educational programs compatible with European ones, and for their implementation - the corresponding transformation of structures, regulatory frameworks and, finally, teaching practices.

After the signing of the Bologna Declaration in Russia, "Priority Directions for the Development of the Educational System of the Russian Federation" were developed and approved by the Government in December 2004. This document for the first time declared the implementation in our country in the near future of the principles of the Bologna Process: the need to create a list of educational programs and the National Qualifications Framework corresponding to the international classifiers of educational programs and the European Qualifications Framework; legislative introduction of a two-level education system (bachelor - master), transition to a credit-modular construction of educational programs.

Further, by order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation of February 15, 2005 No. 40, the “Action Plan for the Implementation of the Provisions of the Bologna Declaration in the System of Higher Professional Education of the Russian Federation for 2005-2010” was approved, and in the spring of 2005 the Government of the Russian Federation approved the “Complex of Measures on the implementation of priority directions for the development of the educational system of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2010, which also provides for the transition to educational programs of the "Bologna" type. Finally, Government Decree No. 803 of December 23, 2005 approved the Federal Target Program for the Development of Education for 2006-2010 (FTsPRO), which determines the procedure for conducting and financing measures to reform the domestic educational system.

In the course of implementing the orders of the Government and the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the following has been done so far:

• 1. As a result of the adoption at the end of 2007 of the relevant amendments to the federal laws of the Russian Federation “On Education” and “On Higher and Postgraduate Professional
• 2. education” the transition of Russian universities to the level training of personnel is legislatively fixed.
• 3. The process of developing and approving qualification (professional) standards for areas of activity with the participation of associations of employers has begun.
• 4. Drafts of federal state educational standards for the preparation of bachelors and masters have been developed and are being approved - the main documents that define the requirements for the structure of basic educational programs, the conditions for their implementation and the results of mastering (in the form of a set of required competencies).

The new generation of Russian educational standards was created on the basis of the basic principles of the Bologna process: with a focus on learning outcomes expressed in the format of competencies, and taking into account labor costs in credit units. A prerequisite for the development of standards was the participation in this process of professional associations of employers, and, where possible, the use of new professional standards to formulate the required competencies of graduates.

But the biggest innovation for the domestic educational practice was the “framework” nature of the new generation standards. Throughout almost the entire 20th century, the educational process in the USSR was carried out according to the so-called "standard" curricula and programs of disciplines, uniform throughout the former Soviet Union. Differences in the curricula of universities did not exceed 10-12%. In turn, the predecessors of the Federal State Educational Standards of the new generation, the State Educational Standards (SES) of the first (1997) and second (2000) generations in Section 4, the most important for universities. “Requirements for the mandatory minimum content of the main educational program” contained ( with some exceptions), a strict list of disciplines, practices and reporting forms, which the university had no right to deviate from. Moreover, the standards controlled the volume (expressed in academic hours) and the content of each of the disciplines, enshrined in the list of "didactic units" indicated after its name - the main sections of the training course. And yet, the share of independence of the university in the creation of the curriculum (due to the so-called "regional" and "university" components of the educational program and courses of the student's choice) in the 1990-2000s. gradually grew and amounted to 15-20% in the first generation SES VPO, and about 30% in the second generation. The new generation of standards provides for further expansion of the freedom of universities. The Federal State Educational Standard defines only half (50%) of the bachelor's educational program as the basic (mandatory) for the set of disciplines (modules) (for the master's program, the so-called "variable part" is more than 70%). Moreover, even in the “obligatory” part of the program (with the exception of several positions in the cycle of humanitarian and socio-economic disciplines), not rigidly fixed training courses, but the requirements for the competencies formed by the student as a result of studying the corresponding cycle of disciplines, are in the first place. The content content of the second (variable, or profile) half of the educational program becomes the prerogative of the university, to help which educational and methodological associations or other competent groups of experts should create indicative (recommended) "exemplary basic educational programs" in specific areas of training.

Such a principle of building a standard will allow universities to develop new educational programs taking into account the needs of the local (regional) labor market, scientific and educational traditions, their own methodological developments, innovations, etc. And this, in turn, will lead to a variety of educational programs on the territory of the Russian Federation. It also includes the possibility of creating programs compatible with European ones.

Speaking about the fate of education, both in the world and in our country, one cannot ignore the difficulties and negative aspects of the introduction of international education associated with the Bologna system.

A decade and a half has passed since the European states began to implement the Bologna Declaration. It is a long time for the accumulated experience to allow a sober look at the results of this grandiose experiment. As it turned out, in practice, the implementation of the Bologna concept of education revealed pitfalls in its implementation, and today there are many voices that vehemently reject it. A cursory excursion to the Internet is enough to verify this, for example:

It can be said without exaggeration that the damage from the introduction of the Unified State Examination in secondary school and bachelor's and master's programs in the system of higher education is generally recognized. Blind copying of the Bologna system led to a significant decrease in the quality of training, primarily of the country's engineering personnel. It got to the point that after the bachelor's degree, university graduates need to finish their education at work. We have to adopt the practice of the West, where leading manufacturing companies such as General Electric, Westinghouse, Boeing, Airbus, etc. were forced to follow this path. But there could be no other result.

Georgy Shibanov. Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor, Honored Worker of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation.

Or: “Imitation of the West began in Russia a long time ago, quite a long time ago. Suffice it to recall the dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles. By the end of the Soviet period in the life of the country, an absolute example of the quality of life was established - an ultra-wealthy Western businessman. And, of course, the Western model of education was taken as the basis for educational reforms. On the one hand, what's wrong - to take and adopt all the best. However, imagine that your child constantly adopts the behavioral style, clothing style, leisure interests and other distinguishing features of his friend or friends. In this case, the symptoms are on the face. It is reasonable to ask a child - "Do you have your own opinion, what do you like best and what suits you best?". If you remember the goals of the Bologna process, namely the standardization of education in a small Europe, in which after one or two hours by train you get to another country that used to have its own educational standards that were different from other ones, you begin to understand foreigners with their opinion. And their opinion is this: we did it out of extreme necessity, so that a graduate of the University of Austria could work in Germany, and a graduate of the University of Portugal - in Spain, and why did you change your system of higher education? Ignoring the question - "Why do critics of reforms in higher education so often turn to the Soviet era?" Let's return to this time again. At that time, schools provided primary and compulsory secondary education, colleges taught simple professionals in their field, technical schools produced good technical specialists, universities provided the highest of all possible education, after which one could exchange one's highest qualification. What picture are we seeing now? From a conversation on the street with a friend: - I graduated from the Pedagogical University, higher education of a geographer, I work in the field of information technology. I want to learn how to program well. Where should I go for a second education in computer science - to a bachelor's or a master's degree?

Wait, by some estimates, more than half of the world's software is written in India. This country has a huge number of IT firms that are outsourced by large Western companies. How does it happen for them? It's simple - after school, young people go to college, where they learn to program for two years. After two years of study, they become professional programmers and can earn a lifetime programming. No university is needed here.

Thus, a bachelor's degree is already a mandatory requirement for all cashiers, computer operators, sales managers, and sometimes even for nannies and cleaners, a requirement of a competitive environment. The relationship of knowledge and other competencies with immediate future activities, both in the direction of training and specialization, and in terms of the level of education, is weak. And this is already a symptom, albeit not the most disturbing.

V.I., a domestic recognized authority in this area, also writes about the problems associated with the introduction of international education. Baidenko, see. The author cites the testimonies of foreign researchers of the Bologna process about the difficulties of its implementation, for example:

“The concern is that curricula are becoming inflexible and more compressed, leaving no room for creativity and innovation. In this regard, complaints are not uncommon that the programs of the first cycle (bachelor's degree. - VB) squeeze too many units from the previous, longer degree programs. In addition, the huge time spent on reforming forces many representatives of the teaching staff to limit their research activities, which negatively affects the quality of their teaching, etc.

V.I. Baidenko writes in the same place: “The educational process, guided from within by the power flow of its student-centered orientation, will lead to the building up of “capital of competencies” among graduates of domestic universities. In fact, the design of educational outcomes and their achievement and demonstration by students will be a kind of cathartic experience for the entire academic community. These innovations will inevitably demand more advanced educational technologies, educational environments, types and activities of teachers and learning activities students, procedures and assessment tools aimed at assessing competencies. The upcoming shift in the educational practice of our higher education should be carried out in a fairly long time, as evidenced by the experience of even the most “advanced” universities in Europe, and certainly with the most careful retention of those traditions of domestic didactics of higher education, which in essence are in harmony with the new Bologna concepts of higher education. education. It must be admitted, however, that this shift will take place in the absence both in Russia and abroad of a coherent and technologically correctly formed didactics of a competency-based approach.

In our press and on Internet sites, there are many voices in defense of the “old Soviet education that was, etc.” and sharply negatively speaking about the achieved experience of introducing “foreign innovations” in our country. Apparently, as always in such cases, the truth is in the middle: without completely throwing overboard the many years of pedagogical experience of our past, still move forward, adopting foreign experience, using its positive results.

The Leuven Communiqué adopted at the Conference of Ministers Responsible for Higher Education states that “… not all goals have been fully achieved, their full and proper implementation at the European, national and institutional levels will require serious commitment and increased momentum after 2010.” (item 7). At the same time, the ministers declared “their full commitment to the goals of the European Higher Education Area” (para. 4), and also that “the goals set in the Bologna Declaration and the strategies developed in subsequent years remain valid today” (p. 7).(…) The Bologna Process Monitoring Working Group has been tasked with developing an action plan for the period up to 2012 to promote the priorities identified in the Leuven Communiqué. The priorities include: “the social dimension of higher education: equality in admission to and completion of higher education; lifelong learning as a mission of higher education institutions; „employability of university graduates; „student-centered orientation of the educational process and learning; „unity of education, research and innovation; international cooperation in the field of higher education.”

In pedagogy, there are different approaches to determining the reasons for the development of education and its reform. Usually, reforming refers to those innovations that are organized and carried out by the state authorities. The results of the reform can be changes in the social status of education, in the structure of the education system, in the content of education, in the internal organization of the school. The education reform consists of two parts: internal (pedagogical) and external (public).

Shortly after October 1917, the destruction of the existing education system began. Prominent figures of the RCP(b) were placed at the head of school affairs: N. K. Krupskaya, A. V. Lunacharsky, M. N. Pokrovsky. A. V. Lunacharsky headed the People's Commissariat of Education (Narkompros) until 1929, implementing the Bolshevik school reforms and promoting communist ideas of education. NK Krupskaya wrote numerous articles on labor training, polytechnic education, and the communist education of the younger generation.

The former structures of school management were destroyed, private educational institutions, spiritual educational institutions were closed, the teaching of ancient languages ​​and religion was prohibited. In order to weed out unreliable teachers, the State Commission on Education decided that no later than the end of July 1918, re-election of teachers in all “councils of national education” should be carried out on the basis of their applications, accompanied by proper certificates, as well as “recommendations from political parties” and “outlining their pedagogical and public views." This purge was supposed to determine the composition of the teachers new school.

The ways of forming a new school were determined in the documents adopted in October 1918: - "Regulations on a unified labor school" and "Basic principles of a unified labor school" (Declaration). The Soviet school was created as a unified system of joint and free general education with two levels: the first - 5 years of study, the second - 4 years of study. The right of all citizens to education, regardless of nationality, equality in the education of men and women, the unconditionality of secular education were proclaimed (the school was separated from the church). In addition, educational institutions were entrusted with educational (to instill in students a socialist consciousness) and production functions.

Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of August 2, 1918 "On the rules for admission to higher educational institutions of the RSFSR" proclaimed that every person who has reached the age of 16, regardless of citizenship and nationality, gender and religion, was admitted to universities without exams, it was not required to provide a document on secondary education. The advantage in enrollment was given to the workers and the poorest peasantry.

Bogdanov-Belsky Children at the lesson

The first destructive actions of the Bolshevik government ran into the resistance of teachers and educators, especially the All-Russian Teachers' Union, which included 75 thousand members. Local teachers often refused to obey the Soviet authorities, accusing the communists of terror and encroachment on democracy. In December 1917 - March 1918 there was a mass strike of teachers. The strike was declared illegal, the All-Russian Teachers' Union was banned. A new Union of Internationalist Teachers was created, which was under the complete control of the Bolsheviks. At the same time, the government promised to raise the people's teacher "to a height at which he had never stood before."

The school in the first post-revolutionary years experienced enormous financial difficulties. School buildings were in disrepair, there was not enough paper, textbooks, and ink for students. The established network of educational institutions crumbled. The share of education in the budget, which reached 10% in 1920, fell to 2-3% in 1922. Since 1921, 90% of schools have been transferred from the state budget to the local one. As a temporary measure, in 1922, tuition fees were introduced in cities and urban-type settlements, rural schools were mainly "contractual", that is, they existed at the expense of the local population.

The fight against illiteracy was proclaimed by the Soviet authorities as a priority task, which was included in the complex of measures for cultural construction. On December 26, 1919, the Council of People's Commissars adopted a decree "On the elimination of illiteracy among the population of the RSFSR", according to which the entire population from 8 to 50 years old was obliged to learn to read and write in their native or Russian language. The decree provided for the reduction of the working day by 2 hours for students with the preservation of wages, the mobilization of the literate population in the order of labor service, the organization of registration of the illiterate, the provision of premises for classes of educational program circles.

In 1920, the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for the Elimination of Illiteracy (existed until 1930) under the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR was created with a special section for work among national minorities. In 1923, a mass society “Down with illiteracy” was created under the chairmanship of M.I. Kalinin, a plan was adopted to eliminate illiteracy of people from 18 to 35 years old in the RSFSR by the 10th anniversary of Soviet power. The Komsomol and trade unions joined the fight against illiteracy.

In the second half of the 1920s, school education gradually began to emerge from a deep crisis. As the country's economic situation generally improved, state appropriations for public education grew. In the 1927-1928 academic year, the number of educational institutions increased by 10% compared to 1913, and the number of students by 43%. In the 1922-1923 academic year, there were about 61.6 thousand schools in the country, in the 1928-1929 academic year their number reached 85.3 thousand. Over the same period, the number of seven-year schools increased 5.3 times, and students - twice.

Kazakov Alexander Vasilievich

In the 1920s, experimental institutions continued their search, preserving the spirit of the experimental schools of pre-revolutionary Russia, and initiating various innovations: the First Experimental Station of S. T. Shatsky, the Gaginskaya Station of A. S. Tolstov, the children's colony of A. S. Makarenko and other. During this period, the People's Commissariat of Education allowed various experiments in schools, directing organizational, program and methodological work. During the 1920s, several systems and types of educational institutions were tested experimentally: a nine-year general education school, a nine-year school with vocational specializations, and a nine-year factory school. When organizing them, they tried to take into account the peculiarities of the region, the contingent of students, many new teaching methods were used in the educational process. However, in general, there was no improvement in the effectiveness of training. The volume of knowledge acquired by students of a general education school was insufficient. With the new organization of the levels of the unified school and with the decrease in the level of teaching, the former secondary school approached the elementary school, and the higher school approached the secondary school.

The higher school was also the object of close attention of the new government. The main directions in the formation of the Soviet intelligentsia were to win over the old, pre-revolutionary intelligentsia and create new cadres - from workers and peasants. After the adoption in August 1918 of a decree that opened the way to universities for worker and peasant youth, more than 8,000 applications were submitted to Moscow University from people who did not have a secondary education. Admission to the university in 1918 was more than 5 times higher than admission in 1913. But the majority of those accepted could not study at universities, since they did not have the necessary knowledge for this. Emergency measures were required. Such a measure, "a fire escape to universities for workers," in the figurative expression of A. V. Lunacharsky, was the workers' faculties, created since 1919 throughout the country. At the end of the recovery period, graduates of workers' schools made up half of the students admitted to universities.

The second direction of the work of the party and the Soviet government in higher education was the restructuring of the teaching of social sciences, the struggle for the establishment of Marxist ideology. In 1918, the Socialist Academy was opened (in 1924 it was renamed the Communist Academy), which was entrusted with the task of developing actual problems theory of Marxism, in 1919 - the Communist University named after Ya. M. Sverdlov for the promotion of communist ideas and the training of ideological workers. After graduation civil war an extensive network of scientific and educational institutions was created that became the centers of Marxist social science: the Institute of K. Marx and F. Engels (1921), Eastpart (1920), the Institute of Red Professors (1921), the Communist Universities of the Working People of the East (1921) and the national minorities of the West ( 1921).

The introduction of compulsory study of Marxist social disciplines in universities in 1921, as well as the closure of the law (partially restored a year later) and philosophy faculties, aroused the resistance of the old teaching staff, who for the most part perceived the reform as an encroachment on the freedom of scientific creativity. Among the university intelligentsia, views about the possibility of peaceful coexistence on the ideological front were widespread, which were regarded as counter-revolutionary propaganda from university departments. The old university professors were unable or unwilling to teach historical materialism, political economy, party history, and other subjects.

For students of the Comuniversity, Marxism was not only spiritual food, but also a means of getting rations.

The turning point in the teaching of social sciences came in 1924, when the first graduation from the Institute of Red Professors took place. The study of Marxism was organized for a loyal part of the old professors; those who passed a special examination were allowed to teach social sciences. Professors (and not only social scientists) who promoted anti-Soviet, idealistic views and ideas alien to the proletariat were fired from universities. The abolition of scientific degrees in 1919 (the degree of doctor was restored in 1926) made it easier for young representatives of the "red professorship" to advance to professorships. The direct expulsion of old teachers was supplemented by purges. In 1928, more than 25% of the positions of professors and assistants in universities were unoccupied.

Adopted in 1921, the first Soviet charter of higher education subordinated all aspects of the activities of universities to the leadership of the party and the Soviet state. The Soviet apparatus for managing higher educational institutions was created, and privileges were introduced for workers and peasants in obtaining higher education. The Soviet system of higher education took shape in its main features by 1927. The task set for universities - to professionally train specialist organizers, although it was narrower than the task of higher education in pre-revolutionary Russia, nevertheless required certain conditions for its implementation. The number of precocious universities that opened immediately after the revolution was reduced, student enrollment was significantly reduced, and entrance exams were restored. The lack of funds and qualified teachers held back the expansion of the system of higher and secondary specialized education. By 1927, the network of higher educational institutions and technical schools of the RSFSR consisted of 90 universities with 114.2 thousand students and 672 technical schools with 123.2 thousand students.

Major changes in school education took place in the 1930s. In 1930, the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On universal compulsory primary education” was adopted. Universal compulsory primary education was introduced from the 1930-1931 academic year for children 8-10 years old in the amount of 4 classes; for adolescents who have not completed primary education - in the amount of accelerated 1-2-year courses. For children who received primary education (graduated from school of the 1st stage), in industrial cities, factory districts and workers' settlements, compulsory education was established at a seven-year school. As a result of the measures taken, the situation has changed dramatically. If in 1926 43% of Soviet citizens aged 9 to 49 were illiterate, then by 1939 the literate population of the USSR over the age of nine was 81.2%.

Capital appropriations for the school in 1929-1930 increased by more than 10 times compared with the 1925-1926 academic year and continued to grow in subsequent years. This made it possible during the years of the first and second five-year plans to expand the construction of new schools: during this period, about 40,000 schools were opened. The training of teachers has been expanded. Teachers and other school workers were given a salary increase, which became dependent on education and work experience. By the end of 1932, almost 98% of children aged 8 to 11 were enrolled in school.

During this period, the leadership of the country and the party considered the situation of the secondary school and adopted resolutions on its reform. It was noted that the secondary school does not meet the requirements of the time in terms of the social composition of students. Surveys by the People's Commissariat of Education in eight regions of the RSFSR showed that the children of workers among secondary school students accounted for 31%, among graduates - 10%. Poor preparation in secondary school was stated, which did not allow entering a university. Beginning in 1932, the network of secondary schools began to grow rapidly, and the number of children of workers and peasants among the students increased. In the early 1930s technical schools and schools of factory apprenticeships (FZU) are being formed. Since 1934, new curricula have been introduced in schools, including history and geography, and textbooks have been published in huge numbers.

The Decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On the Structure of Primary and Secondary Schools in the USSR” (1934) determined the unified structure of school education: Primary School(4 years) + incomplete secondary school (4 + 3), complete secondary school (4 + 3 + 3). This model, with minor amendments, lasted until the 80s. XX century. In 1934, subject-based education, standard programs and textbooks, a unified class schedule, and a system of marks were introduced in schools. School curricula were revised, new stable textbooks were created, teaching of general and national history. A stable school system with successive stages has developed. There is a return to the old principles, the conservative traditions of the pre-revolutionary school are being revived. The director again becomes the head of the school, and the pedagogical council performs the role of an advisory body with him. According to the new Internal Regulations, the school allowed the exclusion of students from its walls. Uniform school uniforms are becoming mandatory again. Internal rules are being streamlined: the duration of lessons and the intervals between them, the procedure for conducting transfer and final exams. One cannot but agree with V.I. Strazhev, who notes that 17 years after the October Revolution, the pre-revolutionary gymnasium triumphed again, supported by I.V. Stalin.

Puskin D.I. Extra lessons at school.

From the beginning of the 30s. the network of engineering, agricultural and pedagogical educational institutions developed especially rapidly. During the years of the first five-year plan, an attempt was made to accelerate the training of engineering and technical personnel. The management of technical universities was transferred to the relevant people's commissariats. Higher education institutions began to train specialists with a narrow profile in a short time, often using brigade methods of training, canceling exams, etc., which led to a decrease in the quality of specialist training. From 1932-1933 traditional, time-tested teaching methods were restored, specialization in universities was expanded. In 1934, the degrees of Candidate and Doctor of Sciences were established and academic titles assistant, associate professor and professor.

Opportunities to study in their specialty appeared among the nominees. Special educational institutions for the training of leadership personnel were created - industrial academies. Correspondence and evening education appeared in universities and technical schools. At large enterprises, educational complexes became widespread, including technical colleges, technical schools, schools, and advanced training courses.

During the years of the first five-year plans, successes were also achieved in the field of higher education. By the end of the first five-year plan, the number of universities in the country had reached 700, with the majority of polytechnic institutes created on the basis of technical schools. The composition of the student audience changed dramatically, as its main contingent was the worker-peasant youth. During the years of the pre-war five-year plans (1929-40), Soviet students helped to carry out the industrialization of the country, the collectivization of agriculture, the cultural revolution (the introduction of a universal seven-year education, the elimination of illiteracy, etc.), and provided assistance to enterprises and construction sites, collective farms and state farms. Komsomol organizations of higher educational institutions focused on improving the educational process and political education, the combination of theoretical training with industrial practice, and the development of research work. In the 1930s, Soviet students created self-supporting student "teams of real design", scientific circles at the departments; in the 1940s, scientific circles, brigades, etc. were merged into scientific student societies and student design bureaus. As a result of the measures taken by the end of the 1930s. the new Soviet intelligentsia, trained in the country's universities, accounted for almost 90% of its total number.

By the end of the 1930s. about 70% of the entire adult population of the country could read and write, and in 1940 the Soviet Union ranked first in the world in terms of the number of schoolchildren and students. This became possible thanks to state support for the development of public education, the costs of which increased 14 times from 1928 to 1938.

In 1940, the country was in dire need of workers. The economy developed extensively, there was a smell of war in the air, so the number of people at the machine had to be quickly increased many times. The task was solved by a set of actions: on the one hand, vocational schools and schools of factory training were massively created, on the other hand, from September 1, 1940, education in grades 8-10 of secondary schools, technical schools, teacher training schools and other special secondary institutions, as well as universities became paid.

Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR "On the establishment of tuition fees in senior classes of secondary schools and in higher educational institutions of the USSR and on changing the procedure for awarding scholarships"

Taking into account the increased level of material well-being of the working people and the significant expenditures of the Soviet state on the construction, equipment and maintenance of an ever-growing network of secondary and higher educational institutions, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR recognizes it necessary to lay part of the costs of education in secondary schools and higher educational institutions of the USSR on the workers themselves and in Decides in this regard:

1.Introduce from September 1, 1940 in the 8th, 9th, and 10th grades of secondary schools and higher educational institutions tuition fees.

2. Establish the following tuition fees for students in grades 8-10 of secondary schools:

a) in schools in Moscow and Leningrad, as well as in the capital cities of the Union republics - 200 rubles per year;

b) in all other cities, as well as villages - 150 rubles per year.

Note. The specified tuition fees in grades 8-10 of secondary schools shall be extended to students of technical schools, pedagogical colleges, agricultural and other special secondary institutions.

1. Establish the following amounts of tuition fees in higher educational institutions of the USSR:

a) in higher educational institutions located in the cities of Moscow and Leningrad and the capitals of the Union republics - 400 rubles per year;

b) in higher educational institutions located in other cities - 300 rubles per year.

Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR V. Molotov

Manager of the Affairs of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR M. Khlomov

Source: Collection of Decrees and Orders of the Government of the USSR No. 27.

The annual payment roughly corresponded to the average monthly nominal salary of Soviet workers at that time: in 1940 it was 338 rubles per month. As a result, the number of graduates of secondary schools (grades 8-10), secondary specialized educational institutions and universities has halved. Around the same time, the Decree “On the State Labor Reserves of the USSR” appeared.

DECREE OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE USSR SC OF 02.10.1940 ON THE STATE LABOR RESERVES OF THE USSR

The task of further expanding our industry requires a constant influx of new labor into mines, mines, transport, factories and plants. Without continuous replenishment of the composition of the working class, the successful development of our industry is impossible.

Unemployment has been completely abolished in our country, poverty and ruin in the countryside and in the city have been put an end to forever, in view of this, we do not have such people who would be forced to knock and ask for factories and plants, thus spontaneously forming a permanent reserve of labor for industry .

Under these conditions, the state is faced with the task of organizing the training of new workers from urban and collective farm youth and creating the necessary labor reserves for industry.

In order to create state labor reserves for industry, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR decides:

1. Recognize it necessary to annually prepare for transfer to industry state labor reserves in the amount of 800,000 to 1 million people by teaching urban and collective farm youth certain production professions in vocational schools, railway schools and in schools for factory training.

2. In order to train skilled metalworkers, metallurgists, chemists, miners, oil workers and workers of other complex professions, as well as skilled workers for maritime transport, river transport and communications enterprises, to organize Trade Schools in the cities with a two-year training period.

3. For the training of qualified railway transport workers - assistant drivers, mechanics for the repair of locomotives and wagons, boilermakers, foremen for the repair of the track and other workers of complex professions - to organize Railway Schools with a two-year training period.

4. To train workers for mass occupations, primarily for the coal industry, mining industry, metallurgical industry, oil industry and for the construction business, to organize schools of factory training with a six-month training period.

5. Establish that education in Trade Schools, Railway Schools and Factory Schools is free of charge and students during the period of study are dependent on the state.

6. Establish that the state labor reserves are at the direct disposal of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and cannot be used by people's commissariats and enterprises without the permission of the Government.

7. Grant the right to the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR annually to call (mobilize) from 800 thousand to 1 million urban and collective farm youth males aged 14-15 years old to study at Craft and Railway Schools at the age of 16-17 years old to study at Factory schools - Factory training.

The advanced group of students - carpenters of the school FZO No. 7 in Leningrad

8. To oblige the chairmen of collective farms to annually allocate, in the order of conscription (mobilization), 2 young males aged 14-15 years old to Craft and Railway Schools and 16-17 years old to schools of factory-factory training for every 100 members of collective farms, counting men and women aged 14 to 55 years.

9. To oblige the city Soviets of Working People's Deputies to allocate annually, by way of conscription (mobilization), male youth aged 14-15 years old to Craft and Railway Schools and 16-17 years old to Factory Training Schools in the number annually established by the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR.

10. Establish that all graduates of vocational schools, railway schools and factory training schools are considered mobilized and are required to work for 4 years in a row at state enterprises, as directed by the Main Directorate of Labor Reserves under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, with the provision of wages for them at the place of work at general grounds.

11. Establish that all persons who have graduated from Trade Schools, Railway Schools and Schools of Factory Training enjoy deferrals for conscription into the Red Army and Military — Navy for the time before the expiration of the period required for work in state enterprises, in accordance with "Article 10" of this Decree.

Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR M. KALININ

Secretary of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR A.GORKIN

Source: consultant.ru

The only social ladder for the lower classes then became military schools - education in them was free.

A group of cadets of the Lugansk military school of pilots

The rapidly and tragically unfolding Great Patriotic War required a radical transition of the entire life of the country "on a war footing." The offensive of the Nazis, which gave rise to a mass evacuation, hundreds of thousands of refugees, which led to the occupation of vast territories, set the task of an appropriate response to this from the party and Soviet leadership. It is clear that when the question of the fate of the country was being decided, especially in the conditions of the summer-autumn of 1941, and throughout 1942, education was not an important and priority matter. But already from 1943, when there was a turning point in the course of the war, things began to change for the better. Secondary school graduates are given the opportunity to enter universities, student reservations are preserved, and the material base of the educational process is somewhat strengthened. Where possible, they tried not to draft teachers into the army.

In the 1941-1942 academic year in the RSFSR, 25% of students did not attend school. In the future, the situation improved somewhat: in the 1942-1943 academic year, 17% of children of primary school age were absent from classes, in the 1943-1944 academic year - 15%, in the 1944-1945 academic year - 10-12%. During the war years, only on the territory of the RSFSR, the Nazis destroyed about 20 thousand school buildings, in total across the country - 82 thousand. In the Moscow region, by the summer of 1943, 91.8% of school buildings were actually destroyed or dilapidated, in the Leningrad region - 83.2 %. Many school buildings were occupied by barracks, hospitals, factories (in the RSFSR in November 1941 - up to 3 thousand). Nearly all schools in the war zones were shut down. During the war, the number of secondary schools was reduced by a third.

Many children and adolescents systematically took part in agricultural work, the construction of defensive structures, students of vocational schools worked at industrial enterprises. Thousands of teachers and school-age children participated in the fighting with weapons in their hands. Curricula and programs were corrected in operating schools, military defense themes and military physical training were introduced.

It would seem that during the war years the state had no time for educational policy. And it turned out the opposite. It was at this time that a rather decisive reform was carried out in the organization of the educational process, in the education system as a whole. Moreover, all the changes continued, consolidated and, to a certain extent, logically completed the paradigm shift that occurred in the mid-1930s. Let us emphasize that the main contours and directions of the changes that took place in the 1940s were already formulated in the materials of the planned but not completed school reform of 1939-40.

Stalingrad school.

During the war years, government decisions were made on school education: on the education of children from the age of seven (1943), on the establishment of general education schools for working youth (1943), on the opening of evening schools in rural areas (1944), on the introduction of a five-point system for assessing academic performance and behavior students (1944), on the establishment of final exams at the end of primary, seven-year and secondary schools (1944), on awarding gold and silver medals to distinguished secondary school students (1944), etc. In 1943, the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR was created.

The dynamics of educational policy looked as follows: the introduction of basic military training - the division of schools in large cities into male and female - the establishment of a school uniform, a student ID - the introduction of harsh disciplinary measures that provided for the punishment of students - the inclusion of logic in the curriculum at the end of the 40s and psychology. Outwardly, all this looks like disparate, unrelated measures. But in fact, it was a clear educational policy that completed by the beginning of the 50s the final formation of such a single type of secondary school as the “Stalinist gymnasium”.

The conditions of the war led to changes in the training of specialists. In 1941, admission to universities was reduced by 41% compared to peacetime, the number of universities decreased from 817 to 460, the number of students decreased by 3.5 times, and the number of teachers decreased by more than 2 times. During the years of the Great Patriotic War 1941-45, 240 thousand students joined the Red Army. In order to keep the contingent of students in universities, girls were attracted. Due to compaction, the terms of study were reduced to 3-3.5 years, while many students worked. Since 1943, the restoration of the higher education system began. As the military successes of the Soviet Army, part of the university teachers were demobilized, students of some technical universities were exempted from conscription. By the end of the war, the number of institutions of higher education and the number of students approached pre-war levels. The contingent of students in secondary special educational institutions was young people of pre-conscription age. The victory in the war was used then and then as a crushing argument, the main trump card, proving the undeniable advantage of the entire Soviet education system, the absence of contradictions in it. Judging in general about the ideological basis of the then education system, it was a bizarre symbiosis of pre-revolutionary conservative pedagogical thought and Marxist-Leninist attitudes.

Agricultural University of Leningrad in the Great Patriotic War

In the post-war period, the restoration of the education system began. After the end of the war, 30 thousand front-line soldiers entered universities. In 1946, the state budget allocated 3.8 billion rubles for education. (in 1940 - 2.3 billion rubles). By 1950, this amount had grown to 5.7 billion rubles. In addition to the state budget, money for school construction was allocated by collective farms, trade unions, and industrial cooperation. 1,736 new schools were built in the RSFSR by the forces of the population using the method of popular construction. By the beginning of the 50s. The Russian school not only restored the number of educational institutions, but also switched to universal seven-year education.

In 1946, the All-Union Committee for Higher Education was transformed into the Ministry of Higher Education of the USSR. Until 1946, universities had a dual subordination (VKVSh and economic people's commissariats), which interfered with their work. Despite the rapid growth of the higher education system, the country's needs for specialists were not fully met. There was a shortage of qualified university teachers, whose ranks were noticeably thinned as a result of the repressions of the 30s, military losses and study campaigns, in particular in the fight against cosmopolitanism, in the 40s. In 1946, the Academy of Social Sciences under the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks was created to train party cadres and ideological workers.

The post-war history of education cannot be imagined without women's schools, which were created in large cities during the war. This was one of the manifestations of the course taken at that time to turn to pre-revolutionary Russian traditions. In relation to separate education, no single opinion has been developed. And at that time, and now there are both his ardent supporters and no less staunch opponents. Plato 2.5 thousand years ago recommended that free people with parishes to children of six years of age separate them: “Boys spend time with boys, just like girls with girls.”

In the post-war period, the achievements of science became an important factor in foreign policy. I.V. Stalin understood that without the development of science, the Soviet Union would not be able to withstand the confrontation with the capitalist countries, primarily with the USA and England. The beginning of the 1950s was marked by the final formation of Stalin's educational policy. Nothing fundamentally new was introduced into the project. The beginning of the 1950s was a time when the problems of student achievement and discipline were in the center of attention. In the late 40s - early 50s, the pioneer and Komsomol organizations were firmly sealed within the walls of the school and had to deal exclusively with helping teachers in organizing the educational process.

Education has always been one of the most important spheres of society, the state of which directly influenced all other parts of the social organism and the development of the country as a whole. The party-state leadership has always paid special attention to the educational sector, carefully reconciling the policy in this area. Changes in the education system, as a rule, became an integral part of every major political turn in the internal life of the country. The first decade after the death of I. V. Stalin, which went down in history as a period of "thaw", was no exception. The restructuring of the system of public education in the 1950s - the first half of the 1960s took place under the sign of a certain liberalization of the party-state system of the USSR, undertaken by the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee N. S. Khrushchev. However, its main details began to be developed at the end of the Stalin era - at the very beginning of the 1950s. Changes in public life also formed a new social educational order of society, which inevitably led to the need to revise both the content and teaching methods. This demand was heard and pedagogical science and teachers, among whom dissatisfaction with the rigid framework of traditionalism has long been ripening.

The state policy aimed at turning the education system to the needs of the national economy was outlined at the 19th Congress of the CPSU in October 1952. This highest party forum proposed the idea of ​​polytechnic education in secondary school, which then determined the vector of development of Soviet education in the Khrushchev period. After Stalin's death, the ideas of polytechnic education gained new life, since it was with them that the reform of the entire domestic education system was associated.

From 1954-55 a new educational course was outlined, which was embodied in the "Law on the connection of school with life" in 1958, as well as in the Khrushchev reform of education. In fact, it was an attempt to once again make a paradigm shift and return the "labor school" of the 1920s as the dominant one. All Khrushchev's romance of "commissars in dusty helmets" was spiritually close and consonant with the mentality of that post-revolutionary time.

By the beginning of the 1950s, the Soviet secondary and higher schools were developing within the framework of the Stalinist model, which was formed back in the conditions of the first five-year plans.

Soviet school

By the end of the Stalin era, a serious problem was clearly revealed that faced the Soviet education system as a whole and its secondary, school level, in particular. It consisted in the fact that the fundamental aspects of school education almost completely replaced the applied component, which was not given of great importance. As a result, school graduates turned out to be unprepared for practical activities, and graduates of universities and technical schools did not possess the skills and abilities to work in production, had no idea about the specific economy and the functioning of enterprises. The teaching of sciences was divorced from life and practical economic needs.

The preparation of projects for reforms in this area began with a discussion of these problems by the scientific and pedagogical community. In the course of it, a wide range of topical issues of the development of domestic education was raised. For example, in the journal Narodnoye obrazovanie, five directors of leading Moscow schools, based on an analysis of the preparation of secondary school graduates for productive work, formulated concrete steps to provide the national economy with qualified personnel by strengthening the polytechnicization of school education. It was proposed to organize on the basis of general secondary education special six-month, one-year or two-year courses for the training of workers in acutely scarce specialties - electricians, tractor drivers, combine operators, mechanics, irrigators, livestock breeders. The directors of the capital's schools also argued that it was necessary to create conditions for the professional training of high school students so that they could work in production as skilled workers immediately after graduation. The heads of educational institutions stated that, with rare exceptions, the schools of the capital were not able to prepare students for production work. It was proposed to introduce for high school students the teaching of the academic discipline " Scientific organization labor” to get acquainted with the basics of the functioning of the domestic industry, more often arrange excursions to enterprises, meetings with leaders in production. The idea was put forward to expand the network of correspondence and evening departments at universities, so that young people who had received secondary education and work qualifications could continue their education 1 .

On the basis of these ideas, the practical reform of the Soviet educational system was carried out. Already in 1954 - 1955. the need to prepare students for participation in socially useful, productive work from the early school age was recognized. The orientation of the secondary school towards university preparation, which had taken root in previous decades, was changing. In 1955, 1,068,000 boys and girls graduated from a full secondary school, which was almost four times higher than the needs of higher educational institutions for first-year students. The main task of the secondary school - preparing young people for entering universities - came into conflict with the needs of society. Education at universities was supposed to be combined with work in production as much as possible.

From the 1954 - 1955 academic year, the following were introduced into the school curriculum: in grades 1 - 4 - labor, in grades 5 - 7 - practical classes in workshops and experimental training areas, in grades 8 - 10 - workshops on mechanical engineering, electrical engineering and agriculture au pair. In 1955, active creation began, mainly in rural areas, of student production teams.

A significant change carried out in 1954 in the secondary school system was the abolition of separate education for boys and girls. A similar division of students took place in pre-revolutionary gymnasiums and boarding schools that provided a classical secondary education. In 1943, in the context of a return to some external attributes of the pre-October past, separate education of children was introduced. Khrushchev considered it necessary to cancel it on the grounds that, in his opinion, it did not correspond to the tasks of the communist education of youth.

Tuition fees in senior classes of secondary schools and universities of the USSR were abolished by a government decree on May 10, 1956. But even under Khrushchev, school education actually had to be paid. On December 24, 1958, the law "On Strengthening the Link between School and Life" was adopted, introducing a compulsory eight-year education. But at the same time, students in grades 9-10 had to work 2 days a week in production or in agriculture - everything they produced during these 2 days of work at a factory or in the field went to pay for school education.

An important milestone in the reform of the system of public education in the Soviet Union during the "thaw" was the XX Congress of the CPSU, held in February 1956. On it, the steps taken in recent years to polytechnicize the school were characterized as ineffective and insufficient. Khrushchev reproached the government and relevant ministries for separating learning from life; school graduates, as before, turned out to be unprepared for practical work. Leading employees of educational and scientific institutions of the education system were also subjected to harsh criticism. According to Khrushchev, the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences and public education workers "are still engaged in general talk about the benefits of polytechnic education and do nothing for its practical implementation." The rapid polytechnicalization of the secondary school was defined as a central task. Khrushchev stated that "it is necessary not only to introduce in schools the teaching of new subjects that provide the foundations of knowledge on issues of technology and production, but also to systematically involve students in work at enterprises, on collective farms and state farms, on experimental plots and in school workshops."

XX Congress of the CPSU

Those leaders of the education system relied on this provision, who proposed to provide for the direct participation of schoolchildren in socially useful work and the acquisition of a profession in the educational process. Their opponents, who sought to confine themselves to only deepening the polytechnical component of education in schools and universities, used another idea of ​​Khrushchev expressed at the congress: general education, which opens the way to higher education, and, at the same time, were prepared for practical activities…” 2 .

Ambiguity persisted in the final documents of the congress. The resolution on the Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU, which spoke of the need to "practically involve students in work at enterprises, on collective farms and state farms", clearly contradicted the Directives on the five-year plan for the development of the national economy, which only proposed to "acquaint students with the most important branches of modern industrial and agricultural production » 3 .

As a result, various alternative points of view on reforming education have been formed. The first to outline their principled position were supporters of limiting the polytechnicalization of the school, without parallel involvement of high school students during their studies to work in production and, along with their secondary general education, receiving working specialties. The backbone of this group was represented by high-ranking Moscow party and government officials, members of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences (APN) - Minister of Education of the RSFSR E. Afanasenko, President of the APS of the RSFSR I. Kairov, Head of the Department of Science, Culture and Schools of the Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPSU for the RSFSR N. Kazmin, who believed that the secondary school should develop as a general education school, that is, as a school that does not give students a profession, but only provides general polytechnic training.

Opponents of this group focused on Ukraine, Khrushchev's homeland, where he was especially supported at that time as their former republican leader. Due to these circumstances, Khrushchev especially listened to the opinion of Ukrainian party officials and scientists. The point of view of the Ukrainian leaders of education was expressed by the editors of the main republican pedagogical journal "Radyan's School". They sought to ensure that the draft reform included a provision on the need for students in grades 8-10 to receive working specialties.

In May 1957, unexpectedly for many, another project to reform education appeared. With him at the session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the first secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Leninist Young Communist League, A. N. Shelepin, spoke. He stated that the restructuring of the educational sphere should not be turned into a narrow intra-departmental measure of the officials of the education system. The head of the Komsomol proposed to carry out a large-scale, comprehensive reform of the education system with the involvement of all interested ministries and departments. He subjected the educational authorities to harsh, impartial criticism for their indecisive and conservative position and declared that they would not be able to manage with half measures, since the reform would not work without eliminating the isolation of education from life. Shelepin expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that young people who have completed secondary school cannot find a job because they do not have a specialty 5 .

He proposed a project in which the idea of ​​polytechnicalization of the school turned into an extreme, unacceptable for the entire education system, bringing all the transformations in this area to complete absurdity. According to this plan, only a seven-year school remained general education in the usual sense. And the senior level of the secondary school, in which education was increased by a year, in fact turned into an analogue of a vocational school, which was supposed to give graduates a working specialty along with secondary education. In this regard, it was planned to abolish technical schools, which, under such a system, would become unnecessary for a secondary school. It was also proposed to introduce a system of planning by the state for the use of graduates of such schools. But despite Shelepin's efforts and influence, his radical reform project was not supported.

The culmination of the discussion about the ways of developing domestic education was the publication of Khrushchev's opinion, who outlined his vision of these issues in a note sent to the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU in September 1958 and published by the Pravda newspaper. The plan for the restructuring of education, proposed by Khrushchev, provided for the destruction of the traditional secondary school. Khrushchev believed that it was necessary to eliminate the stage of the general education school and believed that "in the form in which it has been practiced in our country so far ... according to all data, it would be inappropriate to do this now." He planned to keep the traditional secondary schools that prepare high school students for entering universities for a short period of time and "in a relatively small number" 6 .

The school reform project outlined in Khrushchev's note received a mixed assessment from the scientific and pedagogical community, especially scientists from the APS, who did not agree with the idea of ​​eliminating the upper stage of the classical secondary school that had been formed for decades. The proposed plan, in fact, to a large extent crossed out the vast experience accumulated by Russian pedagogical science.

Vasily Aleksandrovich Sukhomlinsky

The most active and constructive opposition to the official reform project was the position of V.A. On July 13, 1958, the well-known teacher sent a letter to the Central Committee of the CPSU and personally to Khrushchev, where he stated his objections to his school reform project. Sukhomlinsky did not agree that the applied, technical orientation of school education, receiving excessive dominance within the framework of the planned transformations, was detrimental to the humanitarian cycle. academic disciplines, thanks to the teaching of which the foundations of citizenship and patriotism are laid in students. Sukhomlinsky expressed the most rational position under the circumstances. On the one hand, he was against the point of view of the supporters of the “limited” polytechnicalization of the school directly within the framework of the educational institutions themselves. On the other hand, the devaluation of knowledge in the fundamentals of sciences, the degradation of the humanitarian cycle of school subjects was unacceptable for him.

Sukhomlinsky opposed the barracks monotony of the Soviet post-Stalin school system, which fettered the creative initiative of the teacher, strictly regulating the behavior of teachers and students. He qualified this unification as the reason for the separation of the school from life. His goal was to reconcile extreme positions - to provide universities with the necessary number of students at the expense of traditional secondary schools to train specialists of the highest category and, in parallel, prepare those who, at the end of the decade, will start working in production.

Rich practice, combined with a scientific approach, allowed Sukhomlinsky to accumulate in his proposals the opinion of wide sections of the pedagogical community who opposed abrupt, ill-conceived changes in education. Khrushchev had to study these proposals and agree with many of them, laying the foundation for real changes in the school.

In November 1958, the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU adopted a new document - theses "On strengthening the connection between school and life and on the further development of the public education system in the USSR", which, along with the initial provisions of Khrushchev's note to the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Party, contained many fundamental ideas and comments made Sukhomlinsky. On December 24, 1958, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted the law "On strengthening the connection between school and life and on the further development of the system of public education in the USSR." The seven-year junior high school was replaced by an eight-year one. At the end of the "eight-year plan", boys and girls, depending on subjective data (individual level of academic performance, abilities, preferences), could continue their secondary education in one of three types of educational institutions: a general education polytechnic school with industrial training, an evening school for working or rural youth, or in secondary vocational school. The period of study in secondary school was increased from 10 to 11 years due to the introduction of a vocational training program. A unified network of vocational schools was created with a term of study from 1 to 3 years. From the age of 15-16, the law ordered that all Soviet youth be included in socially useful work and "all their further education ... be associated with productive labor in the national economy" 7 . The adopted law for the period until the mid-1960s became the basis for the development of the Soviet school.

New boarding school building, 1960

One of the innovations in the field of education was the emergence and active distribution in the second half of the 1950s - early 1960s of a new type of educational institution - boarding schools. They were considered the most effective institutions for educating the "builders of the new society". Khrushchev viewed boarding schools as an important mechanism for building communism 8 . The return to “Leninist principles of party and state life” proclaimed by him was also projected onto the education system. Obsessed with the idea of ​​building a communist society, Khrushchev, at a new historical stage in the development of the country, tried to return to the practice of the first years of Soviet power. He sought to transfer the experience of thirty-five years ago to his contemporary post-war, post-Stalinist society, which had changed significantly and differed from the society of the first post-October years.

The idea of ​​creating boarding schools reflected the desire to tear the child out of the "philistine" environment, moving him to some kind of ideal educational institution. In it, the child had to spend most of the time, since the "new man" could only be brought up in a team where "philistine" remnants did not dominate.

In September 1956, the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted a resolution on the organization of boarding schools as a new type of educational institutions designed to solve the tasks of preparing comprehensively developed, educated "builders of communism" at a higher level. Some of the boarding schools were supposed to be opened by re-equipping and re-profiling some typical general education schools throughout the country. They were supposed to build additional buildings to accommodate dormitories. Another part of the boarding schools was planned to be created by constructing completely new buildings according to special projects. On average, each boarding school was calculated on the simultaneous education and residence of two hundred to six hundred pupils 9 .

Even before the decision of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR, the main party organ, the Pravda newspaper, launched a powerful propaganda campaign to demonstrate the advantages of boarding schools. Speaking on the pages of Pravda, the head of the Moscow City Department of Public Education A.I. Shustov reported that most of the capital's boarding schools are planned to be located in new buildings specially built for this purpose in the nearest suburbs of Moscow - Fili, Izmailovo. By September 1, 1956, 285 boarding schools were already functioning. Experienced teachers and educators were selected to work in them, who had previously been trained in special courses at the Moscow City Institute for the Improvement of Teachers. Children enrolled in boarding schools at the request of their parents or trustees were provided with food, clothes, shoes, textbooks and school stationery. The first boarding schools, at the direction of the party organs, were taken under the patronage of the collectives of the largest enterprises and institutions. Parents were charged a very moderate, almost symbolic fee for the maintenance of children in boarding schools. Orphans, as well as children from large families, by decision of the public education authorities, could be in a boarding school on a free basis. positive side The introduction of boarding schools was that at first it was planned to send children from single-parent families, orphans, poor and disadvantaged children to them, and only later it was planned to place the rest of the mass of children and adolescents there.

The first results of the existence of boarding schools were summed up three years after the decision to establish them - in 1959. The Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR "On measures for the development of boarding schools in 1959 - 1965", adopted in May 1959, stated that in a short period boarding schools received wide recognition of students. They were characterized as the most successful form of raising and educating children "under the conditions of building a communist society." In 1959, Khrushchev declared: “Now a course has been taken to build boarding schools so that in the future all children of school age will have the opportunity to be brought up in these schools on full state support.” This decree set the task of sharply increasing the number of students in these institutions by 1965, bringing it to two million people.

Along with the development of boarding schools, where by 1960 more than 322 thousand pupils were studying and living, as part of the restructuring of education, correspondence schools and special, exemplary schools are being created in the country. The law “On the restructuring of the education system in the Russian Federation” adopted in April 1959 by the Supreme Council of the RSFSR became the basis for their formation. Similar laws were adopted in other union republics. Specialized schools with in-depth study of some subjects, such as physics, foreign languages, biology, mathematics, chemistry were intended for the purposeful preparation of their students for admission to the relevant faculties and departments of universities. This was also carried out as part of the professional training of schoolchildren.

Also in the late 1950s, the creation of exemplary schools began. They have become a kind of "beacons", "support schools", designed to maintain a quality level of education and serve as guidelines for ordinary schools. These "core schools" became the basic experimental platform for the USSR Ministry of Education, republican ministries, regional and district departments of public education. In each district center, one such exemplary school was created, where the best teaching staff were attracted and additional resources were allocated. Demonstrative lessons were held in these schools and methodological work was carried out with teachers from the region.

The rise of scientific and pedagogical research in the 1950s-1960s. relied on the new social order of society, in which, despite the preservation of the main components of the command-administrative system, the desire for changes towards the democratization of public life was growing. In the practice of educational work, the concept of a “traditional lesson” has developed, the content of which was reduced to a monotonous, construction of the educational process. The dissatisfaction of teachers with creative lack of freedom resulted in a stormy stream of innovative searches, the emergence of numerous schools of excellence. Outwardly, the school almost did not change: it was still only a state cell, its educational goals, curricula, internal structure, etc., remained the same. However, it began to awaken a craving for the new, pedagogical initiative, and a taste for creativity. The post-Stalin Renaissance of creative beginnings in the Soviet school took place, but it was short-lived. The powerful pressure of officials from education, who demanded at all costs the required percentage of academic performance, gradually emasculated the healthy beginning of all innovations.

As part of the general restructuring of the education system in 1958-1959, the school management reform was carried out in the Soviet Union. Compared to the Stalin period, school management has become less centralized. The lower levels of this system, that is, the schools themselves and local educational authorities, received a certain independence. Beginning in 1959, elementary and eight-year schools could be organized in a particular region only on the basis of a decree of a local body of Soviet power - the district or city executive committee of the local Soviet of Workers' Deputies. The decision of the regional executive committee was enough to create secondary schools. For comparison: until that time, schools of all types, even the primary level in the USSR, could be opened only in agreement with the Ministry of Education of a union republic or an autonomous republic within a union republic, which significantly hampered the initiative on the ground.

Party and state leadership Soviet Union understood that the success of the reform of the public education system depends on its main and direct executor - the school teacher. The position of teachers in the USSR in the late 1950s and early 1960s was relatively prosperous. In general, the level of material and social welfare of teachers was approximately the same as that of the vast majority of ordinary employees in the country. More than a third of the teaching staff of schools were male teachers. The prestige of the teaching profession was maintained at an acceptable level. The idea of ​​the state's concern for the teacher was declared in every possible way, which was interpreted as Lenin's 17 .

The reform was conceived for a society entering communism. Hence the value chain built by its creators: labor as a source of material and spiritual wealth; the elimination of the opposition between mental and physical labor, the merging of school and life. Party and state bodies oriented teachers towards strengthening polytechnics in teaching schoolchildren. The organ of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the journal Kommunist, in January 1960, stated in an editorial: “Until recently, for many teachers, the only source of pride was a student prepared to enter a university ... now this one-sided view is being overcome and the student prepared for life becomes the teacher’s pride to useful work…” On the other hand, the value of higher education among young people turned out to be quite stable. Boys and girls considered industrial work to be unprestigious, they strove to get either higher or secondary specialized education at any cost.

One of the main levers in the organization of industrial training for schoolchildren was the pressure of the party-state authorities on industrial and agricultural enterprises, which had no objective interest in establishing links with schools, in vocational training of students. The artificial, strong-willed imposition of this function on them was bound to lead to a crisis of the “school-enterprise” relationship that had been formed over a number of years at the initiative of the party-state power and under its direct leadership and control.

Serious dissatisfaction with the reform increasingly embraced students and their parents. A characteristic negative reaction to the restructuring of the school was the high percentage of dropouts from daytime secondary schools to other educational institutions. This was due, according to the Ministry of Education, to the fact that “students have the opportunity in schools for working youth to complete their secondary education a year earlier and, in addition, receive work experience during their studies, which gives them the right to enter higher educational institutions.”

An important direction in the restructuring of education in the Soviet Union during the "thaw" was the reform of higher and secondary vocational schools, which also accumulated a huge number of unresolved problems. One of the most serious issues was the distribution of young professionals. Tough administrative measures did not ensure the attendance of graduates of universities and technical schools to the appointed place of work. In three years, from 1951 to 1954, the number of university graduates increased 2.2 times, but in the sectors of the national economy, culture, and education, their share increased by only 80 percent.

After the 20th Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchev actively insisted on bringing higher education closer to production. In this regard, in 1957, new, amended rules for admission to universities were approved, drawn up taking into account the critical remarks of the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, who said: “It is not the one who is well prepared who enters the university, but the one who has an influential father or mother … Often, not the most deserving ones enter a university, but those who have a well-trodden path to people who determine in universities who can be admitted to study… This is a shameful phenomenon” 19 . An innovation in the rules for admission to universities was the provision of an advantage to persons who have two years of practical work experience in production after graduating from high school or who have been dismissed from the ranks of the USSR armed forces. Since 1957, special courses have been created to prepare "probationers" for admission to universities, which were transformed in the mid-1960s into preparatory departments or workers' faculties. In 1958, out of 448,000 university students, 320,000 or 70% had at least two years of practical work experience. Much attention was paid to the higher correspondence and evening education of people employed in production. If in 1945-1946 28% of all students studied at evening and correspondence departments of universities, then in the 1960-1961 academic year - 51.7%.

After the XX Congress of the CPSU, which began the de-Stalinization of society, there was a need to change the content of the social sciences taught in universities, technical schools and schools. On June 18, 1956, the Central Committee of the CPSU issued a resolution on the teaching of political economy, dialectical and historical materialism, and the history of the CPSU in higher educational institutions. On the basis of this decree, all higher educational institutions of the country introduced the listed subjects in the form of independent courses from the 1956/1957 academic year.

Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU B. N. Ponomarev

As part of the ideological line pursued by Khrushchev, aimed at returning to Leninism, freed from the accretions of the Stalin era, it was necessary to significantly rework the content of the taught material in order to get rid of the tenets of Stalin's "Short Course in the History of the CPSU (b)". There was an urgent need for new social science textbooks for schools and universities. By 1959, a group of authors headed by the Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU B. N. Ponomarev prepared and published a fundamental textbook on the history of the CPSU. It became a political long-liver and, with minor changes, for exactly thirty years, until 1989, it remained the "desk book" of all first-year students of the universities of the Soviet Union.

In 1959, a restructuring of the organization of university management was carried out. Many of them were transferred from the union subordination under the control of the newly created republican ministries of higher and secondary specialized education. The former Ministry of Higher Education of the USSR was transformed into the Union-Republican Ministry of Higher and Secondary Specialized Education of the USSR 22 .

The authorities were forced to respond appropriately to problems that began to excite society more and more. Already in May 1961, in its memorandum to the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR on the implementation of the Law "On strengthening the connection between school and life and on the further development of the public education system," the Ministry of Education was forced, along with a report on positive results, to inform about serious problems and shortcomings . Among them stood out the fact that vocational training in schools was organized without taking into account the needs for workers, the issues of providing students with jobs in production were unsatisfactorily resolved, the heads of enterprises did not comply with decisions to create training workshops and sites for industrial training of high school students. The Ministry of Education reported to the Central Committee of the CPSU that the reorganization of schools took place without sufficient attention from the planning and economic authorities, so many issues were resolved artisanally and on their own.

In May 1961, the Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted a resolution obliging the Councils of Ministers of the Union and Autonomous Republics, regional executive committees, regional executive committees and economic councils to take measures "to eliminate serious shortcomings in the industrial training of secondary school students and to establish proper order in this important matter."

The Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR "On measures for the further development of higher and secondary specialized education, the improvement of the training and use of specialists", adopted on May 9, 1963, approved a set of measures aimed at solving the accumulated problems. It was proposed to provide for a higher rate of development of secondary specialized education, since about three times as many graduates of technical schools were required as those who graduated from universities. To increase the number of engineers at large industrial enterprises, it was planned to create a network of branches of technical institutes - technical colleges, where, as part of the evening form of education, workers could study on the job. Evening and correspondence departments of universities were also supposed to be expanded. The resolution set before the departments that have universities the task of strengthening their material base - the construction of new buildings of educational buildings and dormitories. Since 1963, the contingent of creative universities, on the contrary, was subject to annual reduction, since their graduates did not go to the national economy, and, in the opinion of the authorities, there were no urgent needs in the country for actors, directors and other creative workers 23 .

Despite the measures taken by various state structures, problems and contradictions with industrial training continued. Criticism of the reform implementation process was also seriously voiced at the June (1963) plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU. At the same time, the very idea on the basis of which the restructuring of the school was carried out was still stubbornly not questioned.

Afanasenko Evgeny Ivanovich

To develop proposals for correcting the school reform, the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU created a special commission headed by the Minister of Education of the RSFSR E. I. Afanasenko. Its main task was to develop proposals for changes in the curriculum and terms of study in secondary school, associated with the rejection of industrial training in it. In its Note to the Central Committee of the CPSU dated May 9, 1964, the commission reported that it had reached a unanimous opinion on the advisability of reducing the period of study in a secondary general education school from 11 to 10 years.

The official decision to return to the 10-year school was made on August 10, 1964, when the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR issued a resolution “On changing the term of study in secondary general education labor polytechnic schools with industrial training”. The adoption of this resolution, as well as subsequent actions for its implementation, testified to a certain understanding by the authorities of the actual failure of the school reform aimed at combining education in high school with productive work and vocational training of students. At the same time, there were verbal assurances that the course taken would be maintained.

After the removal of N. S. Khrushchev from power in October 1964, the refusal to build a school on the principles of combining education with productive labor, which was actively carried out with his direct participation, accelerated significantly. In February 1966, a resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR was adopted, significantly limiting industrial training.

A few months later, the Central Committee of the CPSU and the government adopted a new resolution, which finally broke with the basic principles on which the school reform was based, and determined new prospects for the development of the education system. They meant a return to such an understanding of the mission of the Soviet school as the implementation of general educational preparation of students and their communist education.

So, the restructuring of the school, aimed at combining general education with the vocational training of students, ended in failure. These were two independent areas of educational activity, each of which required special scientific, theoretical and methodological development, its own educational and material base, and a qualitative composition of teaching staff. This predetermined the need for their implementation in the conditions of different educational institutions.

The main drawback of vocational training, carried out within the framework of a general education school, was its almost complete social lack of demand. Students were prepared for working professions, for which the enterprise and the school were most comfortable. Students' opinions, their interests and inclinations were not taken into account. And this is not to mention the low quality of professional training in general. As a result, after leaving school, very few people continued their labor activity in the professions acquired at school.

By the beginning of the 1960s, the problem of higher and secondary specialized education continued to be the retention of graduates of universities and technical schools in production, the distribution of young specialists. Despite the government decisions taken since 1954, it was not possible to improve the situation radically. About half of those who graduated from universities and technical schools still shied away from distribution work. This was contrary to the interests of the state, which provided free higher and secondary specialized education to millions of people, but did not receive an adequate economic return in return. In addition, the leaders of the state were not satisfied with the fact that the placement of universities in economic regions in some cases did not correspond to the level of development of the sectors of the national economy and culture. Insufficient, according to the government, was the number of specialists trained to service new technology, instrumentation, electronics, chemistry, economists, and school teachers.

To overcome the evasion of university graduates from work on distribution, the decree established a new procedure for issuing diplomas. Now they could only be received by those specialists who, after defending their graduation project or passing state exams, would work for one year at the place where they were assigned. Before graduation, young specialists had to obtain temporary certificates at their university 24 . However, after the dismissal of Khrushchev in October 1964, such a practice was gradually abandoned as a voluntarist one. Other mechanisms of influence on higher school graduates were developed.

Changes in the economy required a more educated and skilled worker, on the one hand, and a huge mass of workers for the implementation of large-scale programs for the development of new territories, on the other. Therefore, the issues of public education, the rise of the cultural, technical, and general educational level, especially of industrial workers, began to be increasingly considered in general party, state documents and the central press. However, the attempt to implement industrial training in all schools at once clearly failed. Good results were obtained only in those where there were experienced teachers and an appropriate material base. The intention to train workers and peasants professionally at school must be recognized as erroneous. This did not meet the needs of the era of the scientific and technological revolution, since in its conditions qualifications are determined by general scientific knowledge.

A study of the materials of the International Commission on Education of UNESCO in 1958 and their comparison with documents on school reform in the USSR in the same period show that the transformations announced in the latter were part of the global education reform, one way or another covering the main issue of any educational system - its functional assignments. And, if the changes in this area in Western Europe were caused by the successes of the scientific and technological revolution, then the reform of the Soviet school of 1958 was inspired to a greater extent by the political ideas of “working out”, in theoretical terms, by declarations about “strengthening the connection between school and life”, and on practice was supposed to provide the country's extensively developing economy with a skilled workforce.

School reforms did not justify themselves. Vocational training of students, for various reasons, was of a formal nature, while the level of general education went down. The intellectual development of students was sacrificed to the idea of ​​polytechnicalization of the school. In 1964 and in 1966 returned to the previous system of education, limiting vocational training to school labor lessons. The rules for admission to universities were changed: the competition for schoolchildren and production workers was held separately.

The main lesson that can be drawn from the analysis of reforms in the field of education in the 1950s and 1960s is that any changes in the field of education must be deeply thought out, scientifically substantiated, worked out, taking into account all possible negative costs.

To be continued…

Materials used:

Pyzhikov A.V. * Reforming the education system of the USSR during the thaw period (1953-1964) * Reforms in education. Part I was last modified: August 12th, 2017 by Diana

The country is developing a new education system focused on entering the global educational space. This reform process is accompanied by significant changes in pedagogical theory and practice, there is a change in the educational paradigm, different content, different approaches, and a different pedagogical mentality are offered. In the course of such reform, new curricula are being developed, the concepts of textbooks and teaching aids are being revised, and the forms and methods of teaching are being improved.

The teacher plays an important role in transformational activity. It is he who involves his students in a range of various problems, shows the main ways to solve them. Ultimately, the fate of mankind largely depends on its activities.

Education reforms were carried out throughout the entire historical path of Russia, from the moment of transition from a religious to a secular school (XVIII century).

Since this year, the state has again turned its attention to the educational sphere. On the eve of the new academic year, addressing the teachers, the President of the Russian

The Federation identified the following priority tasks: “stimulating innovative programs of professional higher and general education by financing projects for the development of educational institutions. State support for initiative, capable, talented youth. Informatization of education through the creation of a system of electronic educational resources and large-scale connection of schools and the Internet.

Our district, the district is doing a lot to create a strong educational system - these are private schools, schools - gymnasiums, classes with specialized education, with in-depth study of subjects. Large network established additional education- Houses of children's creativity, sports institutions, music schools, branches of higher educational institutions. But problems remain.

Reforming the Education System in Russia: Lessons from Two Centuries. pre-revolutionary period.

The success of reforms in society largely depends on the educational policy, its consistency, consistency and effectiveness. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the school determines the future of Russia and is an indispensable condition for its revival. Overcoming the crisis processes and the formation of a new Russian democratic state, and, accordingly, an adequate perception of Russia by the world community, largely depends on the effectiveness of the educational process in Russian schools.

The study of national models of reforming education in the context of reforms in society is undoubtedly of interest not only for narrow specialists in the field of the history of education and pedagogy, specialists in the sociocultural problems of the development of society, but also for everyone who in practice takes part in the search for the most promising ways and means of building an effective system of school education.

The problem of reforming the educational system and the search for optimal directions for development have always been and remain relevant for each country and for a specific historical period. For example, in the United States, at the government level, the need for a radical reform of American education is proclaimed, the task of which is to bring American education to the first place in the world.

The global reform of the Russian education system was put into effect by the law "On Education", adopted in 1992. Currently, we have to state a certain inconsistency of state policy in the field of education. Today, Russian teachers are discussing a new stage in the reform of the educational system. The modern reform, in terms of its tasks and scale, fits perfectly into the framework of the numerous reforms of the education system that have been carried out in Russia since the time of Peter the Great.

Let's turn to historical experience.

As a result of progressive transformations in the Age of Enlightenment (XVIII century), in

Russia created large centers of culture, science and education - the Academy of Sciences,

University of Moscow; new types of real schools - mathematical and navigational sciences, schools at factories and shipyards, at the Naval Academy; state general education schools are digital. There was an expansion of the system of educational institutions.

At the same time, during this period, the tendency to give the education system a class character intensified: noble educational institutions were created (gentry, naval, artillery corps, private boarding schools, institutes for noble maidens, and others).

At the beginning of the 19th century, the liberal “Charter of Educational Institutions Subordinated to Universities” (1804) was adopted. This document marked the beginning of the organization of the state system of primary, secondary and higher education. He enhanced the role of the universities in the management of public education and teacher training, and provided conditions for the training of personnel in the general education school system.

However, the progressive development of the education system was relatively short-lived. In the first quarter of the 19th century, the government gradually moved away from the liberal provisions of the Charter of 1804. In the education system, the features of estates and the religious-monarchical principle intensified. And the Charter of 1828 marked a temporary victory of counter-reforms in relation to the transformations of the early 19th century, the closed nature of the school system was fixed. 1

In the 60s of the XIX century, the reforms in the education system, carried out by the government under the influence of the socio-pedagogical movement, became a significant part of the overall process of socio-political reforms. According to the adopted documents at that time, all schools received the right to become public and classless. The system of women's education began to develop. However, already in the 1970s, political reaction stimulated the process of counter-reforms in the field of education and enlightenment. The progressive documents of the 1960s were replaced by new, reactionary ones: the "Charter of Gymnasiums"

(1871), and "Regulations on real schools" (1872). These documents restored the class disunity of schools and to a certain extent violated the unity of the general education system achieved in the previous period.

At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the government developed a number of educational reform projects - the secondary school reform project of the Minister of Education

P. N. Ignatiev in 1916 and the draft reform of the vocational education system in 1915.

The relationship between the process of modernization of society and the reforms of the education system acquires particular relevance and urgency at critical moments in social development, during the formation of new social relations. The education system, shaping the mentality of society, largely determines the effectiveness of the modernization process. In pre-revolutionary Russia, the clash of reforms and counter-reforms in education became particularly acute in the 19th and early 20th centuries, a period when social factors were clearly identified that determined the vector of social modernization and at the same time established the depth and effectiveness of this process.

post-revolutionary period.

The October Revolution of 1917 in Russia and the subsequent restructuring of all social relations determined the main directions of the global reform of the education system. Already in the post-revolutionary years, a set of measures was carried out that in practice embody the policy of the Soviet state in the field of education. The legislative basis for this education reform was the Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of October 16, 1918, which approved the "Regulations on the Unified Labor School of the RSFSR" and "Basic Principles of the Unified Labor School of the RSFSR". 1 Many of the provisions of these documents continued to operate in subsequent years, up to the modern education reform in the 90s of the XX century. In accordance with the new state policy in the field of education, the education system was transferred to the jurisdiction of the state, the principles and forms of its management were changed. Instead of schools of different types, a single type of educational institution was introduced by law - the "unified labor school". The teaching of religious disciplines was excluded from the curricula. Free schooling was introduced, equality of men and women in education was ensured. The all-round development of student initiative was encouraged through the creation of various public organizations. A progressive task was set - in the shortest possible time to achieve universal literacy of the population. The reform of the Russian language and other serious transformations were carried out.

Historical analysis shows that even the first steps of the Soviet state in the field of education were largely directed against the fundamental principles of the functioning of the system, which were established in the process of reform in the 60s of the XIX century and determined the effectiveness of the modernization of the education system in the post-reform years.

The goal of the first reform of the school in Soviet Russia was proclaimed the education of a person of a new era, which determined the new philosophy of education. 2 The principle of labor activity in the broadest sense has become a priority direction in the development of the new Soviet school. The content of education was based on the polytechnical component. Teaching methods during this period were focused on research tasks.

Putting forward goals for the development of the student's personality was a progressive direction in pedagogy, but at that time it could not be implemented, since the reform of education in Soviet Russia was carried out in the conditions of a strict class and party approach.

This caused excessive ideologization of the content of education and all forms of the educational process. The result was a certain crisis in the education system, noted by contemporaries at the turn of the 20s and 30s.

Under these conditions, the party and state leadership found it necessary to carry out a stabilization counter-reform of education, the main content of which was determined in the party and government decrees of 1931-1936. In practice, these steps to a certain extent became the restoration of classical gymnasium forms of education. The return of conservative-traditional elements of the education system was positively received by parents and the pedagogical community. The achievements accumulated in the 1930s and 1940s in the education system and the cadres of specialists trained during this period became the basis for sensational scientific successes in the field of space technology and atomic energy in the 1950s.

The development of the education system has again demonstrated that reform is inevitably replaced by counter-reform. The “Khrushchev school reform” of the late 1950s and early 1960s repeated in certain respects the transformations of the 1920s. Counter-reform of the mid-60s -

The 1970s stabilized the education system. Late 1960s-early transformations

The 1980s, which had a stabilization and modernization character, were completed by the 1984 reform.

The cyclical development of the education system was also manifested in the reform of the late 80s - early 90s, which was also replaced by a period of relative stabilization of the education system in the mid 90s. At the same time, today there is a need to intensify the process of updating the education system.

Here it is important to emphasize such a paradoxical fact, which characterizes the integrity, consistency and effectiveness of the educational system created in pre-revolutionary Russia, that all subsequent attempts by the Soviet state to destroy it and create a new, Soviet education system, in essence, led to nothing. With all the modifications, the pre-revolutionary system of education in Russia, in its main features, has been preserved up to the present time. It is no less remarkable in terms of comparative history that the American educational system, in essence, is just as little transformed.

Thus, we can draw the following conclusion: despite all the significant differences between the modern Russian and American educational systems, they have something in common. This commonality is expressed in the fact that national pedagogical systems, which are the foundation of education systems both in Russia and in the United States, are highly conservative, which generally positively affects the quality of education and contributes to the realization of its role as a factor in ensuring cultural continuity in the development of society.

The main directions of modern education reform.

The role of education in present stage Russia's development is determined by the tasks of its transition to a democratic and rule of law state, to a market economy, the need to overcome the danger of the country lagging behind world trends in economic and social development.

In the modern world, the importance of education as the most important factor in the formation of a new quality of the economy and society is increasing along with the growing influence of human capital. The Russian education system is able to compete with the education systems of advanced countries. At the same time, a deep and comprehensive modernization of education is needed, with the allocation of the necessary resources for this and the creation of mechanisms for their effective use.

The concept develops the basic principles of educational policy in Russia, which are defined in the Law of the Russian Federation "On Education", the Federal Law "On Higher and Postgraduate Professional Education" and disclosed in

National Doctrine of Education in the Russian Federation until 2025, as well as

Federal Program for the Development of Education for 2000-2010. 1

The school, in the broad sense of the word, should become the most important factor in the humanization of socio-economic relations, the formation of new life attitudes of the individual. A developing society needs modernly educated, moral, entrepreneurial people who can independently make responsible decisions in a situation of choice, predicting their possible consequences, are capable of cooperation, are distinguished by mobility, dynamism, constructiveness, and have a developed sense of responsibility for the fate of the country.

At the present stage of Russia's development, education, in its inseparable, organic connection with science, is becoming an increasingly powerful driving force for economic growth, increasing the efficiency, and competitiveness of the national economy. Therefore, it cannot remain in a state of internal isolation and self-sufficiency. The outdated and overloaded content of school education does not provide fundamental knowledge to graduates of a general education school.

The main priorities of the educational policy are:

Ensuring state guarantees of the availability of quality education;

Creation of conditions for improving the quality of education;

Creation of conditions for improving the quality of vocational education;

Formation of effective economic relations in education;

Providing the education system with highly qualified personnel. 1

Thus, modern education will be focused on the labor market and the requirements of the socio-economic development of the country, on the development of the student's personality, on his high level of cultural development.

Problems in the field of education

The federal laws “On Education” and “On Higher and Postgraduate Professional Education” guarantee that every graduate of a general education school will receive a high-quality higher education and the opportunity to study at prestigious Russian universities. In this regard, a unified state exam for school graduates is being introduced, which makes it possible to simultaneously pass a school exam in a subject and an entrance exam to a higher educational institution. Khanty-Mansiysk autonomous region included in the experiment on the exam, for several years. From this academic year, almost all school subjects by us, graduates of secondary schools, will be taken in the form of the Unified State Examination. The results of the unified state exam in our school, as well as throughout the country, are not high enough.

It worries us. Why? After all, not all graduates of my school want to study at higher educational institutions, many of them will go to college, some are going to work, in addition, not all universities accept USE results. So why do all school graduates need to take the exam. Where is the choice of students? Why is the USE not an alternative to "ordinary school exams"? We think that it is necessary to give students the opportunity to decide on their own whether to take the USE or the “regular school exam”.

In our school, the program "Gifted Children" has been developed and is being implemented, the main goal of which is to promote the development and support of gifted children, ensuring their personal social self-realization and self-determination. The school is doing a lot in this direction. Students take part in school, district, district subject Olympiads, actively participate in the program of young researchers "Step into the Future", in various competitions and events.

But, every year we see the opposite, fewer and fewer students show good results at various levels. Why? As the results of the survey show, the majority of high school students are not satisfied with the educational process and communication with teachers at school.

This suggests that the school continues to work "in the old fashioned way", traditionally: traditional lessons, traditional subjects, lack of trust in students on the part of teachers. Today, the school must "keep up with the times", because it lays the foundation for the future of our country, it forms an independent, proactive personality, able to actively and responsibly resolve issues. We believe that schools need to create as many special elective courses as possible, a variety of electives, hobby groups, discussion clubs. More trust in students.

More than ever, today the school needs a connection with higher educational institutions so that schoolchildren get the opportunity to touch science, because the connection between education and science is obvious.

Informatization of education, which is talked about so much, has led to the fact that many computers have accumulated in schools, but the state of these computers wants to be better.

Despite the difficulties that the modern school is going through, the students of our school consider that the greatest achievement over the years of studying in it is good knowledge of subjects, the development of their interests and abilities. This is the result of the work of my school.

Thus, today there are many problems in our school, and probably in all schools of the country. And it is impossible to solve them immediately.

After analyzing the reform activities in the field of education, we are afraid that the lessons of previous reforms will not be taken into account, and the current education reform will not be completed. Therefore, in order for the modern education reform to be carried out successfully and to be completed, it is necessary, from our point of view, that the following conditions be met:

When carrying out reforms in the field of education, the state must take into account historical patterns, carry them out systematically, step by step, and purposefully.

It is necessary to create a deliberative mechanism between the stakeholders of the educational process: teachers, parents, students, where each of the parties could really influence the course of the educational process in an educational institution.

In the modern school, more attention is paid to the moral, civic and patriotic education of schoolchildren.

In order to increase the motivation of students, it is necessary to introduce into the educational process of the school a greater number of various electives, circles of interest, special courses for students to choose, debating clubs.

The school should take the initiative in establishing communication with higher educational institutions.

Make a unified state exam for school graduates at the request of the students themselves.

Reform- these are innovations that are organized and carried out by the state authorities (the government, the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation). Pedagogical innovations- these are innovations that are developed and carried out by employees of the education system (changes in curricula, programs, in the content and technologies of education, in the methods, forms, means of training and education used).

Given that education is increasingly becoming a sphere of strategic interests, the governments of many countries are taking steps to reform it. The main goal of these reforms is related to strengthening the adaptability of educational institutions to dynamically changing living conditions. In Russia, the reform of the education system is focused both on solving internal problems related to meeting the socio-economic needs of the country, and external ones, involving the preservation of the competitiveness of general education and vocational schools, as well as participation in integration processes to bring national education systems closer together.

A feature of the reform of education in our country is that it is long, extended in time and carried out in parallel with economic and social changes. The reform began in the context of a change in the socio-economic system, that is, in a situation of severe political, social, and economic crises. The following stages of reforming the education system in the country can be distinguished.

Stage 1 - preparatory, or stage of development of alternative education(late 80s - 1992). The main reason for the reform is an attempt to get away from the uniformity of the school, rigid centralized management, and to democratize the education system. The result of the transformations at this stage was: the democratization and pluralization of education (the freedom of teachers in choosing the content and methods of education, the freedom of students in the formation of a worldview), alternative education, or the emergence of new types of educational institutions (gymnasiums, national, religious schools, etc.).

Stage 2 - stage of formation of variable education(1992-1996). Reasons for reform: the need to legislate all the changes that have taken place in the education system, and the desire to adapt to the economic crisis in the country. In 1992, the Federal Law "On Education" was adopted. The result of this stage of the reform was: the development of varied education (the emergence of new educational institutions, including private ones), the development, approval and implementation of state educational standards, the search for and experimentation in the system of general and vocational education.

Stage 3 - formation of mechanisms for ensuring the quality of education(1996-2001). The reason for the reform: the created centers of management have not yet begun to operate, the regulatory framework needed to be improved, in the conditions of the economic crisis, funding for educational institutions decreased, and the quality of education fell sharply. In 1996, the following were approved: the Federal Law “On Amendments and Additions to the Law of the Russian Federation “On Education”, the Federal Law “On Higher and Postgraduate Vocational Education”. At this stage, a lot of work is underway to improve state educational standards, an experiment on the introduction of a unified state exam, and the creation of educational districts.

Stage 4 - improving the mechanisms for ensuring the quality of education and the integration of Russian higher education into the European educational space(2001 - 2012). In 2001, the "Concept for the modernization of Russian education for the period up to 2010" appeared. The main task remains to improve the quality of general and vocational education on the basis of its fundamental nature and compliance with the needs of the individual, society, and the state. The outdated and overloaded content of school education did not provide graduates with fundamental knowledge and did not prepare them for life in market conditions. Vocational education did not solve the problem of personnel "hunger", as there was an overproduction of some specialists and a shortage of others.

Russia's accession to Bologna process(2003) identified new directions for reforming the higher education system during this period. The main goal of the Bologna Declaration is to create a common educational space in Europe. This measure was dictated by the desire of European states to combine their disparate potentials into a single economic mechanism in the face of growing global competition. The integration of the Russian higher education system into the European educational space has led to the following innovative transformations:

Structural restructuring in the system of higher education, the emergence of leading universities;

Introduction of a tiered system of higher education (bachelor's, master's, training of scientific and pedagogical staff in postgraduate studies);

Adoption and implementation of competence-oriented educational standards;

The introduction of credits as units of accounting for the content of education mastered by students;

Expansion of academic mobility of students and professional mobility of teachers.

The following issues are still in the process of being resolved:

Unification of the names of academic disciplines and specialties in order to issue diplomas recognized in Europe to graduates of Russian universities;

Development of compatible (European) criteria for assessing the quality of the work of universities.

Changes in the education system associated with the implementation of the Bologna agreements put forward new challenges for higher education. Thus, the introduction of a tiered system of professional training prioritizes the problem of clarifying the content of education for bachelors, masters, postgraduate students, developing diversified educational programs based on the Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Education, as well as using effective learning technologies at each level.

The expansion of academic mobility involves the creation of conditions for the free movement of students and teachers, which is supported by the allocation of grants for "interuniversity exchange" and internships abroad. However, territorial mobility in our country is limited by material problems, so “virtual mobility” is now developing more actively, associated with the development of online courses, the use of technologies distance learning, as well as professional (vertical) mobility, providing an increase in the competence of employees within the limits of a previously acquired specialty, or obtaining a new profession.

The introduction of a single mechanism for accounting for the content of education mastered by a student in the form of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) provides an opportunity for students to receive education in a way that is more convenient for them, that is, to study not according to one educational program at a particular university, but in parts at different universities. Initially, the credit system was created as a means of increasing student mobility, and a little later it was transformed from transferable to funded. In Russia, the first level of use of ECTS is used, which involves a simple recalculation of academic hours allocated for the study of subjects into credit units (36 academic hours correspond to one credit unit). However, there is another level of use of ECTS, which requires significant changes in the organization of training. This implementation of the so-called credit-modular system.

Modules (educational units) become the basis for building the educational process. In the course of mastering the module, students are given knowledge, practical skills are worked out, and the content learned is monitored. A loan is obtained after all types of required work have been completed and evaluated. The credit-modular system of education used in many European and American universities is very different from the "linear" system that operates in Russian educational institutions. Its distinctive features are:

1) asynchronous structure of education, the creation of temporary student groups for the study of individual disciplines;

2) a significant increase in extracurricular activities, emphasis on independent cognitive activity of students;

3) organization of regular knowledge control, widespread use of computer testing;

5) "enriched" methodological support of the educational process;

6) development of individual educational programs for each student;

7) organizing a service of academic consultants (tutors) who help students build an "educational trajectory".

The credit-modular system of education is more flexible and mobile than the "linear" one, but it is completely unusual for Russian teachers. And it is precisely about such reorganizational changes that the greatest number of disputes is being conducted. To introduce a credit-modular system, a lot of work has to be done to develop new curricula and programs based on the modular principle, sets of test tasks for current and final control of knowledge. It is necessary to address the issues of not only educational and methodological, but also logistical, information support of the didactic process. We need well-equipped classrooms, laboratories, computer classes, libraries, a sufficient amount of educational, methodological, scientific literature, etc.

The following transformations were the results of this stage of reforming:

1) in general education system I:

Adoption of a new generation of state educational standards focused on the formation of students' competencies; changing the content of education by reducing the basic and increasing the disciplines of the variable block and elective courses;

Since 2005 - the widespread introduction of the Unified State Exam, GIA (State Final Attestation), improvement of their mechanism;

Transition to specialized education in high school.

2) in vocational education system:

Changing the structure of vocational education, creating a hierarchy of educational institutions, the emergence of leading universities;

Introduction of a tiered system of professional training;

Adoption of a new generation of state educational standards focused on the formation of students' competencies;

The use of credits as units of the learned content of education.

5 new stage of reform(2012 - ...). This stage is associated with the adoption of new state documents:

Federal Law "On Education in the Russian Federation" (2012),

State program "Development of education in the Russian Federation until 2020 (2012),

"The Concept of the Federal Target Program for the Development of Education for 2016-2020" (2014).

At this stage, the following transformations are planned:

Continued restructuring and optimization of the education system (unification and reduction of universities and their branches);

Renewal of the personnel and managerial staff of educational institutions, the introduction of an effective contract with teaching staff;

Creation of centers for independent monitoring and evaluation of the quality of education;

Improving the content (standards) and learning technologies (creating variable programs, introducing individual educational trajectories, creating new models of distance learning, distance learning, developing online courses, etc.);

Improving the infrastructure of educational institutions, creating infrastructure for students with disabilities.

At the federal level, the following documents have been developed and recently approved: “The Strategy for the Development of Education in the Russian Federation” (05.29.2015), “The Concept for the Development of Additional Education for Children” (09.04.2014). In July 2015 submitted to the Government for consideration Government program"Patriotic education in the Russian Federation".

Questions

1. What new types and levels of education have been identified in accordance with the Federal Law “On Education in the Russian Federation”?

2. What global processes at the beginning of the 21st century affect the education system in the world?

3. Name the global trends in the development of education and establish the nature of the relationship between them.

4. What innovations have taken place in the system of Russian higher education since the ratification of the Bologna Declaration?

5. What is the logic and dynamics of education reform in Russia? What are the similarities and differences between the first and last stages of the reform?

Task 1: "Trends in the development of education in the world"

Any trend affects the education system in two ways: it carries something positive, and also predetermines new problems. What are these problems? Fill in the appropriate columns of the table.

Task 2. Read the discussion material (see separate file) and formulate your opinion on the question: What hinders the successful reform of higher education?