On a fork

On the ninth of December, the concept of national education will be considered at a government meeting. Its main aspects are already clear: the continuity of education, its quality, increasing transparency and investment attractiveness, a change in financial mechanisms and equivalent. Equal access to educational capabilities is provided both at the beginning of the educational path - the year of pre -school education for "aligning the level of training", and at the output - a single state exam . This is the main brainchild of recent years of reformers in education for the fourth year in a row undergoing experimental run -in in different regions, but the relationship to it has not appeared unequivocal. Paliativity of opinions about the exam was also manifested at the last meeting of the Russian Public Council for the Development of Education ( ROSRO ). There is no unity of opinions either about the content of a single exam, or about its form. True, so far only the form has been discussed, another meeting will be devoted to the content. But there are also enough questions with the form. Root: And what, in fact, is such a USE? For four years, he began to be considered an instrument, an institute, and a meter.

Initially, the idea of ​​a single exam was argued that there is no accurate idea of ​​the quality of school education in the country, the results of school exams for a certificate of maturity do not cause confidence, because the teachers themselves give assessments, that is, they evaluate not so much knowledge of their students as their work. So, we need a single objective measurement scale. So the exam became a meter. Four past years showed that for 100 points, the exam can be handed over 0.003 or 0.002 percent of the examiners, that the bulk of the examiners - from 50 to 60 percent - hand over it for three, that 20 percent of school graduates receive unsatisfactory grades. As the exam meter, it seemed completely worked: showed that our school is preparing three -year -olds. And then he came into conflict with his instrumental hypostasis.

As an instrument, it was primarily intended to use it to enroll in universities, or rather, to abolish the entrance exams, to facilitate the life of the applicant, so that he does not pass within one month of two tests - upon leaving school and upon admission to the university. At the same time, a single exam was “sharpened” as an anti -corruption tool so that there were no temptations. Either the universities did not want to take the three -time product of the school, or they did not believe the meter, but they clearly did not express unanimous determination to abandon their entrance exams. For three years, fighting went on to preserve the university self. It began with the fact that the exam is not suitable for enrolling in creative universities, not to understand from this meter, whether a person can sing, dance, write poetry, draw canvas. And if the creative leave their trials, then why not lead the leading universities for them. The struggle of Moscow State University for preserving its entrance tests inspired others who consider themselves top -end. Their arguments are undeniable: they just do not have enough places for everyone who wants to go on the exam, which means that they have to look for forms of selection from equals. Thus, several “forks” arose: to consider the state exam a necessary or sufficient condition for the transition from school to a university, to consider for some (inopal, led) sufficient, for others (top, leading) - necessary, to be the only form of receipt or one of the options.

In the spring and summer of this year, the battles was fed for the rights of winners of national olympiads: so that they could be taken into universities without entrance exams so that the results of the Olympiads are equated with the results of a single exam. But the Olympiads are not only federal, but also regional and university. The same Moscow State University holds its Olympiads. What to do with these winners, what are their rights? In fact, of course, the struggle is not so much for the rights of the winners of the Olympiads as for the rights of universities, for their autonomy. As noted by the head of the Federal Service for the Supervision of Education and Science V.A. Bolotov , the winners of national olympiads are two hundred people, the regional are eight hundred more, these are two thousandth percent of the entire applicant corps. The question is, does it make sense to pronounce special rules for two thousands? For the sake of themselves, it may not, besides, the winners in the most difficult trials, the orderly mass exam seems to be not caused by difficulties, but it makes sense to fight for their rights, for their Olympiads, for their decision, who is worthy to study. And in this struggle, the idea of ​​variability is born in entrance exams: another “fork” appears - to accept at universities only on the basis of the exam, taking into account additional assessments of the Olympiad, to conduct their own tests in separate specialized subjects or allow leading universities to leave the entire set of their own tests.

In these "forks" the corporate component will clearly draw someone-the desire of some universities to achieve the right to independently form their entrance tests and thereby receive a certificate of their self; Someone will think the democracy and variability of the choice, someone is concern for maintaining the country's intellectual potential. By the way, this season there was a “novelty” of educational fashion - a portfolio for each student, where he will bring his successes, and universities on this basis will decide whether they need such an applicant -student. (It seems that either the whole country has become one Pomeranian village and the crowds of the Lomonosovs stagger on it, or so many non -pavements have flown that they no longer take into account, and so that they would not be lost in their native open spaces, even if they describe themselves.)

In fact, these forces and variability are nothing more than a recurrence of linking the functions of a meter and instrument-comprise in the Unified State Exam. This linking generates the next fork: a single exam is a universal test at the end of school or is this a test only for those who are going to the university? Or maybe give two certificates - certificate "A" for a single exam and certificate "B" for regular final exams or for grades on the results of school assessments, because if everyone is handed over the USE, then twenty percent will not receive a certificate, but a certificate. Or maybe allow to take a single exam many times - once for free, that is, at the state expense, and all other attempts will be paid? In general, if you summarize all the proposals and questions on the exam that arose with its ideologists, as Professor Mironov noted at the Rosro meeting, it was not worth brewing porridge.

For ten years, the myth of the direct connection of school and university education was strictly created, that the path from the school lies in one direction that only a university diploma is the key to life well -being and a successful career. As a result, we have: demand for higher education - from 86 to 94% of the school graduates, a bloated system of non -state universities, distrust of a diploma, lack of workers and catastrophic aging of personnel in industry, an idea of ​​secondary specialized education as a dedication of losers, the salary of a doctor and a teacher below the subsistence minimum. And along the way, there was also a myth of the provision of educational services. For the private sector, any activity in the field of education, of course, can be considered as a service - tutorial, training, qualification. For the state, education, and this is no less unconditionally, is by no means a service, but an instrument of influence, an institution of preserving national identity.

It seems that this institutional component is either lost by itself under the influence of market mechanisms, or they forget about it.

No wonder at a meeting of Rosro, Mr. Pinsky saw in the exam such a fork: "An excellent service in the field of education or voluntary service." If we assume that the state nominal financial obligations (GEFO) will really be issued according to the results of this test, that is, the state will take on the payment of education, then it is strange to see both service and service here. This is a way of institutionalizing the contract: a state ready to pay when fulfilling certain conditions, and a citizen who is ready to fulfill these conditions for the sake of receiving payment. The institutional hypostasis of the exam is just beginning his life. The first announced amounts of GEFO - 12 thousand 700 rubles. per person. That is how much the state plans to allocate to the university for one student. They cause a condescending smile among rector: they offer them a little more than $ 444 per person at a course of 28.60 rubles/dollars, and they want to increase specific financing from 700 to 2300 dollars (from schoolchildren - from 400 to $ 1000).

It is absolutely clear that the fate of the exam should not be decided “on the forks”, but in the ligaments: if you consider the USE-Gifo tandem, then the state may require the obligation of a single exam for both citizens who are ready to accept financing and for universities ready to accept citizens with this financing. If a citizen or university refuses these funds, then the state has no place in these relations: one will pay for its education itself, the other will look for means for survival. And in this case, both sides, not hoping on Leviathan, will regulate their relationship.

The binding to payment, that is, to the financial component, allows you to solve the eternal issue with the standards: this is the minimum that the state is taken to pay, and then it is determined on the basis of what the funds will be for, or this is a certain idealization, a sort of "unhealthy charms", which would be very good when it would be enough money. In endless discussions, what to be our education, the answer looms very simple: as much as the money is enough. And not only among the state, but also among employers and citizens. And if you accept this market financing mechanism, then the principle of “who pays, it orders the music” (it directly concerns the boundaries of regulations), and the principle of unequality of possibilities must be accepted. If we have come to terms with the fact that someone eats Belarusian in the restaurant, and someone on the street is a hot dog, that it prevents you from transferring this humility to the field of education?