Deferred General Education Standard

Print Nina Osovetskaya

When discussing the results of the national project “Education” in the Council for the Implementation of Priority National Projects and Demographic Policy on September 13, 2007, a proposal was put forward to form a “modern model of education.” President Vladimir Putin gave corresponding instructions to the Russian government. Of the five points that the “model formation” plan includes, two relate to general education. This is “the development of educational standards aimed at students obtaining an appropriate amount of knowledge and the ability to apply it” and “evaluating the quality of educational services provided by innovative educational institutions that have received state support within the framework of the priority national project “Education”. But in order to develop standards and, on their basis, evaluate the quality of educational services, it is necessary to determine what these standards should be aimed at and what society understands by “quality of educational services.” In addition, high-quality educational services must be provided not only by “innovative educational institutions,” but all services must be of high quality if we are talking about the model as a promising direction for the development of education. There can be no place for low-quality education at all, whether it is provided by innovative or conventional institutions.

There are, of course, “traditional” ways to form such a model. For example, do not form anything anew, but simply describe the best of what is available today and declare the result obtained to be the desired one. Recognize that this is the “modern model of education.” A tempting path, but a dead end. But here is a promising way: think about what education should be like in 10-20-30 years, and form a model on this basis. Such a model, importantly, will allow us to determine guidelines for the development of the system.

But how to form such a model, what forces to attract for this?

It seems that interaction between the public and the best specialists in the field of education is necessary here. And the mechanism for developing a model could be as follows: first, the public expresses its ideas and aspirations about the future of education, which requires broad discussion in the media. Based on the results of the discussion, experts propose a development model, it goes through a new round of wide discussion, during which it is brought to the public consciousness what education should become “according to the Hamburg account.” Based on the results of the discussion, adjustments are made to the model, and only those that “raise the bar” of requirements for the system, then the new version of the model is accepted as a “guide to action.”

In this article I would like to focus on general education, the state of which is extremely alarming today. It is the level of school education that is the basis, the foundation on which not only a person’s further education, but his entire life is built. So what is Russian school education like today, how does the public see it and want to see it in the future, is the Russian school aimed at providing quality education?

Looks like no. Or rather, in general, no. And society as a whole is not interested in children receiving a quality education, despite the fact that, it would seem, everyone talks a lot about quality. In fact, certain sections of society are concerned about the quality of general education:

the upper elite who solve these problems by sending their children to study at the best foreign schools and universities;

all levels of the middle class, enrolling their children in lyceums, gymnasiums and other schools that provide a high level of education, and hiring tutors for them before entering the leading (prestigious) universities of the country. The rest of the population, and often management structures at different levels, solve many problems with the help of the school, often in no way related to the quality of education.

The topic of school is not the subject of wide public discussion, as it was during the perestroika period. But then, mainly, the issues of lack of freedom in school and strict regulation of its work were discussed. The result of these discussions was the emergence of various proprietary programs at the school, the number of which gradually decreased to insignificant quantities, since on a mass scale the school - its teaching staff - was not ready to accept and was not suitable for replicating these methods. In addition, too often they were so focused on the personality of the specific teacher who developed the methodology that it turned out to be impossible to disseminate them in an unadapted form. But there were no “adapters” - there were no structures or specialists interested in such adaptation - you usually cannot earn laurels of public recognition by adapting other people’s methods. Freedom in relation to school was seen almost exclusively as pedagogical freedom of expression. Little thought was given to the freedom of schoolchildren as a way to form a free personality, and our school turned out to be practically unsuited to such freedom, largely due to the mentality of the teaching staff. This should not be surprising: in an unfree society there cannot be a free school. Sociologists unanimously show that freedom is not an obvious and self-sufficient value for the majority of our fellow citizens. It is freedom that people are willing to sacrifice in the first place, and a significant proportion of the population generally considers it harmful and craves a “firm” hand.

Even during the era of perestroika, when liberal ideas were at the peak of popularity, only the appearance of freedom was achieved at school. Gymnasiums, lyceums, schools with in-depth study of individual subjects, etc., etc. arose. But in fact, this did not lead to the emergence of a “field of freedom” in the Russian school. It would seem that the emergence of a fairly wide range of schools instead of just one type is already a step towards freedom. But if you look closely, it’s not for everyone. For children from low-income segments of the population, disadvantaged families, and the majority of rural residents, this expansion of opportunities is not available, and there is no choice - the regular school has remained the same, only the quality of education in it has often become even lower. And the low quality of education in the lower grades blocks all options for choice in the future - access to all the available “diversity” is no longer free, but carried out through examinations, tests, interviews, which determine the student’s preparedness for an “elite” school. And the thesis “not everyone studies with us, but only the best”, if not spoken out loud, is implied. As a result, especially in large cities, we are not talking about quality education accessible to all, but about elite quality education only for the wealthy. ev population. One can often hear the objection that they pay more taxes, so increased funding for elite schools is quite justified. But in all developed countries, the tax system serves to equalize the opportunities of the poor, and not to create more privileged conditions for citizens with high incomes. For example, in Finland public schools with special educational conditions are generally prohibited. On the contrary, schools located in areas with a difficult student population receive increased funding to be able to “bring up” weak students. No one is advocating the immediate closure of all gymnasiums and lyceums, which will simply lead to a decrease in the quality of education in general. On the contrary, I would like to improve the level in all schools. But for this, a lot still needs to be changed in the system itself, primarily in the worldview of teachers, in the management of general education, which should also provide freedom to the school, and not regulate its activities more and more strictly.

In the 1990s, many countries (Australia, USA, Canada, Great Britain, etc.) began the transition to decentralized management in education.

At the same time, sometimes more than 80% of the resources available to schools were transferred under the direct control of the schools themselves. When calculating the level of funding, in addition to basic funding depending on the number of students, such important parameters as:

1) additional student needs - additional resources for schools with disadvantaged students determined by socio-economic factors, developmental delays, physical disabilities, etc.;

2) needs determined by the characteristics of educational institutions - targeted allocations to cover increased costs associated with geographical location, small number of students, determined by the distance of the school from the central regions [1] .

It is this approach to financing general education, aimed at increasing the educational level of the black population and immigrants from Latin American countries, that helps them adapt to a full life in American society. A similar practice is also accepted in many European countries, where in recent decades the number of emigrants from Asian and African countries has sharply increased. But to begin with, the school became the object of close attention and concern of the entire society.

The only significant innovation in the Russian school of the last decade is the introduction of specialized education, and as part of an experiment - not only in elite schools, but in all schools, including rural ones. And the main criteria when choosing a profile are the desire and appropriate abilities of the students. But here, too, rural residents have much fewer opportunities than urban residents. In general, it should be noted that rural schools are a constant pain in Russia. Per student, education costs in most rural schools are much higher (several times) than in urban schools. Thus, according to the reporting data of some regions participating in the implementation of “Comprehensive Education Modernization Projects,” the excess of the average per capita standard reaches 2.5 times or more, and for small schools these figures are even higher. And the quality of education is much lower. At the same time, the closure of small rural schools is hampered not only by the poor condition of the roads, which is most often cited when it comes to taking children to the so-called basic school located in another village or nearby settlement, but also by the population. Most often, protest sentiments among residents are fueled by school employees themselves. There are many arguments: “without a school the village will die”, “if children do not study in their village, they will never return to it”, “where will the poor teachers go”, “there will be no intelligentsia left in the village”, etc. At first glance, the arguments are convincing. But, as a rule, a village does not perish without a school, but the situation of the school becomes critical if there is no work in the village and residents leave it. In the Russian debate, the main thing is lost - the understanding that the main task of the school is to educate children, and in a quality manner, and not to solve social problems. After all, school is not social. Of course, there are good schools in the villages too. And the results of passing the Unified State Exam in a number of rural schools are not inferior to, and sometimes even exceed, the results of many urban schools. But the vast majority of rural schools do not have quality teaching opportunities.

If we recall history, even rich nobles who lived on “distant” estates and hired tutors for their children, upon reaching a certain age, sent them to gymnasiums in large, often capital cities, on full board. And not because they could not prepare them at home for universities and cadet corps, but because children need communication with peers, or, as we now say, socialization. This includes acquiring the skill of finding a common language, making contact, establishing social connections, and much more that cannot be achieved in a small team.

A small rural school cannot provide effective socialization of students. It cannot even provide high-quality primary education. Indeed, what quality can we talk about if the school has six to ten students from first to fourth grade and one teacher for all of them. The situation is absolutely not fictitious; many specific examples can be given. And the conditions in modern Russia are still somewhat different: in many cases it is possible to organize transportation of children to school in another village or in a regional center. And there is no need to talk about the quality of education in a small basic school (from fifth to ninth grade), since the bulk of our villages (more than 70%, in some federal districts - more than 90%) are villages with a population of up to 500 people. Even if we consider only villages from 100 to 500 people, the average population in them is not much more than 200 people. What is 200 people, considering that the proportion of elderly people in such villages is higher than the national average? At best, 20-30 children aged 7 to 14 years. How many subject teachers are there in such a village? What is their level? They cannot even undergo normal advanced training: if a teacher leaves for study, there will be no one to replace him. But they proudly report that all schools, including these, are equipped not just with computers, but also with broadband Internet access. Well, okay, they found a computer science teacher for such a school, but besides him, the rest of the teachers, as a rule, do not know computer technology. The result is that children and teachers often speak different languages. This does not increase the teacher’s authority, but rather, on the contrary, decreases.

Unfortunately, in many urban schools, the quality of education has decreased significantly in recent years, as evidenced by the results of three international studies PISA (Program for International Student Assessment), as a result of which Russia traditionally ranks among the countries “whose average score is statistically significantly lower average score for OECD countries.” At the same time, the highest levels by type of test are reached by:

1) level 6 in natural science literacy - 0.5%;

2) level 6 in mathematical literacy - 1.7%;

3) level 5 in reading literacy - 1.7% (no one showed level 6 literacy - 0%).

This is how it turns out: a “thin” layer of well-trained children entering prestigious universities, on the one hand. On the other hand, there is a “thick, thick” layer of children with a low level of education. For comparison, the corresponding figures in Finland are: 3.9%, 6.3% and 16.7%.

Not so long ago, the results of the international study of the level of teaching ten-year-old children PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) were summed up, in which Russia took first place. The entire teaching community rejoiced, reports of success went to the highest government level. But, alas, on the basis of these results we should not “throw our caps into the air,” but rather weep with burning tears, because over the next five years the Russian school system will waste all the achievements of primary school.

Abroad, increased attention has been paid to the modernization of education since the late 1970s. The problems of the school were widely discussed throughout society. And this discussion was not limited to a short-term “company”. Problems of education remain the subject of close public attention constantly. Almost all countries followed their own paths of “trial and error,” but gradually in most of them the main priorities of school education lined up as follows:

1) quality of teaching in subjects;

2) competencies and skills;

3) socialization of students - sociability, tolerance, communication skills with peers and adults, the ability to formulate, justify and defend their opinions, the ability to make decisions and achieve their implementation.

And the modernization of the school did not turn into a temporary process - they did something, got some results, and then they calmed down. The development of the school continues. Russian society has not yet thought about some aspects of this development. For example, in a number of European countries, after primary school [2], they abandon the lesson as a method of teaching subjects. And there are many reasons for such a refusal.

First: the teacher, when presenting material to the student during the lesson, imposes on him his opinion on the issue being studied, which is considered as a threat to personal freedom. Therefore, a range of textbooks is recommended for the subject, and the choice remains with the student: he can follow one textbook or use the material from several. Of course, this is primarily relevant for humanities subjects, and Newton's laws always remain Newton's laws. But there are different textbooks on physics and mathematics, with different layouts of material, with different sets of tasks, including the level of complexity. And by choosing this or that textbook, the student already gets used to making responsible decisions, and if necessary, then adjusting them, changing or expanding his choice.

Second: the student gets used to independent, regular work. When coming to class, he must be prepared for it. The principle “oh, I didn’t learn my lesson today, I didn’t solve the problem, maybe I’ll miss it” is not suitable in this case. It won't carry through. For it is not the teacher who will ask what is given, but the student who will talk with the teacher about what he understood from the topic he independently studied, how he understood it, and what he did not understand. And the teacher will help him, advise him, guide him, advise him on what else to read, what previous topics to repeat if he was unable to solve the problem. And if the student has not learned anything, then he will have nothing to say, and no questions will arise. Consequently, the conversation with the teacher will not take place at all.

With such a system, completely different requirements are placed on teachers. They should no longer be only and not so much teachers, but mentors (tutors) - leaders of the educational process. And these are very different things. Such a teacher-tutor requires an order of magnitude higher qualifications. After all, students will come with solved or unsolved problems from different textbooks, with learned material from different sources, with the most unexpected questions, including why in one textbook the same events (works of literature, art) are assessed this way, and in another several otherwise, and in the third - almost the opposite. And to all this, the teacher must be ready to answer everything - not according to the principle “I said it, so teach it,” but with reasoning, and even with the addition “in my opinion,” since another may have an equally reasoned different opinion. That is, the principle “whoever does not sing with us today is against us” [3] no longer applies. There may be many opinions, but there may not be “the only true one” (we are, of course, not talking about “2x2=4”). Are our teachers ready for such a teaching system? I'm afraid not. Not long ago they started talking about tutoring as a progressive method of teaching in relation only to higher education.

In Russia, by the quality of education, unfortunately, the majority of the population still understands only the first of the above areas - the quality of subject teaching [4] . And this is not provided by many schools, and not only rural, but also urban. Good schools abound. “Placing” a child in a good school costs money, either explicitly or implicitly: in the simplest case, the “tax” may be known; more sophisticated directors greet the “applicant” with the question “what can you do for the school?” (assumed answer: get equipment, furniture, money for repairs). These are not schools for the poor. It should be noted that the quality of education in good schools really becomes good. If previously the top 5% of Russian students were at the level of average students in countries occupying the top lines of PISA results, now they have reached the level of the best students in these countries. But the rest of the students began to occupy even lower positions.

If everything continues to develop in this way, then soon the situation will become similar to what it was in pre-revolutionary Russia - a small, highly educated intelligentsia and a mass of semi-literate or even illiterate people who are easy to manipulate. Which, in fact, is what the revolutionaries did, using the intolerance inherent in the semi-literate, or even completely illiterate, majority, the perception of everything “alien” as “alien.”

I do not want to say that the school will cause possible upheavals in society. But a society with deep cultural differentiation is always explosive. And I really wouldn’t want the school, traditionally perceived as a factor promoting the growth of the culture of the entire people, that is, stabilizing, to become a factor contributing to destabilization. Therefore, the task of forming a “modern model of education” is extremely relevant, and a lot depends on how it is solved, not only for education itself, for the school, but for the entire country.

International experience can be useful in this regard. At the turn of the 1960s and 70s, the world experienced a significant breakthrough in the theory and practice of management. The pioneer was Japan, which set ambitious goals of conquering world markets, primarily in electronics and the automotive industry. Japan already had authority in the production of computers, televisions, radios and other modern household appliances, but in the automotive industry it could not yet compete with leading American and European firms. And then in Japan they decided to follow the path of “future standards” - product quality standards had to reflect the highest requirements that consumers could make for products.

Standards were approved with delayed implementation dates: after a few years, products that did not meet the requirements of these standards did not have the right to exist. But this turned out to be not enough. Consumers could make demands based on their knowledge and ideas about the characteristics that the best examples of a particular product already had. Consumers could not “wish” for anything radically new. And it was decided to develop a new generation of standards, which reflected the most daring forecasts of professionals - experts, designers - about what qualities this or that product should have, taking into account the possibility of its production based on promising technologies. Forecasts became standards that were adopted using the political and administrative potential of the authorities, a deadline was set for their implementation, and society was convinced (through the media, advertising) that it needed exactly such products.

Thus began the era of quality management, the methods of which were adopted by almost all advanced countries. These methods are still used today, and there is much evidence of this. For example, the standards Euro-2, Euro-3, Euro-4: no sooner had one standard been introduced than a new generation standard was already adopted, due for introduction in a few years.

In the mid-1970s, the fashion for quality management reached the Soviet Union. Only according to Soviet custom it came down to another campaign: everyone was concerned with quality. A huge number of quality standards were developed - state, industry, enterprise standards, tons of paper were translated. The process was formalized beyond all reasonableness. As a result, no breakthrough was achieved either in quality or in management methods, but the word “quality” became almost a dirty word and certainly anecdotal. Gradually, the campaign began to wind down, the level of quality remained the same as it was, sometimes even decreased, since quality standards were considered not as standards of the future, but as standards that the bulk of goods should satisfy. It is known from management theory: if “minimum standards” are adopted, then all products “go down” to the level of their requirements. The result cannot be different. Why try, spend intellectual and financial resources, if “we are already satisfied.”

Management methods are quite universal, like any scientific methods, the whole question is how to use them correctly depending on the scope of application. In the process of modernizing school education, the terms “standards” and “standards of the future” were not always used directly, but these were the methods that were used. Almost everywhere there were broad public discussions about what kind of education is needed at the end of the 20th and in the 21st centuries, what and how to teach children, what goals such education should achieve. These discussions were attended by not only specialists in the field of education, but also representatives of government, business (they are the “consumers” of the results - school and university graduates come to work for them), parents of schoolchildren, cultural and scientific figures. And such requirements for education were “presented.”

For example, in 1991, the Australian Council of Education produced a statement outlining the profiles of eight key areas for learning in primary and secondary schools (mathematics, science, society and environment, arts, engineering and technology, health and physical education, foreign languages). In July 1997, the Parliament of the French Community of Belgium adopted a special decree entitled “Missions”, which contains a program for school reform. The program formulates the following general goals (principles of school education):

— promote self-affirmation and personality development of each student;

— to instill in all students the knowledge and skills necessary to continue education throughout life and to form an active personal position;

— to educate future citizens who have responsibility and are able to contribute to the development of a democratic, solidary, pluralistic and open to other cultures society;

- provide all students with equal chances for social development.

There are many examples of such a public “request”, in detail

they are dissimilar, but essentially strive for the same goal: having mastered the school course, the child must know, be able to apply his knowledge, including in practice, and be an active, independent and tolerant member of society. At the same time, his health, both physical and mental, must be preserved and, if possible, developed.

In Russia, there is still a widespread belief among the broadest sections of society, including a significant part of the teaching community, that Russian education, like Soviet education, is the best in the world. And this despite all the PISA results. One of the main arguments is that, when Russians get into schools in other countries, they quickly become excellent students there. Indeed, our schoolchildren receive fairly good knowledge, but that’s all. That is, the Russian school (the best Russian schools) fulfills only the first part of the educational requirements imposed in the world. The remaining parts, alas, are missing. Consequently, we have to admit that in other countries students are taught something different from what is taught in Russia, or rather, not only that.

Nobody talks about maintaining and developing health anymore: 80% of practically healthy children enter school, and 20% leave it. And this is not surprising. In accordance with labor legislation, the length of a teacher’s working week is set at 36 hours. The normal workload is 18 hours. High school students have at least six lessons per day, i.e. at least 30 in a five-day week and 36 in a six-day week. If a student is serious about studying, then the workload in the lesson is usually higher than that of the teacher: the teacher explains familiar material, sometimes the same for many years (there are many such teachers). And for the student, each lesson is new material, ideally requiring all of his attention. Then extracurricular activities - classes, clubs, social events. And then - homework. Even the minimum amount cannot be less than 10 hours a day. According to the same labor legislation, if a young person under 18 goes to work, his working day is two hours shorter than the established norm (usually eight hours) - i.e. 30 hours a week. The student's day is not standardized.

In most countries that have carried out a serious modernization of school education, school graduates receive the necessary amount of subject knowledge - maybe not as much as Russian schoolchildren, but sufficient for life, and the ability to use this knowledge in various practical situations. And, perhaps no less important, they are prepared in life: independent, tolerant, and, as a rule, active. Therefore, different paths are open to them - some go to work, some continue their studies, and some begin to engage in social activities. We have only one desired path after school - university. And the employer is targeting employees with higher education, even if their duties do not require it at all.

This approach is quite natural: after all, it is precisely the third component of education - the education of a tolerant and active personality - that is practically absent in Russian schools. A school is evaluated mainly by the indicator: the vast majority of its graduates enter universities (preferably prestigious ones) - a good school, if not - a bad one. I have nothing against universal secondary education, just not in the Russian sense. Students of primary vocational education institutions can also receive general secondary education. Just a different filling. And there's nothing wrong with that. All over the world, high school is a specialized school or even with initial training in professions. And everyone understands that if a child has an aptitude for the exact sciences, then he should have more lessons in mathematics, physics, and chemistry, and fewer in humanities (with the exception of foreign languages). But for students with humanitarian inclinations it’s the opposite.

Any teacher will say, if he is honest, that within a year a 15-16-year-old normally developed teenager can “pass” the school curriculum in most subjects - not just one, but all the necessary ones. This is what often happens when, towards graduation, a boy begins to understand that he needs to go to a university, or else the army. The only difficulty is literature, and not because it is impossible to learn the necessary material, but because it is necessary to read a huge number of books, sometimes absolutely not intended for teenagers of this age. Well, for the most part, with the exception of absolutely philologically minded guys, they will not be able to correctly understand and appreciate the complex lyrics of Brodsky, the multi-layered “The Master and Margarita” by Bulgakov, and the psychological works of Dostoevsky. And they don’t have to read Doctor Zhivago at the age of 15-16, even if they plan to enroll in the Faculty of Philology.

To properly prepare for a literature exam, a student must read, understand, and analyze many books. The work is hard and overwhelming. This is if you approach it in good faith. And if only to “pass”, then a huge number of all kinds of manuals have already been published, where all the literature is in one volume, with the most necessary quotations and generally accepted assessments. True, this will not add either knowledge or love to Russian literature, but it may well turn one away from it. The older generation probably loved Yesenin because he was “not included” in the school curriculum.

However, I would like to say a few more words about the content of the school curriculum in high school. Russia has a completely different approach to its formation compared to other countries. The number of “non-core” lessons does not decrease, but the number of core lessons increases. And the 7th, or even the 8th lesson appears in the schedule. As always, there are two ways out: either formally treat non-core subjects (those for which you do not need to take university exams), or lose your health.

Every conversation about reducing the volume of educational material in non-core subjects causes a storm of protest from both the pedagogical community and parents, for whom, apparently, the child’s health still comes in second place after receiving a huge amount of information, most of which he never uses in his life . How can this be, students will not learn such important topics as... The following is a long list. But people abroad don’t see anything wrong with it: well, they won’t study it. If they need it in later life, they will master it; if they don’t need it, they don’t need it, the main thing is that they know how to learn. Let the reader forgive me for the following long quotation, but I believe that it is extremely relevant for this topic. The journal “Forecast” (2005, No. 2/3, pp. 304-318) published a conversation with Boris Kapustin, a professor of philosophy at one of the American universities. Here is one of the topics of this conversation:

On average, American freshmen, even at the best universities, are in no way stronger than ours, even the current ones coming out of a degrading high school. I could probably say the same about sophomores. But already third-year students, I’m still talking about the best American universities, begin to reveal advantages over our third-year students - not so much in the volume of knowledge or depth of thinking, but in mastery of the methodology and methodology of academic work, as well as in openness of thinking and receptivity to different points vision. In the future, these advantages increase. <... > How can this be explained?

The answer, apparently, lies in that very academic freedom, which seems to bring complete disorganization into the educational process. In the apparent chaos, there is a certain organizing principle at work, and it is the self-organization of students. By the second or third year of study, they become able to select for themselves what they need in accordance with their individual plans, which extend not only to student life, but also to life after university. This allows them to navigate the vast sea of ​​courses, concepts, perspectives, approaches and ideas in which they find themselves. But such orientation itself presupposes the acquisition of certain general techniques of “academic swimming.” Believe it or not, sophomores no longer need to be explained how to structure an essay, what “statement of the central thesis”, “sufficient argumentation”, “final conclusion” mean. Even more surprising: they are able to fit into fixed volumes allocated for certain types of work. They know how to plan their time sufficiently to accurately meet all deadlines. Please note: the teacher’s assignment for the next essay will necessarily indicate something like “3.5 thousand characters, due October 22 before 16:00.” <...> There are always people who are late, but for the majority, this style of work is the norm that they “naturally” follow.

You cannot acquire such skills in a year or two: the basis for them must be laid earlier. Any teacher will agree with this, if he is not lying. But the direct connection of these skills with the educational priorities described above is visible without any magnifying glass. The above observation of Professor B. Kapustin to a certain extent characterizes the result of setting forward-looking priorities and translating them into school practice.

It may be objected that Russia also adopts strategic documents on education issues, and will cite as examples the “Concept for the modernization of Russian education for the period until 2010”, approved in 2001, or the more modern document “On priority directions for the development of the educational system of the Russian Federation”. Federation". But if we look at these documents more carefully, we will see that they are replete with instructions to “develop”, “accept”, etc., which in most cases remain unfulfilled. These guidelines apply, in particular, to educational standards. That all this remains “undeveloped” and “not accepted” is not surprising. Neither in Russian society nor in the teaching community have modern requirements for school education taken root. Administrative and power resources were not used to adopt “development standards” with a delayed introduction date. And as a result, Russian education still lives according to the norms of the mid-20th century. The global educational locomotive has not only moved far ahead, but is also moving in a different direction. If you do not take urgent measures to reorient it in the right direction, and do not give this movement high speed, then it may turn out that Russian school education will lag behind global development “forever.” Therefore, the formation of a truly modern model of education is not just timely, but the “first and most urgent” task: if it is not solved now, it will be too late.

---

[1] Ross K.N., Levacic R. Needs-based resource allocation in education via formula funding of schools. Paris: UNESCO, 1999.

[2] Primary school in most countries is six years old.

[3] One literature teacher told how he was pleased with an incident in class. Paraphrasing V.V. Mayakovsky, he uttered the beginning of the phrase “And the one who does not walk with us today...”, and one of the students continued: “He walks without us.”

[4] E. F. Saburov, scientific director of the Federal Institute for Educational Development (FIRO), noted in one of his interviews that in most countries children are prepared for life, and in Russia - for university.

Russian school among others Informatization of school: directions of change